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.
Houston is a perfect example as to why comparing population between city limits can be misleading.
Houston is NOT a good example of people using city limits to boost status because they can just as well use the metro population. Either way they are in the top 5. Get it??
Quote:
Urban areas a whole nother topic in itself that seems to have a lot of politics involved.
Oh you wanna avoid that one because the mighty Philly looks bad in land area in this one.
Lets look at where the people live in Houston:
Houston- 5,000,000 in 1660 sq miles
The woodlands- 240,000 in 130 sq miles
Texas City - 110k in 75 sq miles
Galveston- 45K in 12 sq miles
Total UA pop in Houston's metro 5.4M in 1877 sq miles
Philly Urban Area- 5.4M in 1981 sq miles
Houston has the same urban population as Philly even with over 100 sq miles less.
Wait, but you want to focus on city limits right? I thought you guys said we should not look at that. Why are you shying away from the UA's 'gwillyfromphilly'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
I'm not specifically talking about urban area. I'm mainly focusing on why comparing only city limits can be flawed.
I am not saying you look at one metric to find a good comparison. It is stupid to look at something from only one angle, but on either angle Houston is still top 5.
All I am saying is that you specifically and a number of people are saying Houstonians boost city limits. I am saying that is BS because we don't need to. Either way works.
By City or metro we are still ahead of Philly. And your land area nonsense is flawed beacuse as I show above Houston can match Phillys urban area population with 100 sq miles left to spare.
Houston is NOT a good example of people using city limits to boost status because they can just as well use the metro population. Either way they are in the top 5. Get it??
But were talking about why comparing city limit population can be a flawed measure of comparison and your trying to say that Houston is not a good example of that. Are you kidding me!
Quote:
Oh you wanna avoid that one because the mighty Philly looks bad in land area in this one.
It seems like your trying to change the subject and focus more on urban areas when I'm trying to understand why you have such a problem accepting that comparing Houston's city limits population with many other cities can be indeed very flawed.
Quote:
Lets look at where the people live in Houston:
Houston- 5,000,000 in 1660 sq miles
The woodlands- 240,000 in 130 sq miles
Texas City - 110k in 75 sq miles
Galveston- 45K in 12 sq miles
Total UA pop in Houston's metro 5.4M in 1877 sq miles
Philly Urban Area- 5.4M in 1981 sq miles
Houston has the same urban population as Philly even with over 100 sq miles less.
Even though I think urban area is a better metric for comparing population, It has it flaws especially when it comes to MSA cuts. The Philly area is a perfect example as to why the urban area metric has its deep flaws. Apparently your urban area can all of a sudden be stopped by an MSA cut. Trenton and Philadelphia were part of the same urban area before the 2000 census, now when Mercer County, NJ was removed from the Philly MSA it is all of a sudden no longer part of the Philly urban area even though the urban density never decreased. Not to mention the Vineland area was well. Either way it doesn't make any sense. The only urban area in New Jersey that I could see separated from the Philly urban area is the Atlantic City urban area. Largely because of the pine barren the separates it. Overall the urban area metric pretty decent but it has its flaws. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2...nd_UCs_Map.pdf
Quote:
All I am saying is that you specifically and a number of people are saying Houstonians boost city limits. I am saying that is BS because we don't need to. Either way works.
It's clearly evident that you Houstonians love boosting about their city limits population. I see it all the time on the "Houston vs. Dallas Smackdown Thread".
Quote:
By City or metro we are still ahead of Philly. And your land area nonsense is flawed beacuse as I show above Houston can match Phillys urban area population with 100 sq miles left to spare.
I have a question for you "Htownlove" would Houston still be a more populated area if Philly had over 500 sq. miles of city limits and 10,000 sq. miles of MSA? You said land area doesn't matter so I'm waiting for your answer.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 06-09-2012 at 01:53 PM..
SF w/o SJ is 3.3 Million and with SJ is at 4.9 Million -to me the combined seems about right and would represent all the Bay area continuous development around the Bay itself
Detroit (3.7 Million) and Phoenix (3.6 Million) would come next and then a drop to 3.0 and under starting with Seattle, SD, and MSP
For some of the other large cities discussed on limits - SA would be 26th at 1.8 million, Indy at 33rd and 1.5 Million, Austin at 37th at 1.4 Million (To me Columbus at 36th and 1.4 Million nearly identical to Austin makes perfect sense, have always seen many similarities to these places including size), and Jax at 40th with 1.1 Million
Agreed. This has been argued ad nauseam, and I know that you have lived here so you agree in general. But the seperation between SF/SJ/Oak is dumbfounding.
