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.
Youre right.I exaggerated but my point was Atlanta is not sprawling like it used to and is infilling quite a bit more than it sprawls now a
days.So that posters statement was a dated response from 1998 not 2016.
People still love to rag on Atlanta for sprawl when the region has been changing drastically over the past decade or more. Anyway, when you're talking about thousands of square miles, the difference between the two CSAs is minimal. If you're standing in one of these cities I seriously doubt you can tell which one sprawls the furthest. They will both likely become megacities in the foreseeable future unless geographic or economic tragedies strike. People have discovered warm weather and mild winters, and I don't see the popularity of awesome weather waning anytime soon.
Yeah, but as always, people's bars are pretty low for that one. How many people live in high rises in Miami? 50,000? 100,000? Out of 6 million, that's just a drop in the bucket even though it makes for pretty pictures. Compare that with a city like Hong Kong where there are 7 million people living in high rises.
I only brought this up because someone thought it pertinent to bring up in a discussion of what happens when Miami hits the 10,000,000 mark. I guarantee you that when that happens the percentages of people living in high rises will be similar to today. Americans just don't go for high rise living like they do in Asia or South America.
You seem to forget that Miami-Dade county has a 59% foreign born population rate with the vast majority hailing from South America so they are used to high rise living & you under estimate how many do live in high rises even in Broward & Palm Beach counties up along the coast.
Brickell Home Owner's Association alone counts 25,000 Owners in 32 condos in a small area and most rent out their units which raises the population in Brickell alone to well over 50,000+ residents.
"Brickell Homeowners Association (BHA) in Miami, Florida, represents more than 25,000 residential households living from the Miami River to the Rickenbacker Causeway, and from Biscayne Bay to I-95. Home | Brickell Homeowners Association
The Miami Downtown Development Authority estimates the Downtown Miami / Brickell population at 80,750 Residents since the 2014 Census estimate. http://www.miamidda.com/pdf/2014-dow...population.pdf
^ Scroll down to Page 2.
Another point is Urban area density :
Miami metro has a Average density of 4,442 people per square mile in 1,238 Sq. Miles
Atlanta metro has a Average density of 1,706 people per square mile in 2,645 Sq. Miles.
Miami has 2.5 times the Average density of Atlanta's metro overall.
Do you think all of these people are living are in single family homes? Depending what you call a "highrise" which is over 12 stories according to Emporis there are thousands of high rises in the Miami metro and ranks #3 in that category after NYC & Chicago.
By the way your comparison to Hong Kong is amusing since no US or North American city can compare to it according to your stats.
I assume you have figures for HK? Link please !
Last edited by Bobdreamz; 07-17-2016 at 09:37 PM..
You're saying "megacity" and then listing each as a "metro" area. So many try to mix these and you can't if you want to get a true picture. There's a big demographic difference between "city" and "metro". In terms of metro, I give the nod to Atlanta.
If they opened up the Miami-Dade and Broward sections of the Everglades to development, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale no doubt. This could be a possibility as Southeast Florida fills up the max and dozens of millions of Americans want to live in that tropical climate.
I'm not sure how I feel about that honestly. I can see how it could be beneficial, but at the same time, it's the paving over of a valuable portion of Florida's ecosystem.
You're saying "megacity" and then listing each as a "metro" area. So many try to mix these and you can't if you want to get a true picture. There's a big demographic difference between "city" and "metro". In terms of metro, I give the nod to Atlanta.
You don't appear to know much about a megacity or how it is defined. A megacity is a metropolis or population center with 10 million or more people.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 07-26-2016 at 03:15 PM..
Sorry, I accidentally posted this in another thread. Deleted it in that thread and will post it here where it belongs.
American cities desperately need the size (population) to be relevant places. With their size follow the global scale amenities.
Look, I'll simplify my reasoning.
For example, if you were to pick Chicagoland up and drop it adjacent to Barcelona today; Chicago would effectively become Barcelona's suburb right on the spot. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Chicago would be Barcelona's suburb or satellite town (like what Evanston is to Chicago). Chicago is the second most urban city, according to most (and I agree) in the United States, but that doesn't mean much overseas.
