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.
If Grand Rapids added it's inner ring, it would move from 115th(city pop) to 47th 399,219(2018) in 140sq mi. Putting it between Arlington TX and Tulsa.
Cities to annex:
Wyoming
Kentwood
East Grand Rapids
Walker
Grand Rapids Township.
Boston would have to swallow up like one half of the neighboring suburb of Cambridge to surpass the next most populous city.
For Boston to go from 700k to 1.3 million, they would just swallow up the cities of Cambridge, Somerville, Revere, Milton, Quincy, Winthrop, Newton, Watertown, Chelsea and Everett.
Why doesn't Boston (or any other US city) follow New York or London in having these suburbs as a self-governing borough within their city?
Pittsburgh would move SEVEN spots up the list by adding Dormont and Mount Lebanon, while adding less than 7 square miles of land area.
Thanks! I was hoping someone would do Pittsburgh! I've done some more analysis below using the most recently-available population estimates for each jurisdiction. This varies because for some reason the U.S. Census Bureau ignores doing annual population estimates for PA's townships the way it does for its boroughs and cities.
Here's how we'd look if we just annexed the municipalities contiguous with the current city limits (including water boundaries):
Pittsburgh 2018 Estimated Population: 301,048 in 55.38 square miles (5,436/square mile) Penn Hills Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 41,838 in 19.12 square miles (2,188/square mile) Mount Lebanon Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 32,760 in 6.08 square miles (5,388/square mile) Ross Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 30,869 in 14.47 square miles (2,133/square mile) Shaler Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 28,481 in 11.07 square miles (2,573/square mile) West Mifflin 2018 Estimated Population: 19,703 in 14.21 square miles (1,387/square mile) Baldwin 2018 Estimated Population: 19,464 in 5.77 square miles (3,373/square mile) Scott Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 16,847 in 3.91 square miles (4,309/square mile) Wilkinsburg 2018 Estimated Population: 15,448 in 2.25 square miles (6,866/square mile) Robinson Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 13,657 in 15.22 square miles (897/square mile) Whitehall 2018 Estimated Population: 13,648 in 3.33 square miles (4,098/square mile) Munhall 2018 Estimated Population: 11,081 in 2.30 square miles (4,818/square mile) Brentwood 2018 Estimated Population: 9,329 in 1.45 square miles (6,434/square mile) O'Hara Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 8,809 in 7.02 square miles (1,255/square mile) Swissvale 2018 Estimated Population: 8,689 in 1.20 square miles (7,241/square mile) Dormont 2018 Estimated Population: 8,319 in 0.76 square miles (10,946/square mile) Castle Shannon 2018 Estimated Population: 8,255 in 1.60 square miles (5,159/square mile) Bellevue 2018 Estimated Population: 8,097 in 1.01 square miles (8,017/square mile) Kennedy Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 8,058 in 5.48 square miles (1,470/square mile) Carnegie 2018 Estimated Population: 7,844 in 1.62 square miles (4,842/square mile) Stowe Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 6,282 in 1.98 square miles (3,173/square mile) McKees Rocks 2018 Estimated Population: 5,885 in 1.06 square miles (5,552/square mile) Crafton 2018 Estimated Population: 5,763 in 1.14 square miles (5,055/square mile) Green Tree 2018 Estimated Population: 4,854 in 2.08 square miles (2,334/square mile) Millvale 2018 Estimated Population: 3,593 in 0.62 square miles (5,795/square mile) Etna 2018 Estimated Population: 3,338 in 0.73 square miles (4,573/square mile) Sharpsburg 2018 Estimated Population: 3,337 in 0.48 square miles (6,952/square mile) Reserve Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 3,300 in 2.06 square miles (1,602/square mile) Mount Oliver 2018 Estimated Population: 3,293 in 0.34 square miles (9,685/square mile) Ingram 2018 Estimated Population: 3,225 in 0.43 square miles (7,500/square mile) Homestead 2018 Estimated Population: 3,138 in 0.57 square miles (5,505/square mile) Edgewood 2018 Estimated Population: 3,012 in 0.59 square miles (5,105/square mile) Aspinwall 2018 Estimated Population: 2,712 in 0.35 square miles (7,749/square mile) Baldwin Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 2,039 in 0.51 square miles (3,998/square mile) West Homestead 2018 Estimated Population: 1,881 in 0.92 square miles (2,045/square mile) Thornburg 2018 Estimated Population: 440 in 0.43 square miles (1,023/square mile) Rosslyn Farms 2018 Estimated Population: 415 in 0.56 square miles (741/square mile)
"New Pittsburgh": 668,751 in 188.10 square land miles (3,555/square mile)
^ That's a pitiful population density, especially considering I only used LAND square mileage in all of these calculations. I mean "New Pittsburgh" would also have a lot of ravines and rugged terrain that could not be developed; however, even accounting for that we might be able to "cheat" our way up to 4,000/square mile population density. That 668,751 figure is roughly half of the 2018 estimated population of 1,218,452 for Allegheny County overall.
