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.
Except Charlotte, Columbus and Jacksonville all have much larger city limits than Miami and DC. You're not looking at the full picture. Philly and Atlanta have the same city limit square miles yet Philly has nearly 1.2 million people more in the city limits. Philly is so much denser and built out. It's what you would expect a city to look and feel like where most of ATL is sprawling suburbs connecting a few urban nodes. Very little in the way of urbanity or walk-ability. So yes, the city of Philadelphia I would argue is multiple tiers above the city of Atlanta in most aspects.
Metro ATL and Metro Philly are similarly sized but Philly is still larger in population and a larger GDP. Daytime population Philly is still MUCH higher. ATL has a city population of 400k which means it's daytime population is in no way no higher than 700k. Philly has a city population of nearly 1.6mill with a day time population reaching 2mill.
They are similarly sized but Philly is still just a few notches higher.
I get what you are saying. I just think you are being a bit unfair to Atlanta because of the way it was built and the suburban dynamic. We don't order cities by density, right? I'm not trying to have a gotcha moment. I really want to understand the rationale behind your assertions.
Also, I remember reading WaronXMas relaying that something over 1 million people come into the city combining the huge convention crowds, bh/mt/dt workers, urban universities, etc. further, the CBDs in the suburbs are pratically Atlanta (maybe not in your eyes) they have more office space than mt/dt.
Atlanta is just city where what is considered city may easily be a suburb. I'll grant your point that city is tiers ahead of Atlanta if tiers are solely predicated on density. But if by city you mean the metropolis in which the city is couched, then you'll have to concede they are in the same tier. Most of the studies in cities usually analyze metro figures, and it is clear that metro pops are what contribute to the size of Atlanta itself. Atlanta is generally considered just as (now even more) important than philly despite philly having a much higher residential city population. This to me communicates functional intimacy between metro/city, for Atlanta, at least.
I still have a lot to learn about this stuff, but the metro vs city thing has always been annoying to me. I think you measure a city by scope of its metro region (especially if the existence of the metro is highly contingent on the brand of the city). If not metro, at least urbanized area, right?
I calculated these numbers a few weeks back. These are for counties/city limits only. It would take a bit more time to do it for metros.
Interesting numbers -- and yes, Philly is definitely on the lower end of transience overall compared to other major cities. However (and I'm assuming these are annual numbers), at 4.5% outmigration, I don't find that to actually be an insignificant number, nor is it really dramatically different from many of the other cities (I don't think you'd notice a massive difference between 4% - 7%). Certainly anything like that adds up over time.
Except Charlotte, Columbus and Jacksonville all have much larger city limits than Miami and DC. You're not looking at the full picture. Philly and Atlanta have the same city limit square miles yet Philly has nearly 1.2 million people more in the city limits. Philly is so much denser and built out. It's what you would expect a city to look and feel like where most of ATL is sprawling suburbs connecting a few urban nodes. Very little in the way of urbanity or walk-ability. So yes, the city of Philadelphia I would argue is multiple tiers above the city of Atlanta in most aspects.
Metro ATL and Metro Philly are similarly sized but Philly is still larger in population and a larger GDP. Daytime population Philly is still MUCH higher. ATL has a city population of 400k which means it's daytime population is in no way no higher than 700k. Philly has a city population of nearly 1.6mill with a day time population reaching 2mill.
They are similarly sized but Philly is still just a few notches higher.
I love Philly.I honestly do,but how is Philly a few notches above but several publications ranking,puts Atlanta higher?
This says the daytime population of Atlanta is 670,000. You proved my point when I said the daytime population was not over 700,000. Even with tourists included Atlanta MAY have 800,000 day time population. Still nowhere close to Philadelphia's population.
How is Philly not a few notches higher? I'm not saying MSA as a whole, just city level. Even as an MSA Philly has a higher population, is overall wealthier, and has a higher GDP therefore produces more for this country. So explain to me how in any rational way, is Atlanta on the same or higher tier than Philly? Those rankings are garbage and always discredit the sheer size and power of Philly. ALWAYS.
Both Philly and Atlanta are very ghetto, crime-ridden cities, but at least Atlanta has newer, *nicer* suburbs (on the north side).
The Atlanta and Philly metros also have a lower poverty rate than the L.A., Stockton and San Benardino metros. Stockton is also one of the most crime ridden areas in the country.
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.
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.
