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.
Philly has fallen to 4th-city status on the East Coast (I would argue it has been there awhile). Additionally, it has been passed in population by the DFW area and has a 15% smaller GMP. It has the lowest projected population and economic growth over the next 30 years of all the major East Coast metros.
I only comment because this thread was ressurected from a three-year hiatus (oddly by droll midwesterners who fear bees more than violent crimes) and perhaps there was an honest debate in 2010. Since that last post, DFW's population has increased by 275,000 - and Philadelphia's by 40,000. I think we can stop debating "importance" and focus more on "where to live" now. Most people vote with their feet.....
Can post more if you all would like? The reality is they are there and it IS a problem.
I said less than rare. You could go your entire life without coming face to face with some killer bees living in Texas. You have a better chance of getting killed by a rabid dog.
Philly has fallen to 4th-city status on the East Coast (I would argue it has been there awhile). Additionally, it has been passed in population by the DFW area and has a 15% smaller GMP. It has the lowest projected population and economic growth over the next 30 years of all the major East Coast metros.
Since that last post, DFW's population has increased by 275,000 - and Philadelphia's by 40,000. I think we can stop debating "importance" and focus more on "where to live" now. Most people vote with their feet.....
You know that is extremely misleading. The Philly MSA has about 50% less land area, so it's not really comparable to the DFW with an MSA size of 10,000 sq. miles. Even the Philly CSA(7,000 sq. miles) has a smaller land area than the Dallas MSA but has a population of over 7 million people. When looking at every other population metric, Philly usually has the larger population.
You know that is extremely misleading. The Philly MSA has about 50% less land area, so it's not really comparable to the DFW with an MSA size of 10,000 sq. miles. Even the Philly CSA(7,000 sq. miles) has a smaller land area than the Dallas MSA but has a population of over 7 million people. When looking at every other population metric, Philly usually has the larger population.
Do you realize that of those 9,000 (not 10,000) square miles, 6,500 square miles of that is farmland and small towns? 3,500 square miles account for 5.9 million of the people in the DFW area.
Philly posters are unusually blind to this fact (sans kidphilly).
Do you realize that of those 9,000 (not 10,000) square miles, 6,500 square miles of that is farmland and small towns? 3,500 square miles account for 5.9 million of the people in the DFW area.
Philly posters are unusually blind to this fact (sans kidphilly).
Philadelphia has to be taken out of any metro-like statistical comparison based on greater Trenton's omission from the Philadelphia area.
500 k people. $50 B in GDP given to NYC that rightfully should be included in Philadelphia.
You know that is extremely misleading. The Philly MSA has about 50% less land area, so it's not really comparable to the DFW with an MSA size of 10,000 sq. miles. Even the Philly CSA(7,000 sq. miles) has a smaller land area than the Dallas MSA but has a population of over 7 million people. When looking at every other population metric, Philly usually has the larger population.
What does land area have to do with anything? Just face it. The DFW area is growing at a much faster rate than the Philadelphia area. And there's no end in site. Job growth, col, its a fun place, who knows. Lots of people are moving there.
Do you realize that of those 9,000 (not 10,000) square miles, 6,500 square miles of that is farmland and small towns? 3,500 square miles account for 5.9 million of the people in the DFW area.
Why do you think this doesn't matter. That is exactly the point! We can play the same game with Philadelphia and say this many people only live on this much land and so on. That's not what we are trying to do. The point is that the Dallas metro is huge, and it's difficult to justify why it is so. Despite the fact that the Dallas metro is growing much faster than Philly's (and Philly's metro has a nice sustainable growth rate I think), it doesn't change the fact that there are a lot more people living around Philly than Dallas. Take a 75 to 100 mile radius around each city and Philadelphia will have a lot more people living around it. Of course this means that it is going into other metro areas (NY and Baltimore), but that is exactly in Philadelphia's advantage. It is in the middle of the Northeast Megalopolis. Metro areas have similar population, but there are more people within the Philly region. Period.
Do you realize that of those 9,000 (not 10,000) square miles, 6,500 square miles of that is farmland and small towns? 3,500 square miles account for 5.9 million of the people in the DFW area.
Philly posters are unusually blind to this fact (sans kidphilly).
I could make the same case for the Pinelands with is over 1000 sq. miles.
It still doesn't change the fact that the Dallas MSA is still much larger land area. Why are you trying get around that.
Philadelphia has to be taken out of any metro-like statistical comparison based on greater Trenton's omission from the Philadelphia area.
500 k people. $50 B in GDP given to NYC that rightfully should be included in Philadelphia.
Exactly. Many people who have never lived in this area have a hard time understanding the true complexities of this region.
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.