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.
This list is absolutely absurd. Anyone who's been to these places knows SF/Oakland/San Jose is nearly twice as big of a CONTINUOUS urban area than San Diego or Seattle or Phoenix and has a far greater population. And its bigger than Dallas and several others as well. The original list had it right.
This list is absolutely absurd. Anyone who's been to these places knows SF/Oakland/San Jose is nearly twice as big of a CONTINUOUS urban area than San Diego or Seattle or Phoenix and has a far greater population. And its bigger than Dallas and several others as well. The original list had it right.
Stop your crying already and just contact the organization that released the numbers.
Source: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations
This list is absolutely absurd. Anyone who's been to these places knows SF/Oakland/San Jose is nearly twice as big of a CONTINUOUS urban area than San Diego or Seattle or Phoenix and has a far greater population. And its bigger than Dallas and several others as well. The original list had it right.
This excludes San Jose - why the count is down for San Fran - it is also on continuous urban (which is actually too low at >1,000 ppsm = rural)
San Fran like Philly or DC or Balt on this list have urban areas that maintain density into the next. So this list cuts them off to compare the areas.
I agree SF feels 4 times the size of Pheonix in terms of the city-feel, maybe more.
But in many ways these metrics help provide a comparator on CITY-like space. So in the San Fran example because of the distance between San Fran and San Jose - they are not combined - nor does the city combine - in real life they are distinct places with lessor density in the area that connects them; whereas SF and Oakland are directly connected. So this is not metro comparison but more a comparison on city concentration and population concentration to a core; or the truer "CITY" parts of an area.
In my opinion this gives a better sense on feel - in the same respect why to me Philly or Boston feel a tad larger in the city core when compared to San Fran yet the CMSA includes San Jose etc which add more population than either Boston or Philly from that perspective
^I agree. UA allows you to see how truly big a city is outside of the arbitray municipal designations.
or even inside of some super huge city boundaries - but I think we agree
Just another way to compare - there is no single way that is best and some help/hurt the areas in population count - so this debate will continue - especially after the new census data comes out - would be curious to see the CD traffic volume after the new data comes out
or even inside of some super huge city boundaries - but I think we agree
Just another way to compare - there is no single way that is best and some help/hurt the areas in population count - so this debate will continue - especially after the new census data comes out - would be curious to see the CD traffic volume after the new data comes out
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,935,989 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215
Oh you can pretty gauge what it will be.
Sad this is, we'll have to wait a year until the 2010 census comes out. It'll be out in June 2011.
They're going to continue adding migrations in/out states and cities until the end of 2010. Which puts some cities at a disadvantage and others at an advantage.
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.