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.
Again, that isn't really a big difference given that Richmond is about 40-45% bigger in terms of land.
Something to consider is that Rochester's peak population was quite a bit bigger than Richmond's as well. Rochester peaked at a little over 332,000 people in 1950, while Richmond peaked at just under 250,000 in 1970 and that's given that it annexed a little over 23 square miles since 1950. That means that Richmond and Rochester are essentially the same using 1950 land area for both, but Rochester held way more people. Some of its more densely built streets outside of Downtown Rochester in the Corn Hill neighborhood: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1509...6!9m2!1b1!2i38
To tie this together with Buffalo, Buffalo has always been bigger than Rochester and that is given that it is only about 5 square miles bigger in land. I think a better representation of Buffalo's urbanity just outside of Downtown would be street views like these: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8930...6!9m2!1b1!2i38
Salt Lake doesn't belong here. The rest of the cities have MSAs of around 1-1.3 million, and CSAs of 1.2-1.5 million. Not Salt Lake. Their MSA may have 1.2 million, but their CSA is nearly 2.3 million--placing it more competitively with metropolises such as San Antonio, Austin, Cincinnati, and Charlotte.
Salt Lake doesn't belong here. The rest of the cities have MSAs of around 1-1.3 million, and CSAs of 1.2-1.5 million. Not Salt Lake. Their MSA may have 1.2 million, but their CSA is nearly 2.3 million--placing it more competitively with metropolises such as San Antonio, Austin, Cincinnati, and Charlotte.
And yet it has a tiny fraction of those cities’ stature.
Salt Lake doesn't belong here. The rest of the cities have MSAs of around 1-1.3 million, and CSAs of 1.2-1.5 million. Not Salt Lake. Their MSA may have 1.2 million, but their CSA is nearly 2.3 million--placing it more competitively with metropolises such as San Antonio, Austin, Cincinnati, and Charlotte.
If the total square miles of SLC CSA were applied to each of the listed cities, then mile per mile Hartford and Buffalo areas would kick butt. Each would be about 8-10 million people in the same area as SLC CSA.
Hartford area would extend to Providence, New Haven, Albany, Springfield, suburban NYC, and parts of Boston.
The Buffalo area would extend to Toronto, Hamilton, Rochester, and Erie.
If the total square miles of SLC CSA were applied to each of the listed cities, then mile per mile Hartford and Buffalo areas would kick butt. Each would be about 10 million people in the same area as SLC CSA.
Hartford area would extend to Providence, New Haven, Albany, Springfield, suburban NYC, and parts of Boston.
The Buffalo area would extend to Toronto, Hamilton, Rochester, and Erie.
That’s really not how it works though. Counties include lots of practically uninhabited land compared to the Northeast
In the west there is a ton of area with like 0 people.
You can probably cut the area in 1/3 and lose like 62,000 people
I agree with this; transit ridership plays into "big feel" of q city and Buffalo has a clear advantage there...
Regarding "major league" feel, I don't think either city feels major. Buffalo's major league teams are legacy vestiges more than an indication on where it is now. Richmond has D1 sports with VCU, which is a Top 20 men's team right now and has a pretty illustrious history. UR is D2 and UVA is an hour away and is the "major" university for Richmond; outside of sports in particular, UVA is interwoven into the cultural fabric of the city from a social perspective...
Richmond, as you mentioned, is the center of politics and government in Virginia, and is also the epicenter if Virginia media companies, music and arts, fashion and social awareness, festivals, etc, and I think the culmination of all of these things give Richmond an advantage in "bigger feel". As CK and I mentioned earlier, it really depends where you are in NY as to which city is dominant---->Buffalo doesn't have the cache as the "it" place in New York State and as a result doesn't have the quantity or level of functions and amenities such places have...
Richmond has no peer city in Virginia and us the all-in-one. NoVa is often characterized as the "main" place in VA on this board, but only because this board lives off of population stats. And NoVa's population is very influential in Va politically, but not for much else, and at any rate no single city in NoVa is seen as Richmond's equal...
At least three-fourths of Virginians would say Richmond is "the city" in Virginia, and that belief is backed by the amount of culture that Richmond extends to the rest of The Commonwealth as well as the infrastructure and fabric of the city...
I love how you disregard Buffalo's two major league teams, and in that same breath have the nerve to mention VCU? What???. The bottom line is BUffalo having two major sports franchises and having held them for this long says a lot more than your little dismissive way of comparing the two's sports teams. As if Buffalo doesn't have 16 colleges within its city. I don't know how many Richmond has, but I would venture that they don't have that many.
It seems like you have a superiority complex with Buffalo. I know that you haven't been there in a while because Buffalo has gone through a lot of positive changes. That just adds to them already being the more major city than Richmond. I've been to Richmond, their downtown is Not that big. Kind of reminded me of Rochester to be honest with you. I'm not saying Buffalos is huge either. But if you were comparing just Buffalo to Richmond, Buffalo has more high rises, lowrisers and I'm not sure but about the same amount of skyscrapers, but overall buildings than Richmond, and Richmond is the capitol. You would think being the capitol, since they are so much bigger, that they would crush Buffalo, but instead they lag behind in all of those areas. Areas mind you, which we all corroborate with "being urban." For example, what makes NYC urban? Having huge densities and a ridiculous amounts of buildings. Buildings. That's what most of these discussions really come down to. Both Buffalo and Richmond and any of these other cities don't really have that many more than the others. And certainly, not like any of the big leaguers. So, how do prey tell, does having less of everything make something more Urban or more than another city? Just think about that for a while.
