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.
No, people always look at metro numbers. Many cities have small city limits, but large metro areas. Atlanta for example. When sports teams move/are formed, or corporations are looking for a move, they look at metro areas. They even look at TV Markets and Radio Markets (sports teams). I can't believe you think metro areas are worthless, when it is really the other way around (for the most part).
The City of Los Angeles has a larger area than NYC, and yet it's still behind by over 4 million people.
The city does not need the suburbs and the suburbs do not need the city.
Without suburbs, pollution would be down because less people would need cars because they'd live in the city. And the suburbs are good for farming.
They're two completely different things and should not be put together the way they are. It's just not fair for places like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Philly. They're all dense, people are jampacked in the city with less poeple sprawling all over the place. It's basically cheating to count the suburbs.
You can't be serious . The suburbs do in fact need the city. The suburbs grew up around the city, and use its resources. The city needs the suburbs because many of its workers reside there. Why do you think city populations rise so much in the daytime?
I am curious to hear why you think otherwise, because right now, it is laughable.
You can't be serious . The suburbs do in fact need the city. The suburbs grew up around the city, and use its resources. The city needs the suburbs because many of its workers reside there. Why do you think city populations rise so much in the daytime?
I am curious to hear why you think otherwise, because right now, it is laughable.
Yes, the suburbs need the city in America, but they shouldn't. People should live in the city. All the suburban people do is pollute because they drive 50 miles to and from work everyday.
Suburbs should be used for farming. I don't mind if suburbs go out 20 miles, but 100 miles in LA is ridiculous. It's wrong. LA sprawls into other small-medium sized cities and scoops up their population. I just don't think it's fair. Not everybody in the LA metro even works in the city. People may work 100 miles away in a medium-sized city.
If you want to do it by how many people work within the city we can. New York takes the cake on that one too.
This is getting old. I don't even know why I'm getting into it this much. I love New York, I love LA, I'm moving to LA. So I'm not being biased or anything. It's just a bunch of bullcrap. NYC will always be America's Icon City no matter how big the "metro" is... see, that doesn't sound right. "Metro?" It should be "city."-----NYC will always be America's Icon City no matter how big the CITY is.
a bit harsh eh? Well I love Chicago, its one of the two cities i want to move to after college, but Houston is no turd, lol. First chicago is not the Second City, its LA, and there is a HUGE HUGE gap between LA and Chicago. With the population growth lately in Houston, H-Town will definetaly get Chicago and become the third city. Chicago is great, but so is Houston.
Yes its harsh, but I call it like I see it. No matter how many people Houston gets, its still wont ever be like Chicago, thats what I was getting at. Houston struck me as odd. The downtown was odd, very spread out, not much to do. The suburbs were decent, but very sprawling, lots of cookie-cutters, etc, etc. I just didnt like the area, its just not what Im looking for. Its business and more business around there. The city's downtown should be its core, and Houstons core was quite boring. Not a bad city at all, just not Chicago. So like I said, no matter how big Houston gets, it just wont be Chicago.
As for the second city, yes, LA is technically 2nd when it comes to population. But Chicago has always been known as the 2nd city because NY is the 1st city and Chicago is as close to NYC as you can get in terms of style, nightlife, living, etc. Chicago is also called the "windy city", but its not that windy, not even close to the windiest city in the US. We get strange nicknames here.
Yes, the suburbs need the city in America, but they shouldn't. People should live in the city. All the suburban people do is pollute because they drive 50 miles to and from work everyday.
Suburbs should be used for farming. I don't mind if suburbs go out 20 miles, but 100 miles in LA is ridiculous. It's wrong. LA sprawls into other small-medium sized cities and scoops up their population. I just don't think it's fair. Not everybody in the LA metro even works in the city. People may work 100 miles away in a medium-sized city.
If you want to do it by how many people work within the city we can. New York takes the cake on that one too.
This is getting old. I don't even know why I'm getting into it this much. I love New York, I love LA, I'm moving to LA. So I'm not being biased or anything. It's just a bunch of bullcrap. NYC will always be America's Icon City no matter how big the "metro" is... see, that doesn't sound right. "Metro?" It should be "city."-----NYC will always be America's Icon City no matter how big the CITY is.
I cannot believe are actually saying city populations are the correct way to judge a city size. If we went by that distinction, then Austin is bigger than Atlanta and Jacksonville is the largest city in Florida.Phoenix is bigger than Philadelphia and so on and so on. If you ask the average Floridian what the true largest city in Florida, they will tell you Miami. Does anyone honestly believe Austin is larger than Atlanta.
Does anyone honestly believe San Antonio is larger than Boston. Does anyone honestly believe Indianapolis is larger than Seattle. City population numbers are irrelevant in determining how big the city truly is. Mostly because state has different laws on annexing land. If every city had 500 sq miles like Houston, I'm sure Houston would not be the 4th largest city in the nation. Also, cities outgrow their boundaries. They are only municipalities hindered inside imaginary boundaries but they grow outside of them.
And Spade, I already mentioned the per capita option--People per square mile. It's not a great option, but it's better than metro population. Who cares how many people live OUTSIDE the city? Lawfully, you are not a part of the city unless you have residency in it.
The argument you're giving me is that some cities are larger in area than others. You're correct. But some metro areas are larger in area than others. LA for example, they're the sprawl capital of the world, so how is that fair to other cities? So their metro covers more area because they sprawl, correct? So they can get a greater population because they sprawl halfway up the coast.
It should be based on population density is what I'm trying to say.
1) Counting only city populations will not be any more "fair" than counting whole metros because city boundaries are not uniform, nor are densities.
2) Chicago is not called the Second City because it ranks after New York in anything. I though that was pretty well-known.
Taken from Wikipedia:
[edit] United States
In the United States, the term is a nickname for Chicago which refers to Chicago being the largest urban area second to New York City. Actually, in the late 1980s, Chicago was displaced by Los Angeles as the second largest city in the U.S. Chicago has embraced its "Second City" moniker and has widely accepted it as a shorthand name for the city; this is the origin of the name of the comedy troupe The Second City.
And Spade, I already mentioned the per capita option--People per square mile. It's not a great option, but it's better than metro population. Who cares how many people live OUTSIDE the city? Lawfully, you are not a part of the city unless you have residency in it.
The argument you're giving me is that some cities are larger in area than others. You're correct. But some metro areas are larger in area than others. LA for example, they're the sprawl capital of the world, so how is that fair to other cities? So their metro covers more area because they sprawl, correct? So they can get a greater population because they sprawl halfway up the coast.
It should be based on population density is what I'm trying to say.
Nah man, LA is a denser metro. Go look at urban area numbers. The only reason why people think it is so big is because the counties are freakin huge!
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.
. The suburbs do in fact need the city. The suburbs grew up around the city, and use its resources. The city needs the suburbs because many of its workers reside there. Why do you think city populations rise so much in the daytime?
