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.
If you look at the largest cities in the US, you'll notice that many have quite a large land area (LA, Dallas, etc), while there are also many other, smaller, but densely populated cities (Boston/San Francisco/DC). I've seen people compare the "core" parts of cities. I've seen many threads comparing, say, the denser parts of LA to the denser parts of Chicago, but I'm curious what would happen if we grew the smaller (in land area) cities to the size of cities with more land area.
Let's say you can grow your city out as long as all of the cities you are connecting either share a land border OR are strongly tied due to well used bridges, mass transit lines or both. Examples of this would be SF/Oakland, DC/Arlington, or Boston/Cambridge.
As an example, if you take SF, Oakland, and Daily City, you get a city with about 1,344 million people in about 134 square miles. Compare to Philadelphia, which has 1,553 million people in about 134 square miles.
Any other interesting comparisons people can come up with?
That leaves in the MSA about 4 million living outside the immediate beltway, so places like Tysons Corner, Rockville, Laurel, parts of Alexandria etc. would count outside.
If you look at the largest cities in the US, you'll notice that many have quite a large land area (LA, Dallas, etc), while there are also many other, smaller, but densely populated cities (Boston/San Francisco/DC). I've seen people compare the "core" parts of cities. I've seen many threads comparing, say, the denser parts of LA to the denser parts of Chicago, but I'm curious what would happen if we grew the smaller (in land area) cities to the size of cities with more land area.
Let's say you can grow your city out as long as all of the cities you are connecting either share a land border OR are strongly tied due to well used bridges, mass transit lines or both. Examples of this would be SF/Oakland, DC/Arlington, or Boston/Cambridge.
As an example, if you take SF, Oakland, and Daily City, you get a city with about 1,344 million people in about 134 square miles. Compare to Philadelphia, which has 1,553 million people in about 134 square miles.
Any other interesting comparisons people can come up with?
I've written this exact post multiple times on this forum. The biggest cities in the US are those that have expanded their land boundaries far, far further than dense cities like San Francisco. Metro regions, likewise, have drastically varying sizes of land borders.
I think an alternative way to compare cities for their true and proper populations would be to count the population of a city within a boundary of 100 square miles of land, followed by a second count of the total population of a city within a boundary of 200 square miles of land.
I assure you, counting population totals this way would completly alter our "Most populated US cities" list.
I've written this exact post multiple times on this forum. The biggest cities in the US are those that have expanded their land boundaries far, far further than dense cities like San Francisco. Metro regions, likewise, have drastically varying sizes of land borders.
I think an alternative way to compare cities for their true and proper populations would be to count the population of a city within a boundary of 100 square miles of land, followed by a second count of the total population of a city within a boundary of 200 square miles of land.
I assure you, counting population totals this way would completly alter our "Most populated US cities" list.
I have always said city populations should be based on urban areas, which differ from both Metro populations which are based on county by county commuting patterns, and City boundaries where some states(generally southern or western) have very liberal annexation laws allowing cities to expand borders giving them an illusion of appearing more populated than they are. Urban areas give the most accurate view of a city/market size by far IMO.
I have always said city populations should be based on urban areas, which differ from both Metro populations which are based on county by county commuting patterns, and City boundaries where some states(generally southern or western) have very liberal annexation laws allowing cities to expand borders giving them an illusion of appearing more populated than they are. Urban areas give the most accurate view of a city/market size by far IMO.
Yes, wrangling in those city boundaries would reveal just how sparsely populated and empty some of these alleged "big" cities truly are.
I agree with the last 3 posts, as it is something I've emphasized on this forum as well. It can effect things like crime rates and the feel of cities in terms of urbanity, among other factors.
If you look at the largest cities in the US, you'll notice that many have quite a large land area (LA, Dallas, etc), while there are also many other, smaller, but densely populated cities (Boston/San Francisco/DC). I've seen people compare the "core" parts of cities. I've seen many threads comparing, say, the denser parts of LA to the denser parts of Chicago, but I'm curious what would happen if we grew the smaller (in land area) cities to the size of cities with more land area.
Let's say you can grow your city out as long as all of the cities you are connecting either share a land border OR are strongly tied due to well used bridges, mass transit lines or both. Examples of this would be SF/Oakland, DC/Arlington, or Boston/Cambridge.
As an example, if you take SF, Oakland, and Daily City, you get a city with about 1,344 million people in about 134 square miles. Compare to Philadelphia, which has 1,553 million people in about 134 square miles.
Any other interesting comparisons people can come up with?
San Francisco, Oakland and Daly City are less than 134 sq miles.
Oakland 55 sq miles
San Francisco 46 sq miles
Daly City 7 sq miles Total 108 sq miles
We need to add
Berkeley 10 sq miles
Alameda 10 sq miles
San Bruno 5 sq miles
Emeryville 1 sq mile
Piedmont 1 sq mile
The total then rises to 135 sq miles and the population is about 1.6 million
San Francisco, Oakland and Daly City are less than 134 sq miles.
Oakland 55 sq miles
San Francisco 46 sq miles
Daly City 7 sq miles Total 108 sq miles
We need to add
Berkeley 10 sq miles
Alameda 10 sq miles
San Bruno 5 sq miles
Emeryville 1 sq mile
Piedmont 1 sq mile
The total then rises to 135 sq miles and the population is about 1.6 million
Furthermore, these^ combined, contiguous cities as a single unit, is overall, really nice. Philly doesnt really compare economically or as far as overall amenities, but its still a great city for other reasons.
There was a similar thread but in reverse: shrinking your city (unless it's a rather small city) till you reach the densest contigous area the same size of San Francisco.
NYC came in at 2.7 million or so. Then very close to each other, Chicago then Philadelphia and then Los Angeles.
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.
