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.
Yet another example of how the Triangle being split hurts its visibility in the region.
Similarly, Fort Worth should be combined with Dallas and Winston-Salem (not listed at all) should be combined with Greensboro.
The Triangle's GDP would put it in Tier 2 between Orlando and Austin at roughly $120 billion. The Triad's GDP would land it in Tier 3 between Richmond and OKC at roughly $72.5 billion. The Metroplex's combined GDP wouldn't change that it's second only to Houston...
I have never argued that The Triangle as a region isn't competitive to a higher tier; I agree wholeheartedly that Raleigh-Durham is a region roughly on the same field as Charlotte, Orlando, Nashville, etc. My list was intentionally to seperate by city. Fort Worth by itself powers $126 billion GDP, but is not in the sane field as Houston, Atlanta, or Miami. And Fort Worth by itself is worthy of recognition for what it brings to the table for The Metroplex...
Raleigh by itself is not in the same status as Charlotte, Orlando or Tampa. Raleigh and Richmond are without question peer cities, if not peer metros; same with most other Tier 3 cities. Richmond and Raleigh have the fastest growing economies in that bracket (Raleigh +8.55%, RVA +6.07%) from '14 to '15, and an argument can be made for both that they, in some respect or other, could place at the back end of Tier 2 by themselves...
Greensboro by itself pales in comparison to any of my Tier 3 cities, though its metro is Tier 3-worthy. Winston -Salem doesn't even have a $30 billion dollar economy yet is larger than several cities, like Durham, that do. Even Newport News, separated from Southside Hampton Roads, has an economic output about $1 billion ahead of Winston with ~127,000 fewer people...
So I just split by cities, while still having an understanding of the larger metros. All of this is just fun and by no means am I saying my opinion should be law, but I do think when we classify cities according to economy rather than population, we get a truer depiction of how we should group cities!
Raleigh by itself is not in the same status as Charlotte, Orlando or Tampa. Raleigh and Richmond are without question peer cities, if not peer metros; same with most other Tier 3 cities. Richmond and Raleigh have the fastest growing economies in that bracket (Raleigh +8.55%, RVA +6.07%) from '14 to '15, and an argument can be made for both that they, in some respect or other, could place at the back end of Tier 2 by themselves...
By MSA population, Richmond (and I'll add Louisville) are very much peer "cities" to Raleigh if Raleigh existed in a vacuum. But, as we know, Raleigh doesn't exist in a vacuum and is sewn to the hip of Durham at its shared city and county borders. This makes it impossible to compare the metros. As of 2015, all three MSAs were within a few thousand people of each other but how they achieve those numbers is different.
Raleigh's MSA is comparatively tiny at 2118 m2
Louisville reaches their number at 3578 m2
Richmond more than doubles Raleigh's MSA land area at 4576 m2
Interesting comparisons exist between the two Triangle MSAs combined (not the CSA) and both Nashville's and Austin's MSAs.
Raleigh+Durham MSAs were 1,826,061 ppl on 3880 m2 of land in 2015 while Nashville was 1,830,345 ppl on 6302 m2 of land. The populations were as strikingly close as Raleigh alone is to Richmond and Louisville. Even so, the land area of Raleigh+Durham MSAs combined is still only 62% of Nashville's MSA land area. Since the Triangle is growing faster than Nashville, I suspect that Raleigh+Durham is now more populated than Nashville and will put distance on it going forward. By CSA, the Triangle is already nearly 170,000 ppl larger than Nashville's CSA and, again, on much less land.
Austin's MSA was 2,000,860 on 4221 m2 of land in 2015. The population of Austin's MSA was 183 ppl/m2 while Raleigh+Durham was very similar at 182 ppl/m2. Since 2015, Austin has grown faster and is putting distance on Raleigh+Durham at the MSA level and in the density metrics. Austin doesn't have a CSA so it's moot to compare Austin to the Triangle's CSA.
IMO, both Austin and Nashville are the Triangle's true peer metros. All three are growing fast with Austin>Triangle>Nashville in growth rates. A case can be made to include Hampton Roads with these three areas as well but HR lacks the rapid growth that the other three possess and the gap between it and the other three will only increase over time. That said, unlike Richmond, HR achieves its metro population on a much smaller footprint of land.
To your last point, Raleigh alone has a tiny chance of achieving Tier 2 by itself since the Raleigh side of the Triangle is much larger than the Durham side and continues to grow more rapidly. That said, Tier 2 metros aren't sitting still either with many of them rapidly growing as well. It would be a struggle for Raleigh to reach that tier alone. I'd give Richmond even less of a chance since it's growing at less than half the rate of Raleigh.
I'm glad to see after 7 years, you guys have this all figured out concisely and conclusively.
Lol definitely not, none of this stuff is matter of fact. It's fun to play around with but I'm aware none of our perceptions matter in the real world outside of our own perceptions!
@rnc, it's not impossible to seperate Raleigh from Durham--the OMB does it. The metros that are the most difficult to seperate are Tampa and St. Petersburg, and Norfolk and Virginia Beach. What I have and am stating is not a dispute to the info you've just provided...