On paper, Chicago has 10 million people whereas Barcelona only has 6 million people, at most, but if you've ever been to both, you'll know that Barcelona feels significantly larger on foot. If you took a person, blindfolded them and put them in the heart of each city and instructed them to walk around and observe what they feel, see, and experience; in Barcelona they would feel tight-knit urbanism, extensive and crowded public transportation systems, crowded streets, intense structural density that cannot be found in America, so many human beings out and not specific to any one corridor but everywhere in the city, and when they walk like 10 miles in any direction, they will most likely walk through a human population count in the millions all condensed into a small area.
When you do that same walk and experience the same thing in Chicago, it will feel spread out, relatively dead in terms of liveliness compared to Barcelona, inconsistent urban build, too corporate with deadzones due to the commercial zoning in the United States, inefficient public transportation with more holes than what you'd see in Europe and Asia, and the like.
If you dropped all of Greater Phoenix next to Shanghai, Phoenix would be Shanghai's exurb, not even suburb, but exurb.
My rule of thumb for American cities is that whatever their population is by MSA/CSA, put it into a calculator and divide that number by 3, the number that you get after dividing is what these cities will feel like in European, Asian, African, and South American countries. So "big American cities" like Houston, Atlanta, Boston, and Philadelphia which all have 6-8 million people; if you took their entire metropolis and dropped them in China or Japan or Spain or France, they'd be like 1-2 million person metropolises in terms of feel.
This isn't to say that those 6-7 million people don't live in Atlanta, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia, they absolutely do; but because of America's spread out nature, as a person on leisure you'll never feel the full effect of that metropolises total population on your visit. Even American cities that have densities at like 20,000 people per square mile over an area of 25-30 square miles (or densities of 10,000 people per square mile over an area of 150 square miles) would feel like boutiques in practically any country not named America (and to a much lessor extent Canada and Australia). Like if you picked the city of Boston up and threw it next to Milan, Boston would be to Milan what Berkeley is to San Francisco.
I've lived in 4 countries and 3 continents in my life, American cities feel like little tiny baby cities. All of them save for New York, if you picked their entire metropolitan areas up and threw them next to a major world metropolis in the first world, second world, or third world in any other country; the American cities would be that city's suburb, satellite town, or exurb.
Bank on that.
So yes, American cities do need size and growth. Without that, they'll just feel small in the global context.
Also look, I'm not saying American cities are bad, they have much to offer; they are the richest cities on the planet, with the best living environments on the planet (even with crime, poverty, and violence), the most economically prosperous and lucrative cities on the planet, with the best higher educational institutions on the planet, the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet, with the most comforting amenities on the planet. However "big feeling" they are not. Intense feeling, they are not. Truly bustling in the global context, they are not. Effectively built to their potential with regards to infrastructure, they are not.
The only place Atlanta, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia are metropolises of 6-8 million is in America. Any other country, you'd raise people's eyebrows if you told them their populations are that high with the way they are (and yes, I am taking into account how urban the latter two cities are - large scale urbanity by American standards, not the world).
Didn't mean to compare American cities with overseas ones, I only wanted to put their size and feel into context from a global perspective.
So yes, I support Atlanta and Miami becoming megacities. They need it, they seriously need the size. American cities seriously do need the size, desperately.
Sorry, I accidentally posted this in another thread. Deleted it in that thread and will post it here where it belongs.
American cities desperately need the size (population) to be relevant places. With their size follow the global scale amenities.
Look, I'll simplify my reasoning.
For example, if you were to pick Chicagoland up and drop it adjacent to Barcelona today; Chicago would effectively become Barcelona's suburb right on the spot. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Chicago would be Barcelona's suburb or satellite town (like what Evanston is to Chicago). Chicago is the second most urban city, according to most (and I agree) in the United States, but that doesn't mean much overseas.
On paper, Chicago has 10 million people whereas Barcelona only has 6 million people, at most, but if you've ever been to both, you'll know that Barcelona feels significantly larger on foot. If you took a person, blindfolded them and put them in the heart of each city and instructed them to walk around and observe what they feel, see, and experience; in Barcelona they would feel tight-knit urbanism, extensive and crowded public transportation systems, crowded streets, intense structural density that cannot be found in America, so many human beings out and not specific to any one corridor but everywhere in the city, and when they walk like 10 miles in any direction, they will most likely walk through a human population count in the millions all condensed into a small area.