This is how I see it. 150+ years ago when SF was settled on the tip of a Peninsula, what direction did people have to go to expand, where are it's subarbs when cars haven't been invented yet, and there were no bridges. To the east is the Pacific Ocean, to the north is the Golden Gate strait, and to the west is the SF Bay. People in SF could only go South. What's to the south? The Peninsula, the area that became silicon valley, and San Jose. So intead of strengthening the argument that this strip is 1 ua, they split the two and act like they are both seperate. Too funny!
So, if you can literally walk or take a bike from SF proper to San Jose? Why wouldn't this be one UA? Like I said, dumbfounding!
I'm pretty sure in the next 25 years, adjustments will be made to right this wrong.
Agreed. This has been argued ad nauseam, and I know that you have lived here so you agree in general. But the seperation between SF/SJ/Oak is dumbfounding.
This is how I see it. 150+ years ago when SF was settled on the tip of a Peninsula, what direction did people have to go to expand, where are it's subarbs when cars haven't been invented yet, and there were no bridges. To the east is the Pacific Ocean, to the north is the Golden Gate strait, and to the west is the SF Bay. People in SF could only go South. What's to the south? The Peninsula, the area that became silicon valley, and San Jose.
So, if you can literally walk or take a bike from SF proper to San Jose? Why wouldn't this be one UA? Like I said, dumbfounding!
I'm pretty sure in the next 25 years, adjustments will be made to right this wrong.
The San Jose and San Francisco urban areas looks very well connected to me and shouldn't be separated. It seems like both the Bay Area and the Philly Area get screwed under this metric nowadays.
Houston is NOT a good example of people using city limits to boost status because they can just as well use the metro population. Either way they are in the top 5. Get it??
Oh you wanna avoid that one because the mighty Philly looks bad in land area in this one.
Lets look at where the people live in Houston:
Houston- 5,000,000 in 1660 sq miles
The woodlands- 240,000 in 130 sq miles
Texas City - 110k in 75 sq miles
Galveston- 45K in 12 sq miles
Total UA pop in Houston's metro 5.4M in 1877 sq miles
Philly Urban Area- 5.4M in 1981 sq miles
Houston has the same urban population as Philly even with over 100 sq miles less.
Wait, but you want to focus on city limits right? I thought you guys said we should not look at that. Why are you shying away from the UA's 'gwillyfromphilly'?
I am not saying you look at one metric to find a good comparison. It is stupid to look at something from only one angle, but on either angle Houston is still top 5.
All I am saying is that you specifically and a number of people are saying Houstonians boost city limits. I am saying that is BS because we don't need to. Either way works.
By City or metro we are still ahead of Philly. And your land area nonsense is flawed beacuse as I show above Houston can match Phillys urban area population with 100 sq miles left to spare.
Stop HTown you know the cutoff here and the numbers are more significant for Philly . Ur cherry picking Houston is not more dense in the area and I have had this discussion numerous times and showed the numbers on more a dozen occasions. Houston is large but stop your nonesense. The UA for Philly gets less dense to the west not on the cut lines, the radius population to 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 show extreme differences even after the latest census. regardless Houston on the whole shows about here it is - smewhere between 4 and 7 depending on the metric; when continuity is included it drops and you know this.
But were talking about why comparing city limit population can be a flawed measure of comparison and your trying to say that Houston is not a good example of that. Are you kidding me!
It seems like your trying to change the subject and focus more on urban areas when I'm trying to understand why you have such a problem accepting that comparing Houston's city limits population with many other cities can be indeed very flawed.
not changing the subject at all. I responded directly to these two posts below which are trying to imply that Houston people use city limits to look big when these silly posts omit the fact that Houston position barely changes by city or metro. these are the two posts I quoted and responded too directly, go read back and you will see that is what I have been saying from the start:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascatlman
Only cities with penis envy bloat their city limits to prove they want to be bigger than actuality. Excellent case is Charlotte, Jax, Houston, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL_urbanlover08
City limits are used by idiotic places like Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc. to make them look "big"
If you cannot get the point that the city and the metro position are the same so the points above are flawed then I don't think I can explain anything to you further 'gwillyfromphilly'
Quote:
I have a question for you "Htownlove" would Houston still be a more populated area if Philly had over 500 sq. miles of city limits and 10,000 sq. miles of MSA? You said land area doesn't matter so I'm waiting for your answer.