Pittsburgh, at an estimated population of 301,048 in 2018, is currently estimated to be the nation's 66th-largest city.
New Pittsburgh, at an estimated population of 668,751 in 2018, would be the nation's 25th-largest city---a smidge below Nashville and a bit above Portland, OR.
For comparison purposes Nashville houses an estimated 669,053 (2018) within 473.3 square miles of land (1,414/square mile) (This seems incorrect, to me, as Nashville is supposedly this poster child of new urbanism, no?)
For comparison purposes Portland houses an estimated 653,115 (2018) within 133 square miles of land (4,911/square mile)
Why doesn't Boston (or any other US city) follow New York or London in having these suburbs as a self-governing borough within their city?
Chicago and Pittsburgh should also do this. There are 130 self-governing municipalities in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) and Cook County (Chicago) is divided into 135 self-governing municipalities. Insane.
It would be insane for Chicago or Pittsburgh to FULLY annex all of Cook County (945 square miles) or Allegheny County (730 square miles), respectively, though. I mean Jacksonville, FL has the nation's largest land area at 747 square miles, and that's already ridiculous as that's larger than all of Allegheny County, PA.
For comparison purposes Nashville houses an estimated 669,053 (2018) within 473.3 square miles of land (1,414/square mile) (This seems incorrect, to me, as Nashville is supposedly this poster child of new urbanism, no?)
New urbanism is just suburban Sunbelt cities that are densifying pockets downtown. You can have your gritty streets a few miles from the McMansions.
Incidentally Jacksonville just merged with their county which is why it’s so large.
New urbanism is just suburban Sunbelt cities that are densifying pockets downtown. You can have your gritty streets a few miles from the McMansions.
Incidentally Jacksonville just merged with their county which is why it’s so large.
Seeing the disparity in city sizes is interesting. Most of the sunbelt cities and places like NYC, Chicago, and LA are massive in size but NYC, Chicago, and LA still have the density. Throw "new" cities like Indianapolis, Columbus, and Oklahoma city in with the sunbelt cites and their sheer size skews their population numbers.
If you just took Milwaukee county we'd land at #12 in population( between Austin and Jacksonville) and still have less sq mi than both. And that's leaving out a third of our metro area. Austin's metro area would still be bigger but we're even with Jacksonville but that's the difference in the #12 city and #31. Jacksonville's density is simply atrocious.
ETA: For what it's worth, I don't consider Milwaukee a major city. It's just interesting what affect city boundaries can have on population numbers and also impressions of a city.
Thanks! I was hoping someone would do Pittsburgh! I've done some more analysis below using the most recently-available population estimates for each jurisdiction. This varies because for some reason the U.S. Census Bureau ignores doing annual population estimates for PA's townships the way it does for its boroughs and cities.
Here's how we'd look if we just annexed the municipalities contiguous with the current city limits (including water boundaries):
Pittsburgh 2018 Estimated Population: 301,048 in 55.38 square miles (5,436/square mile) Penn Hills Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 41,838 in 19.12 square miles (2,188/square mile) Mount Lebanon Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 32,760 in 6.08 square miles (5,388/square mile) Ross Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 30,869 in 14.47 square miles (2,133/square mile) Shaler Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 28,481 in 11.07 square miles (2,573/square mile) West Mifflin 2018 Estimated Population: 19,703 in 14.21 square miles (1,387/square mile) Baldwin 2018 Estimated Population: 19,464 in 5.77 square miles (3,373/square mile) Scott Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 16,847 in 3.91 square miles (4,309/square mile) Wilkinsburg 2018 Estimated Population: 15,448 in 2.25 square miles (6,866/square mile) Robinson Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 13,657 in 15.22 square miles (897/square mile) Whitehall 2018 Estimated Population: 13,648 in 3.33 square miles (4,098/square mile) Munhall 2018 Estimated Population: 11,081 in 2.30 square miles (4,818/square mile) Brentwood 2018 Estimated Population: 9,329 in 1.45 square miles (6,434/square mile) O'Hara Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 8,809 in 7.02 square miles (1,255/square mile) Swissvale 2018 Estimated Population: 8,689 in 1.20 square miles (7,241/square mile) Dormont 2018 Estimated Population: 8,319 in 0.76 square miles (10,946/square mile) Castle Shannon 2018 Estimated Population: 8,255 in 1.60 square miles (5,159/square mile) Bellevue 2018 Estimated Population: 8,097 in 1.01 square miles (8,017/square