While you might think Richmond is prettier, (that's arguable), that's all you really have. It is not the more urban area compared to Buffalo. It strongly reminds me of Rochester to be honest with you, only Rochester feels bigger because of the density. Heck, and I know that Richmond is bigger, but even Syracuse feels more urban when it comes to density. None of these cities other than New Orleans downtowns are that much bigger than the others. New Orleans being the outlier. There will be slight differences and variations between the rest. Some will be more cohesive, some might appear larger, depending on how their layout is. But all of these cities are comparable to being in a similar size market. Although I will say, that Buffalo really gets jipped in that department because their metro is bi-national. Otherwise, Buffalo and Milwaukee would be about the same size. Kind of separating Buffalo to some extent. But we'll leave that alone.
Oh, as far as Richmond vs Buffalo. Richmond has nothing that compares to Elmwood ave. Besides Hertel, every other node in Buffalo has been invested in and Buffalo is getting better by the day. It's noticeable too. The east side is really the only hurdle. But don't act like both cities don't have their bad areas. All cities do, except maybe Salt lake city. Kidding, but sort of serious. I know you think that Richmond got a bad rap and that it should have or had an NFL, NBA, or NHL team. But it just doesn't, because the area probably could not support them as much as you think that it could. And that is why it hasn't had one. So, being able to support two pro teams says a lot about that particular region, that you seem to gloss over. when it comes to pro sports, Green Bay is the only real outlier, and if not for Green Bay, Milwaukee would sure have an NFL team. But that's because Milwaukee could support them. And yet, they don't have one ,again, because of Green Bay. But that discussion is neither here nor there.
You really seem to see Richmond through some sort of fairy dust tunnel vision. You definitely see what you want to see. And you definitely have civic pride. But why are you always trying to bring Richmond to a a level like an Austin or Nashville? It's not shifting in that direction, at all, by any means. Yet by the way you go on and on about Richmond being somehow superior to this city or that city, you would think Richmond is NYC. Richmond isn't so above any city on this list, or any that you have mentioned. And truthfully, in my opinion, under many you have. Let's be honest, the true area in Virginia, and trust me I've lived in Virginia, is the Hampton Roads region. Nobody living in that region is envious of Richmond. Nobody mentions Richmond, certainly in no type of it being the "it" city, and Hampton Roads being somehow inferior to Richmond. Trust me, nobody is thinking about Richmond, outside of Richmond.
You also use stats when they are to your advantage, (I guess we all do), but you fail to mention that Richmond has more than half as many people as Virginia Beach alone. Now, I know you'll break that distinction down to history and who has the better downtown. Virginia Beach outside of the beach area is definately suburban, and feels just that. but just a few, few meaning roughly eighteen miles away is Norfolk, which is very similar to Richmond in most regards. Except for not having any capitol buildings. But even I would admit, Richmond is the better of the two, but neither are exceptional. Of course I've never thought of much of Norfolk anyways. But then there are the other cities in that region. Obviously, you know the area, I don't need to list them.
So, most of these cities on this list at this point in time appear to be more peers, than not. None of these cities downtowns are several notches above the others, except for New Orleans. That's the outlier. If judging a cities size by their downtown alone, then contest over, New Orleans whoops them all pretty good.
Last edited by supermanpansy; 12-01-2019 at 06:57 PM..
That’s really not how it works though. Counties include lots of practically uninhabited land compared to the Northeast
In the west there is a ton of area with like 0 people.
You can probably cut the area in 1/3 and lose like 62,000 people
I think cities can also be judged by access to adjacent areas - isolated cities may sometimes have more activity in their core than places where metros butt up against each other - but - there is no brick wall that keeps people in Hartford or Buffalo from easily driving to a Providence, Boston, Rochester, or Toronto - while a similar drive from SLC doesn't even get you out of the CSA.
I think cities can also be judged by access to adjacent areas - isolated cities may sometimes have more activity in their core than places where metros butt up against each other - but - there is no brick wall that keeps people in Hartford or Buffalo from easily driving to a Providence, Boston, Rochester, or Toronto - while a similar drive from SLC doesn't even get you out of the CSA.
But at the same time nobody thinks Providence is Hartford.
The only thing I can say is Hartford-Springfield is genuinely considered a region by those that live there.
But at the same time nobody thinks Providence is Hartford.
The only thing I can say is Hartford-Springfield is genuinely considered a region by those that live there.
No. If you live in a gold plated suburb in metro Hartford, Springfield is invisible. Hartford is one of the most affluent MSAs in the country and easily #1 of the list in this thread. The city is a large-ish office tower core with 100,000 poor people in slums. The top suburbs are 6 figure median household income white collar professional bedroom towns. There are a hundred thousand really affluent people.
Springfield is a flyover country-level economic disaster. It has one tiny affluent white collar suburb in Longmeadow with maybe 12,000 people. Other than health care jobs you find anywhere, Mass Mutual is the only white collar employer and most of their jobs are lower paying clerical ones.
If you want the safe leafy suburb with the top school system with your trophy wife, luxury crossover in the garage, and golden retriever, the top half dozen Hartford burbs are as good as anywhere. If you can’t buy your way into the socioeconomic segregation of those towns, the rest of the metro is a dump.
And yet it has a tiny fraction of those cities’ stature.
I’d much rather live in SLC than any of those.
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.
