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)
 
Old 05-20-2016, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,144 posts, read 12,206,380 times
Reputation: 14853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kar54 View Post
The South Central Colorado urbanized area (metro COS and PUB) have an estimated 2015 population of around 900,000. My guess in the not too distant future, the Springs and Pueblo will become a CMSA which would account for over 16% of the state's population. Not bad for a couple of towns that are for all purposes are in Denver's shadow and most likely always will be.
I think (hopefully) the area is a long way off from functioning as a CSA. There is still a lot of open real estate between the north end of Pueblo and the south end of Colorado Springs. I'd like to see it stay that way. In Colorado Springs' case it would probably be helpful if the population growth slowed a little.

I definitely agree with you that these cities will always be in Denver's shadow. But there's nothing wrong with that. If Colorado Springs grew to the size of Denver they'd overlap and be one continuous metropolitan mess. I'm not anti growth (I know it may sound like it on this post) I'd just rather not see the Front Range become one massive city. Colorado Springs can forge a great identity as a smaller, cleaner alternative to Denver. It has a great setting, a downtown loaded with potential (mostly untapped as of now) and the population base to be an attractive draw to a variety of businesses.

Pueblo's growth is pretty slow, but it is still at a higher population than ever before, so that is a positive. When I last lived in Colorado Pueblo was beginning to show some signs of life with the river walk downtown. Of course, it takes more than a river walk to make a place worthwhile, but it's a critical step in the right direction. Seems a lot of street fairs are centered in that part of town: a definite positive. The place has come a long way since the late 1990s, that's for sure. Pueblo was just a big Trinidad back then. (If you're a Colorado guy you know that's about as severe an insult as you can dish out.) It really has come a long way in the last 15 years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2016, 04:27 PM
 
62 posts, read 51,253 times
Reputation: 84
NYC is one of the rare cities in America where the city population IMO actually truly matters. People might look at the 55k+ growth number and be like, oh well the percentage growth is low, but in raw numbers, that is insane...no city will be ever to keep up high percentage growth as the total population grows. If any other city in America was growing by 55k people a year, that would be enormous growth and that's with NYC already being heavily built out so it's not suburban like a sunbelt city where there's plenty of space to build and little NIMBYism.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,811 posts, read 9,321,821 times
Reputation: 8185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamezz View Post
City propers do matter in real life though, for budgeting and taxes. They're actually more important than metro population for those people living in these cities.
This is all true and also culturally they allow the people in a city a chance to govern themselves with their own elected council members or city politicians and others things of that ilk - it personalizes area priorities and concerns and allows the local people to set up a form of government to address those priorities and concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamezz View Post
And the culture between the cities and suburbs is so stark. NYC, for example. It just has its own very strong identity, and being lumped in with places like Monroe, PA, paints the place with a big brush that doesn't actually exist when you're actually in the city. I think this is true for a lot of the old cities.
Not denying that, but New York is also a national outlier. Not suggesting that no other city has the stark distinction between the city and its suburbs and satellite cities but New York is just a different sort of animal than the typical American city.

If you took the city of New York out of America, you would leave the country in damaged, a second rate country and second rate world power. Sort of like what would happen if you tinkered and took Paris out of France, London out of the United Kingdom, or Tokyo out of Japan. All these countries would become second rate countries and powers. That's what the loss of a premier leading world city can do; cripple a financial backbone, disrupt free market investment trends, obstruct commerce and business networks, so on and so forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamezz View Post
If you're saying they don't matter from a city data forum standpoint
More from an analytical point of view for city versus city comparisons. To me, city-versus-city is just another way of saying direct metropolitan areas-versus-metropolitan areas comparison. A city's economy, full employment, total monetary value, market value (to brands and companies), institutions for higher learning, airports, seaports, secondary employment districts, some infrastructure, and most definitely bedroom communities for the region all rely off both the central city and its surrounding suburbs and satellite cities put together (a metropolitan area (MSA or CSA)).

When I think of New York as a city, I usually think a city of 20 million + people. Not the 8.5 million in just the city, but well over 20 million. By UA, MSA, CSA it most certainly has eclipsed that threshold. City proper is good from a microscale perspective of locals within the city as it determines their daily life and living standards, but the metropolitan area measurements or urban area measurements make city to city comparisons apples-to-apples, both domestically in the United States as well as abroad.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,811 posts, read 9,321,821 times
Reputation: 8185
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
I couldn't be with this more. Truthfully media market is probably more meaningful than MSA. If you turn on your television and you can't get a cities local affiliate, you don't live in that city's metro.
This is a map of the geographic expanse that each city's television market covers:

http://dishuser.org/TVMarkets/Maps/T...guous%20US.gif

I encourage a thorough and very detailed look through that map for all those clicking the link. Look at each major city and look at the expanse they cover and to what extent that should be seen as acceptable.

MSA and CSA measure a city's economic vitality and are derived off commuting patterns, as in people in a community (county really) that rely off a particular city for employment and income needs, thus they are apart of that city's commutershed (also known as a bedroom community). CSAs require 15% commuter interchange and MSAs require 25%. So these are not by any means loosely defined, they have standards that must be met for places to gain inclusion. I think that while MSAs and CSAs leave much room for improvement, the MSA and CSA are significantly superior in what they represent, the area they cover, and their economic vitality than a DMA.

In my personal opinion, a DMA should never be used for anything more than what it actually is, which is the size of a television viewing market, not the size, scope, or economic interconnection of a city.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,811 posts, read 9,321,821 times
Reputation: 8185
The Nielson Media Market annual report tells me that Miami-Fort Lauderdale are a separate market than West Palm Beach, an area that is in Miami's MSA, UA, CSA, and well, everything else. Not to mention contiguous urbanization without any breaks whatsoever weaving the entire South Florida/Southeast Florida region together as one cohesive unit.