mile) Kennedy Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 8,058 in 5.48 square miles (1,470/square mile) Carnegie 2018 Estimated Population: 7,844 in 1.62 square miles (4,842/square mile) Stowe Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 6,282 in 1.98 square miles (3,173/square mile) McKees Rocks 2018 Estimated Population: 5,885 in 1.06 square miles (5,552/square mile) Crafton 2018 Estimated Population: 5,763 in 1.14 square miles (5,055/square mile) Green Tree 2018 Estimated Population: 4,854 in 2.08 square miles (2,334/square mile) Millvale 2018 Estimated Population: 3,593 in 0.62 square miles (5,795/square mile) Etna 2018 Estimated Population: 3,338 in 0.73 square miles (4,573/square mile) Sharpsburg 2018 Estimated Population: 3,337 in 0.48 square miles (6,952/square mile) Reserve Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 3,300 in 2.06 square miles (1,602/square mile) Mount Oliver 2018 Estimated Population: 3,293 in 0.34 square miles (9,685/square mile) Ingram 2018 Estimated Population: 3,225 in 0.43 square miles (7,500/square mile) Homestead 2018 Estimated Population: 3,138 in 0.57 square miles (5,505/square mile) Edgewood 2018 Estimated Population: 3,012 in 0.59 square miles (5,105/square mile) Aspinwall 2018 Estimated Population: 2,712 in 0.35 square miles (7,749/square mile) Baldwin Township 2017 ACS Estimated Population: 2,039 in 0.51 square miles (3,998/square mile) West Homestead 2018 Estimated Population: 1,881 in 0.92 square miles (2,045/square mile) Thornburg 2018 Estimated Population: 440 in 0.43 square miles (1,023/square mile) Rosslyn Farms 2018 Estimated Population: 415 in 0.56 square miles (741/square mile)
"New Pittsburgh": 668,751 in 188.10 square land miles (3,555/square mile)
^ That's a pitiful population density, especially considering I only used LAND square mileage in all of these calculations. I mean "New Pittsburgh" would also have a lot of ravines and rugged terrain that could not be developed; however, even accounting for that we might be able to "cheat" our way up to 4,000/square mile population density. That 668,751 figure is roughly half of the 2018 estimated population of 1,218,452 for Allegheny County overall.
Pittsburgh, at an estimated population of 301,048 in 2018, is currently estimated to be the nation's 66th-largest city.
New Pittsburgh, at an estimated population of 668,751 in 2018, would be the nation's 25th-largest city---a smidge below Nashville and a bit above Portland, OR.
For comparison purposes Nashville houses an estimated 669,053 (2018) within 473.3 square miles of land (1,414/square mile) (This seems incorrect, to me, as Nashville is supposedly this poster child of new urbanism, no?)
For comparison purposes Portland houses an estimated 653,115 (2018) within 133 square miles of land (4,911/square mile)
It's pretty easy for every city to start including suburbs to make the city grow, only to see density go way down to what really, IMO, shouldn't be considered urban. It's subjective, but personally I view it like:
1,500-3,000: Exurban to suburban density
3,001-4,999: Solid suburban to inner-ring suburban ... though some areas in the 4,000-plus I could see having a case made for being urban if its on a walkable grid that's connected to the main city, so some gray area there
5,000-plus: True urban density ... though some gray area there as well as most cities have some bunkered huge apartment complexes that boost population density but aren't very walkable.
Anyway, I did something similar that you did, but using Cleveland (which has fallen just below the 5,000 per square mile in the past couple of years to 4,939).
Cleveland could add the contiguous East Cleveland, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, University Heights (technically only contiguous to Cleveland Heights) and get its population up to 508,000 while increasing density to 5,303 per square mile.
From there, it starts to go back down, but it can still get to 700,000 before it would dip back below 5,000 per square mile.
After that, by adding more suburbs, it can get to these population densities:
4,900 square mile: 760,000
4,800 square mile: 810,000
4,700 square mile: 865,000
4,600 square mile: 900,000
4,500 square mile: 930,000
I didn't go below that because I would've now been including suburbs that have densities of less than 3,000, which even under the loosest definition (I know the government counts 1,500 but that's a joke) aren't urban.
Anyway, that's probably a better way to add to cities instead of just adding land to boost population (IE the Sun Belt model).
From your numbers, it looks like Pittsburgh, even with the geographic limitations, could still get its population to over 500,000 without dipping below 5,000-people per square mile.
It would be a time-consuming effort, but it would be interesting to see how big a "city's" population could get, or how much it would shrink, if it had to maintain a 5,000 per square mile average, contiguous, density.
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.