When you do that same walk and experience the same thing in Chicago, it will feel spread out, relatively dead in terms of liveliness compared to Barcelona, inconsistent urban build, too corporate with deadzones due to the commercial zoning in the United States, inefficient public transportation with more holes than what you'd see in Europe and Asia, and the like.
If you dropped all of Greater Phoenix next to Shanghai, Phoenix would be Shanghai's exurb, not even suburb, but exurb.
My rule of thumb for American cities is that whatever their population is by MSA/CSA, put it into a calculator and divide that number by 3, the number that you get after dividing is what these cities will feel like in European, Asian, African, and South American countries. So "big American cities" like Houston, Atlanta, Boston, and Philadelphia which all have 6-8 million people; if you took their entire metropolis and dropped them in China or Japan or Spain or France, they'd be like 1-2 million person metropolises in terms of feel.
This isn't to say that those 6-7 million people don't live in Atlanta, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia, they absolutely do; but because of America's spread out nature, as a person on leisure you'll never feel the full effect of that metropolises total population on your visit. Even American cities that have densities at like 20,000 people per square mile over an area of 25-30 square miles (or densities of 10,000 people per square mile over an area of 150 square miles) would feel like boutiques in practically any country not named America/Canada/Australia. Like if you picked the city of Boston up and threw it next to Milan, Boston would be to Milan what Berkeley is to San Francisco.
I've lived in 4 countries and 3 continents in my life, American cities feel like little tiny baby cities. All of them save for New York, if you picked their entire metropolitan areas up and threw them next to a major world metropolis in the first world, second world, or third world in any other country; the American cities would be that city's suburb, satellite town, or exurb.
Bank on that.
So yes, American cities do need size and growth. Without that, they'll just feel small in the global context.
Also look, I'm not saying American cities are bad, they have much to offer; they are the richest cities on the planet, with the best living environments on the planet (even with crime, poverty, and violence), the most economically prosperous and lucrative cities on the planet, with the best higher educational institutions on the planet, with the most comforting amenities on the planet. However "big feeling" they are not. Intense feeling, they are not. Truly bustling in the global context, they are not. Effectively built to their potential with regards to infrastructure, they are not.
The only place Atlanta, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia are metropolises of 6-8 million is in America. Any other country, you'd raise people's eyebrows if you told them their populations are that high with the way they are (and yes, I am taking into account how urban the latter two cities are - large scale urbanity by American standards, not the world).
Didn't mean to compare American cities with overseas ones, I only wanted to put their size and feel into context from a global perspective.
So yes, I support Atlanta and Miami becoming megacities. They need it, they seriously need the size. American cities seriously do need the size, desperately.
You're not making apples to apples comparisons here.
Most countries have one or two showcase global cities and a handful of lesser known secondary cities. In the US ours happen to be NYC and LA, and they match up with practically any city globally. A place like Philly or Boston would be more appropriately compared to a place like Manchester UK. I do agee that US metro numbers are over-inflated.
Cleveland last month in June just won the national championship title in the NBA when LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, Tristan Thimpson and crew shut out the Golden State Warriors in 7 games.
Following their winning of the national title for basketball, Cleveland hosted a celebratory championship parade. The parade supposedly drew close to 1.3 MILLION people to come out into Cleveland's core areas where the parade was held. That is a lot of people for such a small area.
Effectively for that 1 day Cleveland's vibrancy was finally at what is considered acceptable by global standards in other countries. It took a city that hasn't won in 52 years to to finally win for Cleveland to have one of those types of days where it can feel like Shanghai and Guangzhou for just 12 hours of the day. Also I'm not saying every global metropolis has 1.3 million people all gathered in one condensed area, but every city I've been to in every country I've been to (I've been to 17 countries) has been on another level with regards to vibrancy and urbanity as a way of life compared to America. Again, save for New York.