My list specifically was just separating multi-nodal metros, and listing what the top cities in the South are...
I do think both Richmond and Raleigh have passed Louisville in population...
By MSA population, Richmond (and I'll add Louisville) are very much peer "cities" to Raleigh if Raleigh existed in a vacuum. But, as we know, Raleigh doesn't exist in a vacuum and is sewn to the hip of Durham at its shared city and county borders. This makes it impossible to compare the metros. As of 2015, all three MSAs were within a few thousand people of each other but how they achieve those numbers is different.
Raleigh's MSA is comparatively tiny at 2118 m2
Louisville reaches their number at 3578 m2
Richmond more than doubles Raleigh's MSA land area at 4576 m2
Interesting comparisons exist between the two Triangle MSAs combined (not the CSA) and both Nashville's and Austin's MSAs.
Raleigh+Durham MSAs were 1,826,061 ppl on 3880 m2 of land in 2015 while Nashville was 1,830,345 ppl on 6302 m2 of land. The populations were as strikingly close as Raleigh alone is to Richmond and Louisville. Even so, the land area of Raleigh+Durham MSAs combined is still only 62% of Nashville's MSA land area. Since the Triangle is growing faster than Nashville, I suspect that Raleigh+Durham is now more populated than Nashville and will put distance on it going forward. By CSA, the Triangle is already nearly 170,000 ppl larger than Nashville's CSA and, again, on much less land.
Austin's MSA was 2,000,860 on 4221 m2 of land in 2015. The population of Austin's MSA was 183 ppl/m2 while Raleigh+Durham was very similar at 182 ppl/m2. Since 2015, Austin has grown faster and is putting distance on Raleigh+Durham at the MSA level and in the density metrics. Austin doesn't have a CSA so it's moot to compare Austin to the Triangle's CSA.
IMO, both Austin and Nashville are the Triangle's true peer metros. All three are growing fast with Austin>Triangle>Nashville in growth rates. A case can be made to include Hampton Roads with these three areas as well but HR lacks the rapid growth that the other three possess and the gap between it and the other three will only increase over time. That said, unlike Richmond, HR achieves its metro population on a much smaller footprint of land.
To your last point, Raleigh alone has a tiny chance of achieving Tier 2 by itself since the Raleigh side of the Triangle is much larger than the Durham side and continues to grow more rapidly. That said, Tier 2 metros aren't sitting still either with many of them rapidly growing as well. It would be a struggle for Raleigh to reach that tier alone. I'd give Richmond even less of a chance since it's growing at less than half the rate of Raleigh.
Keep in mind that looking at the size of an MSA geographically neglects the fact that many counties may be vast and rural meanwhile their small populated portions will directly abut the more metropolitan counties with commuting patterns that force them into the MSA. E.g., Sussex County, VA somehow in the Richmond MSA is a full 490 sq. miles with only 11,715 people in it. In Austin, Caldwell County is 547 sq. miles with just 38,066 people in it, meanwhile Bastrop County has nearly 900 sq. miles with only 74,171 people. That really skews stats like these. If you focus on just the MSAs, that becomes less of an issue for Raleigh. In making those comparisons, I think the density of urban area would actually be more interesting and revealing.
I'm adding 2016 urban area estimates of the first three tiers as another way to look at it with data. I wanted to do all tiers below but the website I got these from is down and I only had the cities in the top three tiers recorded on a spreadsheet that I was previously playing with. Yes, I'm a total demographics data geek.
Things that stick out to me the most are:
1. Nashville's urban population is aligned with Tier 3 cities
2. Hampton Roads' urban population either floats to the top of Tier 3 or the bottom of Tier 2.
3. Birmingham may be overstated but I don't have Tier 4 estimates handy right now
If we go by UAs and are going to presume that North Carolina's two multicore metros are not counted singularly, then two other cities need to be added to tier four. If they are counted singularly, then Raleigh-Durham bumps up to the bottom of Tier 2 and Greensboro-Winston Salem bumps up to Tier 3. I'm not sure that I'd put Greenville (SC) in Tier 4 without Spartanburg. I'd probably have them separate in Tier 5 but together in Tier 4.
I'm sure that there are other cities that can still be added.
By MSA population, Richmond (and I'll add Louisville) are very much peer "cities" to Raleigh if Raleigh existed in a vacuum. But, as we know, Raleigh doesn't exist in a vacuum and is sewn to the hip of Durham at its shared city and county borders. This makes it impossible to compare the metros. As of 2015, all three MSAs were within a few thousand people of each other but how they achieve those numbers is different.
Raleigh's MSA is comparatively tiny at 2118 m2
Louisville reaches their number at 3578 m2
Richmond more than doubles Raleigh's MSA land area at 4576 m2
Interesting comparisons exist between the two Triangle MSAs combined (not the CSA) and both Nashville's and Austin's MSAs.
