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.
Location: Metro Atlanta (Sandy Springs), by way of Macon, GA
2,014 posts, read 5,101,169 times
Reputation: 2089
Advertisements
Try not to think about this as just a C-D member, but just the average person.
I dont think the average person knows these areas are home to more than a million people.
Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC Combined Statistical Area - 1,619,313
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC Combined Statistical Area - 1,395,624
Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Muskegon, MI Combined Statistical Area - 1,407,323
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA Combined Statistical Area - 1,233,708
Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC Combined Statistical Area - 1,619,313
Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK Combined Statistical Area 1,131,458
I believe they'd think these places have bigger populations
New Orleans-Metairie-Hammond, LA-MS Combined Statistical Area - 1,467,880
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL Combined Statistical Area - 2,905,893
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN Combined Statistical Area - 2,196,629
I think for some of these it's a problem of having multiple primary cities, none of which are very large or well-known...bt together they make large MSA or CSA.
Oklahoma City is larger than most people think. The metropolitan area has 1.4 million people now, comparable with cities like Memphis, New Orleans, Richmond, Jacksonville, and Louisville. I think no matter the size of a city, the more active and vibrant its downtown, the larger its going to feel. Cities that feel smaller than they are usually feel that way because they are multipolar or lack a vibrant urban core.
Last edited by bawac34618; 07-25-2015 at 01:27 PM..
I think for some of these it's a problem of having multiple primary cities, none of which are very large or well-known...bt together they make large MSA or CSA.
That's what I thought, as the first set has CSA's that combine 2 or 3 metro areas.
Probably a better metric for this discussion would be MSA. CSA is often not a good metric for one singular core city. Often they contain rural fringe counties that have commuter ties but having nothing "city" about them. I think they work best for places like the Bay area that are statistically split as MSA's but have no distinguishable break in development.
Probably a better metric for this discussion would be MSA. CSA is often not a good metric for one singular core city. Often they contain rural fringe counties that have commuter ties but having nothing "city" about them. I think they work best for places like the Bay area that are statistically split as MSA's but have no distinguishable break in development.
Completely agree. Raleigh-Durham and the Bay Area are two CSAs I can think of that make sense, but many times they aren't good metrics.
If someone was ask somebody to answer true or false if New Orleans and Grand Rapids Michigan combined statistical areas are roughly the same sizes I bet the majority of people would answer false. I always assumed Grand Rapids was a small town of maybe 50,000 population and was surprised to find out the actual size was what it was. As someone said earlier cities with vibrant urban cores will seem larger. It is also not a coincidence that the 3 cities that seemed larger were at one point in their history were ranked in the top 10 populated cities in the US and were important centers of trade and commerce because of their location on rivers in the interior inland of the USA providing key logistical locations for commerce. These cities have or had extremely densely populated cores. In a 6 mile square area located a the basin of Cincinnati had about 180,000 people residing therein the early part of the 20th century shrinking to about 130,000 people by mid 20th century. It was the second most densely populated urban area in the US after NYC in the early 20th century.
If someone was ask somebody to answer true or false if New Orleans and Grand Rapids Michigan combined statistical areas are roughly the same sizes I bet the majority of people would answer false. I always assumed Grand Rapids was a small town of maybe 50,000 population and was surprised to find out the actual size was what it was. As someone said earlier cities with vibrant urban cores will seem larger. It is also not a coincidence that the 3 cities that seemed larger were at one point in their history were ranked in the top 10 populated cities in the US and were important centers of trade and commerce because of their location on rivers in the interior inland of the USA providing key logistical locations for commerce. These cities have or had extremely densely populated cores. In a 6 mile square area located a the basin of Cincinnati had about 180,000 people residing therein the early part of the 20th century shrinking to about 130,000 people by mid 20th century. It was the second most densely populated urban area in the US after NYC in the early 20th century.
Grand Rapids is a city of just under 200k with a vibrant and expanding core that is representative of it's size. New Orleans is an old guard pre industrial city with a core that feels twice it's size. If someone were to compare the cities side by side there would be no question which is larger. I think it's another good example of where CSA is not the best metric. The New Orleans CSA is one central city and metro area, with one micro area tied in to complete the CSA. Grand Rapids CSA is really 3 different urban areas that are barely separated, and 2 additional micro areas that are really commuter counties.
Grand Rapids may be one of the best examples of when census bureau accounting methods fail. One of the core cities (Holland) is actually split in half. I don't know if there is another city in the country that is separated into two separate MSA's without leaving the city limits. One side is in the GR-Wyoming Metro area, while the rest is in the "Holland Micropolitan Area".
Try not to think about this as just a C-D member, but just the average person.
I dont think the average person knows these areas are home to more than a million people.
Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC Combined Statistical Area - 1,619,313
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC Combined Statistical Area - 1,395,624
Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Muskegon, MI Combined Statistical Area - 1,407,323
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA Combined Statistical Area - 1,233,708
Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC Combined Statistical Area - 1,619,313
Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK Combined Statistical Area 1,131,458
I believe they'd think these places have bigger populations
New Orleans-Metairie-Hammond, LA-MS Combined Statistical Area - 1,467,880
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL Combined Statistical Area - 2,905,893 Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN Combined Statistical Area - 2,196,629
2013 estimates from wiki
Cincinnati always feels much smaller than its population suggests. New Orleans and St. Louis feel much larger.
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.