Let that sink in for a second. That's how large the gulf is between America and practically any other country on this planet, be it first world, second world, and third world. Obviously to a SIGNIFICANTLY lessor extent Canada and Australia but even they are more bustling and urban for their sizes than American cities. Technically Calgary and Edmonton have 1.4 million and 1.3 million people, respectively, as metropolitan areas. If you look at American metropolises with 1.4 million or 1.3 million people like a Greenville, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids and the like, none of these places whatsoever have that type of urbanity, infrastructure, vibrancy, and overall bustle the Canadian cities have. Calgary and Edmonton are more active and urban than American cities that are typically 3, maybe even 4 times their size. Yes, that is true.
You're not making apples to apples comparisons here.
Most countries have one or two showcase global cities and a handful of lesser known secondary cities. In the US ours happen to be NYC and LA, and they match up with practically any city globally. A place like Philly or Boston would be more appropriately compared to a place like Manchester UK. I do agee that US metro numbers are over-inflated.
That is because Manchester is in the United Kingdom and not France, Spain, Italy, Japan, China, India, the Philippines, or anywhere else that is significantly more urban, more dense, more intense, and far far far more built up.
The United Kingdom, while nowhere near as bad as America, goes with the America/Canada/Australia group as global underperformers. London and New York being notable exceptions to it all.
If I asked you to find a 6 million person place in Japan, China, Italy, Spain, France or the like and compare them to an American city, you'll see what I said is true. Those American cities would be their suburbs, satellite cities, or exurbs.
Like Shenyang has the same amount of people in its metropolis as Phoenix. Drop all of Greater Phoenix adjacent to Shenyang and what happens? Phoenix would be its exurb and nothing more.
American cities are like tiny little babies, like the elbow room and space and well, everything about them, is just a significantly smaller, less intense, less purely urban scale than everywhere else. Yes, yes, that 4.5 million people that Phoenix has is big and intense and stuff - in America. Any other suitable country overseas minus those Anglo ones I mentioned (Canada, Australia, United kingdom) and they'd be their suburbs, satellite cities, or exurbs.
Cleveland last month in June just won the national championship title in the NBA when LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, Tristan Thimpson and crew shut out the Golden State Warriors in 7 games.
Following their winning of the national title for basketball, Cleveland hosted a celebratory championship parade. The parade supposedly drew close to 1.3 MILLION people to come out into Cleveland's core areas where the parade was held. That is a lot of people for such a small area.
Effectively for that 1 day Cleveland's vibrancy was finally at what is considered acceptable by global standards in other countries. It took a city that hasn't won in 52 years to to finally win for Cleveland to have one of those types of days where it can feel like Shanghai and Guangzhou for just 12 hours of the day. Also I'm not saying every global metropolis has 1.3 million people all gathered in one condensed area, but every city I've been to in every country I've been to (I've been to 17 countries) has been on another level with regards to vibrancy and urbanity as a way of life compared to America. Again, save for New York.
Let that sink in for a second. That's how large the gulf is between America and practically any other country on this planet, be it first world, second world, and third world. Obviously to a SIGNIFICANTLY lessor extent Canada and Australia but even they are more bustling and urban for their sizes than American cities. Technically Calgary and Edmonton have 1.4 million and 1.3 million people, respectively, as metropolitan areas. If you look at American metropolises with 1.4 million or 1.3 million people like a Greenville, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids and the like, none of these places whatsoever have that type of urbanity, infrastructure, vibrancy, and overall bustle the Canadian cities have. Calgary and Edmonton are more active and urban than American cities that are typically 3, maybe even 4 times their size. Yes, that is true.
Comparing cleveland to Shanghai, makes no sense. I did admit that US metro numbers are inflated. Philly for example, is probably only a metro if 3-3.5 mil by international standards, don't compare it to Tokyo.
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.
People still love to rag on Atlanta for sprawl when the region has been changing drastically over the past decade or more. Anyway, when you're talking about thousands of square miles, the difference between the two CSAs is minimal. If you're standing in one of these cities I seriously doubt you can tell which one sprawls the furthest. They will both likely become megacities in the foreseeable future unless geographic or economic tragedies strike. People have discovered warm weather and mild winters, and I don't see the popularity of awesome weather waning anytime soon.
