Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2013, 07:28 AM
 
2,869 posts, read 5,136,033 times
Reputation: 3668

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post
Meanwhile, they're using Canadian and Mexican definitions of urban areas, which are calculated based on different rules than the US census uses (although frankly those rules are silly). If Toronto were calculated like an American metro is, it'd both be well over 6 million, and have a lower density then described. As is, it appears to exclude Oshawa and Hamilton.
I think you're confusing metro area definitions and urban area definitions -- Statcan's Toronto CMA excludes Oshawa and Hamilton but Demographia's list of UAs doesn't.

Statcan and the US Census Bureau have an equivalent definition for urban areas (400/km2 ~ 1000/mi2) so cities in Canada and the US (along with the UK, France and NZ) are directly comparable with that metric. The difference is that when they're done figuring out the core, the US Census Bureau includes the rest of the UA counties in the MSA definition, while Statcan only includes the rest of the municipalities to form the CMA. So all else equal, MSAs will be larger in land area (especially in the West where counties are larger) and slightly larger in population (but not all that much). Demographia's list only includes UAs so those differences have no impact.

By the way, your "if Toronto were calculated like an American metro is" part is not really true -- many MSAs suffer from the same delineation problem as Toronto, and that's why the concept of CSA (which combines MSAs) was created, for example the Bay Area. Statcan just didn't create that in Canada (though it might come at some point).

Last edited by barneyg; 03-31-2013 at 07:37 AM.. Reason: precision
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2013, 08:07 AM
 
2,869 posts, read 5,136,033 times
Reputation: 3668
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
Also, for SF, they probably excluded SJ and/or parts of East Bay
SJ is included, but Antioch, Napa, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz aren't, that's why the UA population is lower than the CSA population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Medfid
6,807 posts, read 6,038,878 times
Reputation: 5252
So it looks like Phoenix is denser than Boston...sure, why not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 09:19 AM
 
640 posts, read 1,225,843 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
DC at 3600 ppsm is still 5th in density of the "American" cities after NY, LA, SF, MIA, it's ahead of Chicago and twice that of Atlanta's lol.
Actually, New Orleans is at 3700 ppsm maing it the 5th in desnity in "American cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 09:22 AM
 
14,020 posts, read 15,011,523 times
Reputation: 10466
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
So it looks like Phoenix is denser than Boston...sure, why not.
Its because of the way the population is distributted. Phoeniz slowly and evenly gets less and less dense. While In the Boston area its more of a patchwork with dense-Rural- Dense- Rural. For example North Reading is between Reading and Lawrence Reading (15 miles from Boston) has a density of -~5000ppsm) North Reading drops to about 1000, then Lawrence (25 miles out) density is at over 10,000.
Of course the average density of which the residents of these towns live (wieghted density) is close to 6,500 but the geographic average is probably around 3,500 while Phoenix,s average and wieghted density is closer to the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 09:48 AM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
This is why UA is not always the most accurate way of determining a population either. Lets be honest, these numbers are not reflecting the "city propers" of all these urban areas. They are only showing some connecting of suburban areas outside of these cities and how far they stretch without some drop off in density. LA is not more dense than NY, Phoenix is not more dense than Boston etc. Due to the layout of urbanity or the suburbs in the West and the South, it forms an area where the continuous sprawl stretches out further than they do in the East. Florida, Texas, and California have those kinds of continuous sprawled out suburbs which by Demogrphia's accounts must be considered "urbanity." Where as in the East suburbs of Boston, NY, Philadelphia, and Washington are not layed out in that kind of uniformed sprawled type of fashion. It's more like pockets of development all running on top of or backing into each other. In some areas they do extend in sprawl yes but in a different manner than Phoenix, LA, or Dallas.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
So it looks like Phoenix is denser than Boston...sure, why not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 10:41 AM
 
573 posts, read 1,050,067 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
DC at 3600 ppsm is still 5th in density of the "American" cities after NY, LA, SF, MIA, it's ahead of Chicago and twice that of Atlanta's lol.
Cook county has more people then dc's entire urban area in less then 1000 square miles so no dc's is not as dense as Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: City of Angels
2,918 posts, read 5,607,320 times
Reputation: 2267
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
LA is 15M? They obviously didn't leave anything out in SoCal. Probably included inland empire, all of Orange County, and maybe even San Diego
they left out quite a bit, actually. all of ventura county. LA county from santa clarita northward (around 600,000 ppl). in the inland empire they left out the the high desert, the coachella valley, temecula/murietta/menifee, etc, hemet, and prolly a few other areas. only included the contiguous urban area in the inland empire. didn't include any of san diego (obviously) i'd think anyone who knows anything about socal would know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 12:05 PM
 
895 posts, read 2,095,841 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi View Post
not a fan of demographia but i consider urban area the most useful way to determine a cities size. find it amusing that NY barely beats out the DF population wise yet is allowed to have over 5 times the land area. kind of unfair, but w/e
I would think that three times the population wouldn't be considered "barely" larger. NY's land area is only slightly more than double DF- 5 times would be 10,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 12:12 PM
 
573 posts, read 1,050,067 times
Reputation: 481
It's interesting to see how dense the us metro's are not. New York City is completely dominated by cities around the world in that category. I didn't realize that so many cities around the world were that much more dense. Did New York lead the way? Many large cities around the world appear to have become huge within the second half of the 20th. I always thought that east coast cities were dense because they were booming at a time when automobiles were still uncommon, yet so many cities around the world in the last 50 years or so have extreme density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top