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.
I understand Urbs point - from funding perspective it could impact it - though I believe it goes on population so regardless in the relative sense Philly with lose proportionally on funding - though if the aggregate rate stays constant it could stay whole o to speak (per capita) - city populations are fun but not always comparable - SA, Jax, SJ, Austin all being in the top ten make no sense really when looking at cities
Maybe annex Delaware county
With annexed
2.2 Million in a little over 300 sq miles
the same population as Houston in half the sq miles
Yes, the only important aspect of "city" population that would be important to Philly would be the funding it receives from the federal government but other than that city population is inconclusive since it's just one puzzle piece part of a bigger picture (ie MSA-CSA).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Why do people even care about city population anymore? With ridiculously bloated city limits, of course Phoenix will eventually pass Philly's population. The same could even be said about American MSAs...10,000+ sq. miles. Poor measurements for this type of discussion IMO.
Here are what population numbers look like at 1, 5, 10, 20 and 30 mile radius measurements:
And like I said, MSAs are just as bad. The Phoenix MSA is over 14,000 square miles, but still smaller population-wise than Philly by a large margin. At the end of the day, these measurements do not show how large a city really is. That can be easily seen by physically visiting both.
EDIT:
I ran a measurement for Phoenix at 6.5 mile radius, which gives about 131 square miles; very close to Philly's 134. The population came in at 529,189...a medium sized city for the most part. That doesn't mean it's not a large metro area, but as far as a central city, Phoenix is smaller than Portland OR (and feels it).
Also if you were to increase Philly's city land area size to 516 square miles equivalent to Phoenix's it would not only have a city population of around 5.8 million but would once again become the nation's 2nd largest city passing up LA. Now it may not come out to exactly 5.8 million since every square mile of population density through out the metro area doesn't stay consistent and could vary (some areas less populated than others).
Either way Phoenix is going to have a larger land area. Even though urban area is a good metric, the metric I provided shows the population disparity that exists between the Philly area and Phoenix area. The Philly area has a more than 3 million people in a land area less than half the size of the Phoenix MSA. Phoenix will probably never surpass that population.
The Phoenix is more densely populated than the Philadelphia urban area. MSA density is a meaningless number.
I agree with you that CSAs and MSAs are not an ideal way to measure cities but I don't think population in a radius is a good measure either. For some cities, it would be fine. For others, with geographic barriers, it is not such a good way to measure. NYC, Miami, Salt Lake City, among many others cannot grow in every direction in the way a city like Indianapolis could.
As far as the bloated city limits part, why must everything be measured by by standards of the northeast? Flipping it around, one could criticize the poor planning of Philadelphia in not taking in more land when it could. If it had it to do over, do you think Philadelphia would like more land today?
I use Philadelphia only as an example since it is the topic of this thread.
It is based off of the difference in annexation laws, not based off of "the Northeast". Growth periods have a lot to do with this as well.
The question that no one seams to be asking is this, why did the sunbelt city planners make the boundaries of thier cities so large? I am a Philadelphian born and raised. When you are in the city, you know that you are in a city. Also, when you pass the city line and leave the city, in mAny areas, the row houses and high density buildings still continue. I have visited Pheonix, Dallas, Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville and Tampa. All of these places are nice however when I visited them (other than when I went downtown where the high rises are) I was left wondering where the city is. I wonderred where are all of the houses for all of the people that the popation numbers boast. When you are in Philadelphia, there is no question about where the houses are and where all of the people live.
So, the question is why did the sun belt city planners make their city boandaries so large especially since the cities were so sparsely populated when the boundaries were set.
Maybe they had an ulterior motive all along....knowing that they would eventually fill in albeit in a sparse fashion in order to get federal funding..... Oh and aren't those sunbelt cities red anyway that pine against the evils off all of that federal money anyway?
San Antonio is fixin' to pass both Phoenix and Philadephia and become the nations fifth largest city before the next census is taken in the year 2020. San Antonio's population is expected be 1.7 million by then.
City proper populations are completely irrelevent. Philly is a much bigger city than Phoenix.
Phoenix doesn't even feel as big as a Cincy, St. Louis, or Pittsburgh. If you visited the city, and had no idea of the population, you would never consider that Phoenix is such a big city.
This is how I feel about the issue, seriously Columbus, OH has a bigger city proper population than Boston and San Fran, come on this is useless like he said. Nothing ever thinks Columbus, OH is a bigger city than Boston and SF because of its city proper population.
The Phoenix is more densely populated than the Philadelphia urban area. MSA density is a meaningless number.
Urban area isn't a good measurement for Philly given that it cuts the Trenton area out even though its urban density clearly continues pass the county line. Either way Philly is a much more populated area than the Phoenix area so there's really no argument there.
Personally, I cannot stand threads like this (and the ones that came before it) because they tend bring out nastiness on both sides and I do not understand the need to bash other cities and throw out faulty assumptions about the other over, and over, and over again in countless threads. I cannot speak for Philadephians; however, I never hear other Phoenicians (outside of a few here on CD) boast about Phoenix surpassing Philadelphia in city population and I seriously doubt it's even on their minds. I also wish that the posters who do not live in the Phoenix area would stop acting as though they know more about the area, it's people, it's density, water issues, politics, nightlife, culture, etc. than the residents who actually live here. We know some of you hate the Phoenix area and would never want to live here, but do you really need to express this everytime Phoenix is brought up in a thread? Why can't people just agree that these metros are different from each other? Furthermore, what is the harm in that? Not every city needs to be a template for the next.
Personally, I cannot stand threads like this (and the ones that came before it) because they tend bring out nastiness on both sides and I do not understand the need to bash other cities and throw out faulty assumptions about the other over, and over, and over again in countless threads. I cannot speak for Philadephians; however, I never hear other Phoenicians (outside of a few here on CD) boast about Phoenix surpassing Philadelphia in city population and I seriously doubt it's even on their minds. I also wish that the posters who do not live in the Phoenix area would stop acting as though they know more about the area, it's people, it's density, water issues, politics, nightlife, culture, etc. than the residents who actually live here. We know some of you hate the Phoenix area and would never want to live here, but do you really need to express this everytime Phoenix is brought up in a thread? Why can't people just agree that these metros are different from each other? Furthermore, what is the harm in that? Not every city needs to be a template for the next.
At first, your post was annoying, but then it started to become increasingly intelligent and full of truth.
San Antonio is fixin' to pass both Phoenix and Philadephia and become the nations fifth largest city before the next census is taken in the year 2020. San Antonio's population is expected be 1.7 million by then.
Ugggh...San Antonio won't be passing up Phoenix anytime soon due to the plunge in oil prices which will have a devastating and horrific effect on the Texas economy; never mind the fact that Phoenix currently has a comfy 100,000 population cushion over San Antonio.
San Antonio may have a population of 1.4 million people but it's MSA only has 2.3 million people, that's pretty pathetic. Philadelphia's MSA has 6 million people and Phoenix has 4.4 million people. Trying to compare San Antonio to Philadelphia or Phoenix is absolutely preposterous.
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.
