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 just Minneapolis and St. Paul were to merge (and no, the Mississippi does not completely separate the two) their combined population would be about 733,100 within 106sq miles. This would place MPLS - STPL behind Seattle and ahead of Denver. MPLS-STPL would then only need to annex an inner-ring suburb the size of Robbinsdale or North St. Paul to surpass Seattle.
If MPLS - STPL were to annex their first-ring suburbs, the combined population would be 1,236,787 in roughly 267 sq miles, which is still much smaller than the land area of many of our so-called large cities including Jacksonville (747sq miles), Phoenix (516sq miles), San Antonio (460.9sq. miles), Indianapolis (361.4sq miles), and Charlotte (297.7sq miles).
Annexed inner-ring suburbs:
Lauderdale
Falcon Heights
St. Anthony
Robbinsdale
Crystal
Golden Valley
St. Louis Park
Columbia Heights
Roseville
Richfield
Bloomington
West St. Paul
North St. Paul
South St. Paul
Little Canada
Lilydale
Edina
Brooklyn Center
Mendota
Mendota Heights
Maplewood
Population figures - 2018 US Census Estimates
I mean they are technically already a combined metro area like Dallas-Fort Worth so most people just lump the two cities together naturally despite their official boarders
I mean they are technically already a combined metro area like Dallas-Fort Worth so most people just lump the two cities together naturally despite their official boarders
Did you even read the OP's question? S/he asked, "how many cities/suburbs adjacent to your city would you need to add to surpass the city above yours?" I don't understand the point of your post, but yeah, Minneapolis, St. Paul and their suburbs are part of the same metro area.
As far as lumping the two together, that rarely happens on this site. People on city-data will discuss Minneapolis and conveniently leave out St. Paul or vice versa. Also, unlike Dallas and Fort Worth, which are separated by several miles, Minneapolis and St. Paul literally border one another.
Boston (21st) would only need to annex Cambridge to pass DC (20th), Denver (19th), and Seattle (18th).
And even with Cambridge, Boston would still be smaller in terms of land area than those three cities.
Adding Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea would put it past Indianapolis (17th), Charlotte (16th), San Francisco (15th), Columbus (14th), Fort Worth (13th), and Jacksonville (12th) while still being smaller in land area than every city it passed minus SF.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 08-22-2019 at 11:51 AM..
Boston (21st) would only need to annex Cambridge to pass DC (20th), Denver (19th), and Seattle (18th).
And even with Cambridge, Boston would still be smaller in terms of land area than those three cities.
Adding Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea would put it past Indianapolis (17th), Charlotte (16th), San Francisco (15th), Columbus (14th), Fort Worth (13th), and Jacksonville (12th) while still being smaller in land area than every city it passed minus SF.
San Francisco will be 16th in the 2020 census and remain there for the foreseeable future. Boston will stay at 21st for the foreseeable future.
I mean, it would kinda be interesting for a lot of other people too. Chicago's been the country's 3rd largest city for 35 years. Some other very big cities like Philly and San Francisco are on track to drop multiple ranks in less than a 5 year period, especially so in San Francisco's case, falling from 12th just 5 years ago to 16th next year or so.
Chicago will 100% certainly fall to 4th largest at some point, and it's invariably going to be from Houston so Houston might as well speed up the process and bring on the inevitable.
Houston will never be a REAL 3rd city no matter how much they annex. Houston had to cheat and keep adding on towns and boundries thats a week way to boost a city. Chicago has the same city boundries from the start and was once number 2. Houston's population density is already pitful as it is with a ridiculous land area(3.7k ppsm vs Chicagos 12k ppsm). If Chicago was to stretch its borders to be the same land size as Houston it would be doubled almost tripled Houston's population. Harris county is enormous in size. Its bigger than Cook and DuPage counties combined. If those 2 neighboring counties alone combined it would be 6.3 million people. Right up there around all of Houston's total CSA. Mind you Chicago's has a 10 million CSA in a similar land area. Don't let us go add crazy like Houston and most southern cities and metros do and they can easily add Milwaukee's metro(which actually continuously connects) and bump up the CSA to almost 12 million.
Last edited by Faded5; 09-15-2019 at 11:46 AM..
Reason: Typos
Houston will never be a REAL 3rd city no matter how much they annex. Houston had to cheat and keep adding on towns and boundries thats a week way to boost a city. Chicago has the same city boundries from the start and was once number 2. Houston's population density is already pitful as it is with a ridiculous land area(3.7k ppsm vs Chicagos 12k ppsm). If Chicago was to stretch its borders to be the same land size as Houston it would be doubled almost tripled Houston's population. Harris county is enormous in size. Its bigger than Cook and DuPage counties combined. If those 2 neighboring counties alone combined it would be 6.3 million people. Right up there around all of Houston's total CSA. Mind you Chicago's has a 10 million CSA in a similar land area. Don't let us go add crazy like Houston and most southern cities and metros do and they can easily add Milwaukee's metro(which actually continuously connects) and bump up the CSA to almost 12 million.
Annexation is not about boosting population numbers that’s ridiculous. First a city can’t annex a town or suburb that is already incorporated unless said city is willing to give up incorporation and be annexed by the larger city which is rare. Its unincorporated areas within the county. Areas that are annexed have stricter building codes than the county and least in Texas and growth can be managed somewhat. Another reason is not to become landlocked by future incorporated cities and the loss of tax dollars. I’m all for infill in the inner city but worrying about low population density is also ridiculous. The average person doesn’t look up density levels when choosing where to live, public transportation yes for some.
Annexation is not about boosting population numbers that’s ridiculous. First a city can’t annex a town or suburb that is already incorporated unless said city is willing to give up incorporation and be annexed by the larger city which is rare. Its unincorporated areas within the county. Areas that are annexed have stricter building codes than the county and least in Texas and growth can be managed somewhat. Another reason is not to become landlocked by future incorporated cities and the loss of tax dollars. I’m all for infill in the inner city but worrying about low population density is also ridiculous. The average person doesn’t look up density levels when choosing where to live, public transportation yes for some.
Low population density, is like living in a big, endless suburb. No thanks. I like vibrancy, and a strong city core, that isn't a long drive away. Dense population is mandatory, for a city to be taken seriously, IMO. Cities with low population density, are not nearly as interesting. Annexing suburbs to increase numbers is, I think, sometimes just an attempt to bypass another city. This is evidenced by the wishful thinking of some posters on this thread, hoping to annex their next victim.
Low population density, is like living in a big, endless suburb. No thanks. I like vibrancy, and a strong city core, that isn't a long drive away. Dense population is mandatory, for a city to be taken seriously, IMO. Cities with low population density, are not nearly as interesting. Annexing suburbs to increase numbers is, I think, sometimes just an attempt to bypass another city. This is evidenced by the wishful thinking of some posters on this thread, hoping to annex their next victim.
I agree with you about a strong city core who doesn’t. I live about 14 ½ miles from downtown and can get there in about 20 minutes. Not everybody wants to live in a densely packed area in an apartment, townhouse, row house etc.
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.
Did you even read the OP's question? S/he asked, "how many cities/suburbs adjacent to your city would you need to add to surpass the city above yours?" I don't understand the point of your post, but yeah, Minneapolis, St. Paul and their suburbs are part of the same metro area. 
