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 04-03-2013, 04:31 PM
 
1,669 posts, read 4,240,867 times
Reputation: 978

Advertisements

Good stuff. I firmly believe that urban area is the most accurate way to judge the true size of a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2013, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
571 posts, read 1,281,832 times
Reputation: 295
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

Also, for SF, they probably excluded SJ and/or parts of East Bay

And Houston is significantly smaller than Dallas?
I think the two are closer in size than these numbers show. Also when most people say "Dallas" they really mean the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex which consists of a much larger number of cities than the Greater Houston Area. Dallas/Ft. Worth is technically one metro area which is why (as far as metro areas go) it's larger than Houston - because the DFW Metro area technically has TWO major cities in it. It can be thought of similarly to San Francisco and San Jose collectively being referred to as The Bay Area although there is much less debate about whether Dallas/Ft.Worth comprise one metro (or should).

Houston on the other hand is it's own stand alone city with a lower number of smaller cities in its metropolitan area (such as Sugar Land, Katy, Baytown, Pasadena and Spring). That is why Dallas/Ft. Worth is the largest metropolitan area in Texas but Houston is the largest city.

Actually, as far as MSA's go, Dallas and Houston are very close w/ the DFW Metroplex edging Houston out by some 300,000 people (according to recent models and data)

Dallas

Greater Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think that at this point, the two are doing so well economically that as far as growth and size are concerned, they are almost literally neck-and-neck. They also offer two completely different vibes. DFW (as a metro area split b/t two large cities) has a very dichotic air about it. Dallas is very glitzy and Fort Worth is very typical Texas (cowboys, etc.). The whole metroplex has developed like other dual metros (The Bay area, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Miami/Ft.Lauderdale to a lesser extent). Houston on the other hand is more like large, established cities (which isn't to say that DFW isn't established) such as Chicago or Philadelphia (or even NY on a much smaller scale) in that it's all consider part of the same city (and that city is the anchor for the metro area) but there are just different "parts of town" with their own vibes/identities (i.e Montrose, West University, The Heights, Uptown, The Med Center, Bellaire, etc.). I'm sure Dallas has parts of towns w/ their own identities, etc. but I also believe (and correct me Dallasites if I'm wrong) but there are areas of Dallas that have their own culture that don't have counter parts in Ft. Worth (I believe Deep Ellum would be an example) and the same goes for Ft. Worth (ex. The Stockyards), thus as a metro area, Dallas/Ft.Worth is larger and has complimentary/contrasting cultural/societal niches whereas Houston is the metro's main anchor (and only anchor really) and all the same cultural/societal niches are contained within the same city w/in that metro. Wow...I'm not sure if any of this made sense...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2013, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
571 posts, read 1,281,832 times
Reputation: 295
Really when you think about it - considering that the DFW metro area has much more towns/cities/places w/ 100k+ inhabitants, it's kind of impressive that Houston has been able to keep up with them. That said, Houston annexes A LOT so I guess that's how it does it :-P
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 10:45 AM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Vincent View Post
Atlanta's density is pathetic. Only 1800 ppsm.
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.
I suppose you both do not understand how physical restrictions and area play in to density (or how it's calculated).

Development in Atlanta is not hemmed in by a physical barrier like water or a mountain range, but it isn't all even distributed either. Development is most intense within in the core (inside Interstate 285) and then straddles four highways (400, 75, 85 and 20) outward in all directions like the legs of a spider. In between these highways in the suburbs, the development drops off and in the case of the side south I-285 is almost nonexistent. All of this lightly developed or undeveloped areas is included in the urban area due to proximity. If one were to cut those areas out, the true area of Atlanta's urban area would probably be half what is shown in the table.

Before you ignore this as an "excuse", Boston shares the similar development pattern with Atlanta with a denser core. At the same time, several metros are "denser" mainly because of physical restrictions. Los Angeles is significantly more dense than NYC, while Phoenix is as about as dense as Chicago. To understand why this is given the obvious reality that both NYC and Chicago are both "more urban" than Los Angeles and Phoenix respectively, you have detach population density from build density. They are two different things.

But, as usual, this data will just be used by the density freaks to "hee-haw" over. Not that it matters though. As someone stated, the urban area population in every US city is driven by it's suburban population. Even NYC. This isn't a bad thing per se, but if you want to jump up and down about density then you need to do it with places like Mexico City or Tokyo or Manila or the several dozen other cities around the world that are far denser than anything America has to offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,384 posts, read 25,739,757 times
Reputation: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by vertigo5110 View Post
Really when you think about it - considering that the DFW metro area has much more towns/cities/places w/ 100k+ inhabitants, it's kind of impressive that Houston has been able to keep up with them. That said, Houston annexes A LOT so I guess that's how it does it :-P
The Houston and DFW area area almost identical in land area size. Its just a matter of where the city lines are drawn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 12:54 PM
 
46 posts, read 79,260 times
Reputation: 69
Demographia's calculations are very biased. How could they add the Concord urban area to San Francisco and the Trenton urban area to New York City. I see no logical reason why they were added. On their website they state that they combineurban area's for every city except Washington and Philadelphia. My question is are we to believe that the Trenton urban area is more connected to New York than Philadelphia? From arial views and population density calculations Trenton is clearly part of Philadelphia. You would think with Demographia's liberal calculations the combination of Washington and Baltimore would be automatic. The US census and UN urban area calculations may have it's flaws but they have uniform standards and formula's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 01:06 PM
 
465 posts, read 872,360 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanti View Post
Demographia's calculations are very biased. How could they add the Concord urban area to San Francisco and the Trenton urban area to New York City. I see no logical reason why they were added.
Because they meet the Census urban area definition.

I mean, if you don't like the Census rules, fine, but sounds pretty logical to me. They applied the rules equally, to all metro areas in the U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,998 posts, read 12,931,071 times
Reputation: 8365
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA Born View Post
Because they meet the Census urban area definition.

I mean, if you don't like the Census rules, fine, but sounds pretty logical to me. They applied the rules equally, to all metro areas in the U.S.

The Census defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)."

Using that definition Trenton would be included with Philadelphia's urban area. It may meet the criteria for NYC too, because 1000 ppsm does not seem like a lot, but there is an obvious break in urbanity between NYC and Trenton. It is clearly continuous between Trenton and Philadelphia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 02:10 PM
 
46 posts, read 79,260 times
Reputation: 69
But they don't meet census urban area definitions. If they were census urban area definitions San Francisco, Concord and San Jose would be seperated as well as Bridgeport, New Haven and Trenton from New York City. As a matter of fact all the urban area's would be dramatically smaller except Washington and Philadelphia. You have to remember that msa's and csa's are based on commuter patterns while urban area's are based on continuous urban density. Thats the reason why the Concord urban area will never be connected to the east bay because of a large mountain range. For some odd reason Demographia goes beyond the urban area definition and adds these type of non connected urban area's. To Demographia's credit they admit that they combine seperate urban area's for Boston, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Toronto, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York. They also point out that they keep seperate Washington and Baltimore. My only problem is they don't give the mathematical reasons as to why. Basically its an amateur website which feeds off of the US census an United Nations calculations and add their twist with no scientific method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:54 AM
 
2,088 posts, read 1,971,651 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
Fair enough, but I love my suburban living. My suburb has about 3800 people per sqaure mile. Perhaps the sub-1000 I wouldnt enjoy either.
Our foreign friend posted in metric (sq km, not sq mi). Plano is a little less than 1500/sq km, so over 1000, but not by a lot.
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