Raleigh+Durham MSAs were 1,826,061 ppl on 3880 m2 of land in 2015 while Nashville was 1,830,345 ppl on 6302 m2 of land. The populations were as strikingly close as Raleigh alone is to Richmond and Louisville. Even so, the land area of Raleigh+Durham MSAs combined is still only 62% of Nashville's MSA land area. Since the Triangle is growing faster than Nashville, I suspect that Raleigh+Durham is now more populated than Nashville and will put distance on it going forward. By CSA, the Triangle is already nearly 170,000 ppl larger than Nashville's CSA and, again, on much less land.
Austin's MSA was 2,000,860 on 4221 m2 of land in 2015. The population of Austin's MSA was 183 ppl/m2 while Raleigh+Durham was very similar at 182 ppl/m2. Since 2015, Austin has grown faster and is putting distance on Raleigh+Durham at the MSA level and in the density metrics. Austin doesn't have a CSA so it's moot to compare Austin to the Triangle's CSA.
IMO, both Austin and Nashville are the Triangle's true peer metros. All three are growing fast with Austin>Triangle>Nashville in growth rates. A case can be made to include Hampton Roads with these three areas as well but HR lacks the rapid growth that the other three possess and the gap between it and the other three will only increase over time. That said, unlike Richmond, HR achieves its metro population on a much smaller footprint of land.
To your last point, Raleigh alone has a tiny chance of achieving Tier 2 by itself since the Raleigh side of the Triangle is much larger than the Durham side and continues to grow more rapidly. That said, Tier 2 metros aren't sitting still either with many of them rapidly growing as well. It would be a struggle for Raleigh to reach that tier alone. I'd give Richmond even less of a chance since it's growing at less than half the rate of Raleigh.
Also keep in mind Nashville's MSA abuts the Clarksville MSA. At 300,000 people, that is a significant population being left out of consideration for Nashville, as Clarksville, although a standalone city, has significant connections with Nashville in terms of commerce, workforce, and amenities used. Adding Montgomery County would place Nashville's MSA at roughly 2.1 million. Although it is true that Raleigh's MSA is growing faster, consider that three of the fastest growing cities in the nation are located in or near Nashville's metro area such as Franklin, Murfreesboro, and Clarksville.
Montgomery County Population Alone: 200,000
Clarksville Population Alone: 150,000 growth rate of 12.2%
Clarksville MSA: 300,000
Franklin Population Alone: 70,000+ growth rate of 16%
Williamson County Population: 210,000+
Murfreesboro Population Alone 127,000+ growth rate of 16%
Rutherford County Population: 300,000+
*Note: I am aware this is a hypothetical and the terms of adding/subtracting communities to MSAs, but some may not be aware of the information provided in order to form their own opinion.
Keep in mind that looking at the size of an MSA geographically neglects the fact that many counties may be vast and rural meanwhile their small populated portions will directly abut the more metropolitan counties with commuting patterns that force them into the MSA. E.g., Sussex County, VA somehow in the Richmond MSA is a full 490 sq. miles with only 11,715 people in it. In Austin, Caldwell County is 547 sq. miles with just 38,066 people in it, meanwhile Bastrop County has nearly 900 sq. miles with only 74,171 people. That really skews stats like these. If you focus on just the MSAs, that becomes less of an issue for Raleigh. In making those comparisons, I think the density of urban area would actually be more interesting and revealing.
I understand that some counties are vast and rural but people still live in them. If we cut off those counties in any MSA, the population will decrease unless there is absolutely nobody living in those counties.
For Raleigh, a very significant majority of the MSA lives in (one large) Wake County alone. For cities like Richmond with an independent city model surrounded by two counties with a few others very close by, it's a different model altogether.
The urban area metrics are certainly another thing to consider but there are no US estimates annually between Census years. The source I found and previously linked has already been questioned/debunked but without a clear reason explaining why. Even then, the source is updating numbers as annual estimates but not updating the land areas and density metrics. I suppose it's fake news?
Supposing that the UA source is even somewhat accurate would suggest that Nashville, Richmond, Louisville, Memphis, Jacksonville and Raleigh (again without Durham) all have similar urban area populations.
I understand that some counties are vast and rural but people still live in them. If we cut off those counties in any MSA, the population will decrease unless there is absolutely nobody living in those counties.
For Raleigh, a very significant majority of the MSA lives in (one large) Wake County alone. For cities like Richmond with an independent city model surrounded by two counties with a few others very close by, it's a different model altogether.
The urban area metrics are certainly another thing to consider but there are no US estimates annually between Census years. The source I found and previously linked has already been questioned/debunked but without a clear reason explaining why. Even then, the source is updating numbers as annual estimates but not updating the land areas and density metrics. I suppose it's fake news?
Supposing that the UA source is even somewhat accurate would suggest that Nashville, Richmond, Louisville, Memphis, Jacksonville and Raleigh (again without Durham) all have similar urban area populations.
They are all so close. I can see Nashville going to the top of that list and Richmond popping up above Louisville & Memphis. Louisville will go above Memphis unless Memphis stems its decline.
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.