So yeah, that coupled along with the fact that Miami is actually a smaller media market than Tampa, along with places like Salt Lake City's media market covering the entire state of Utah, a quarter of Nevada, a chunk of Wyoming, and a sliver of Idaho largely tells me that media markets are entirely negligible outside of potential region-wide television viewership.

West Palm Beach is considered a separate media market.



No.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
19,485 posts, read 29,199,158 times
Reputation: 10749
Well they separate Washington and Baltimore too but I see your point. Perhaps because WPB has their own media TV stations thus a part of the reason why they do not consider it of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale media market.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,811 posts, read 9,321,821 times
Reputation: 8185
The other thing about DMAs/Nielson Media Market household size tabulations is that it is a dying metric. It is increasingly shrinking annually, for some cities it is shrinking at a torrid pace. The number of households with television sets is declining and increasingly being put out of commission by the superior, more interconnected and efficient mode of the media that is the Internet.

The most recent year:
DMA: Nielsen Media Market, 2016

The year before that:
DMA: Nielsen Media Market Data [Severe declines starting]

As you can see, stark and exorbitant declines have started for several cities and trends from the last few years suggest that they will either continue or accelerate (in declining). There are still a handful of American cities that are posting gains in DMA media market size - but they also are some of the fastest growing places in the country. These cities largely include Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Washington D.C., and "generally" in a good year Atlanta and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Everywhere else? Decline, decline, with a slight dash of even more decline. The Internet is killing television. Media market household size are shrinking for nearly all major cities minus the ones mentioned and a couple of others.

Incrementally a metric that is entering the jurassic age, increasingly becoming irrelevant. This metric is the opposite of MSA and CSA, those have standing value, whereas, in contrast, DMAs are incrementally becoming endangered by the year.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,811 posts, read 9,321,821 times
Reputation: 8185
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPt111 View Post
Will Chicago lose world class city status ? NYC is top dog though
That depends on who you are and what your precise definition of a world class city is. This will vary from person to person, as there isn't any clear cut guideline or depiction of what it takes to make a world class city.

On a personal level, the first issue I see is that people are faaaar too generous, again, only speaking for myself here, is that people are extremely generous. A list shouldn't be lengthy or long, it should be contained and exclusive, as in to give a heightened meaning to actually being apart of that list, instead of rewarding every Joe Schmidt with a listing in the hierarchy.

The word in itself is a combination of two words, world + class. A city of this scale should be able to culturally compete against anywhere in the world, it should have the performing arts, the infrastructure, the vibrancy, the culinary style, the entertainment aspects, the events and attractions, the attractiveness as a destination, and a center for commerce. It should also envision positive and high-quality factors that positively affect standard of living and quality of life. Cities across the planet have made great strides at reducing crime, lessening blight, empowering those in poverty to improve their state of being, and socially practicing tolerance and protecting its citizens under those basis (some places much better at it than others). While one person can be forgiving and look entirely past issues such as seriously high crime, excessively vast blight, an ever increasing social tension derided by an expanding level of poverty with struggling and failing public educational systems, inefficient and decaying infrastructure, corruption and financial speed-bumps, others will not. To some, including a city with such aspects can be disrespectful entirely to cities that, well, don't have these issues to begin with or at least to a serious extent.

So answering the question is subjective. Everyone has an opinion on it and everyone's opinion will be something different. On a personal level, I'll give Chicago a pass on the issues it has and say it is a world class city because it just has too much to offer to be completely hindered by "issues". For me though, after I say that, I make it a point of emphasis to say that while I believe it is a world class city, I also believe it is the absolute bottom rung of world class cities to differentiate Chicago from other places with overall "better" qualities for standard of living and quality of life. Like what an entry level world class city would be like, basically that. With the issues it has, it is not fair to put its name in the same category as cities with superior quality of life and standard of living, Chicago is most definitely afar back on those standards. If Chicago fixes these issues and curbs the problems, gets within an acceptable range on these issues, I definitely think it should move up the hierarchy because I think Chicago has all the other aspects to be truly great. For now, the city has lots it must do to fix perception, a world class city for sure, but still must work to improve even more beyond that.

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-20-2016 at 06:58 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 08:32 PM
 
6,886 posts, read 14,787,537 times
Reputation: 3288
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
Nonetheless, these consolidations that swell city limits distort the statistics.
Agred...but it seems about half the city's out there do this.


Incidentally, does anyone know of the top 50 cities, what is the average size in GEOGRAPHIC AREA only? Louisville's geographic area is not nearly as high as most cities, especially not even close to any of the consolidated ones. Remember it does not include vast swaths of the county.

I would guess the average top 50 city is about 200 sq miles. But it may be more!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 09:12 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
12,954 posts, read 20,666,439 times
Reputation: 12740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
Agred...but it seems about half the city's out there do this.


Incidentally, does anyone know of the top 50 cities, what is the average size in GEOGRAPHIC AREA only? Louisville's geographic area is not nearly as high as most cities, especially not even close to any of the consolidated ones. Remember it does not include vast swaths of the county.

I would guess the average top 50 city is about 200 sq miles. But it may be more!
Beyond some of the very largest cities (NY, LA, Houston, etc.), there are several cities among the top 50 that are quite large in land area yet under a million in population. Jacksonville, OK City, Nashville, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Louisville, Ft. Worth & Memphis are all well under a million while occupying more than 300 square miles of land. Both Austin and Charlotte barely miss the 300 square mile metric.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the cities that are quite small in land area but are still among the top 50. These include Miami, San Francisco, Boston: all under 50 square miles of land.

It would be interesting to see the top 50 ranked by land area and municipal density. To your request, it would also be interesting to know the average land area and the average density as well.
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2021, 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