Philly has 1.5 M people it can take credit for. Stretching the city limits to 500 sq miles would give them 1.5M in 500sq miles. Only thing that changed is that Philly just got 3 times less dense.
As for the areas surrounding Philly, they are not yours, get over it they won't ever be in your city limits got it "gwillyfromphilly"?
as for you Kidphilly you are not saying anything different from what I said.
facts are facts and the areas where people live in the metro of Houston does not take up any more space than the area Philly takes up. Gwilly is the one acting like we need 10K sq miles when you and him both know that almost all 6M people in the metro live in an area less than 2000 sq miles.
you philly posters need to stop trying to deceive people. No one is denying that philly is dense but you guys need to accept the fact that just because Houston's metro is alotted 10K (more like 8K but I will let you guys bloat the number to 10K) doesn't mean that is the land area the developed area takes up.
not changing the subject at all. I responded directly to these two posts below which are trying to imply that Houston people use city limits to look big when these silly posts omit the fact that Houston position barely changes by city or metro. these are the two posts I quoted and responded too directly, go read back and you will see that is what I have been saying from the start.
I'm not talking about the other guy's posts. You do a great job at dodging the questions directed at you.
Quote:
Philly has 1.5 M people it can take credit for. Stretching the city limits to 500 sq miles would give them 1.5M in 500sq miles. Only thing that changed is that Philly just got 3 times less dense.
Not to mention it would reach almost 3 million people.
Quote:
As for the areas surrounding Philly, they are not yours, get over it they won't ever be in your city limits got it "gwillyfromphilly"?
I guess that's what the towns surrounded by Houston thought to before they were annexed into Houston city proper.
Quote:
facts are facts and the areas where people live in the metro of Houston does not take up any more space than the area Philly takes up. Gwilly is the one acting like we need 10K sq miles when you and him both know that almost all 6M people in the metro live in an area less than 2000 sq miles.
The Houston MSA is about 10,000 sq. miles, so its not like using that size area to compare Houston is that farfetched.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 06-09-2012 at 04:02 PM..
SF w/o SJ is 3.3 Million and with SJ is at 4.9 Million -to me the combined seems about right and would represent all the Bay area continuous development around the Bay itself
Detroit (3.7 Million) and Phoenix (3.6 Million) would come next and then a drop to 3.0 and under starting with Seattle, SD, and MSP
For some of the other large cities discussed on limits - SA would be 26th at 1.8 million, Indy at 33rd and 1.5 Million, Austin at 37th at 1.4 Million (To me Columbus at 36th and 1.4 Million nearly identical to Austin makes perfect sense, have always seen many similarities to these places including size), and Jax at 40th with 1.1 Million
I think the idea is to keep cities that are historically / culturally distinct separate from each other. You could argue San Francisco and San Jose are two cities in the same region each with their own suburbs that happen to have suburbs that meet. Someone from the northern SF penisula or Marin County is part of San Francisco that didn't get annexed (an extension of San Francisco's growth). Similarly, the suburbs of New York City and Philadelphia may meet enough for the developmeent to be continuous, but the two urban areas should not be merged, most places grew out of Philadelphia (that would have gotten annexed by Philly if the pattern held from years ago) or grew of New York City.
TECHNICALLY sure, that's the 'population of the city', but why is it only Americans seem so hung up about comparing city limit population, when they don't really matter? It is metropolitan areas that matter. Around the world, if you ask someone from almost any country 'what is the population of the city you live in' they will almost always say the size of their metropolitan area. Cities outside the US tend to be more centralized, with a lot of people commuting into the city. A city's downtown size depends on the size of it's commuting area: the area where at a significant percentage of people commute into the city for work, leisure, amenities.etc. Are American cities really THAT de-centralized?
I know there are many cases where many cities have merged together - Baltimore-Washington, or So-Cal, where it's hard to know where one metro begins and where one ends. But still, it's ridiculous to treat San Francisco as a city of 700,000, on the level of I don't know, Birmingham, Alabama or something. One should treat San Francisco as a metropolitan area of at least 4 million, or else speak of the Bay Area conurbation with it's 7-8 million people.
Funny you mention Birmingham. I was in New Zealand a couple of years ago on a shoot and began chit-chatting with my producer. She knew nothing about my city and asked, "Now, I read where Birmingham is kind of a small town, right? 200,000 people?"
"Well, yes and no. Birmingham has 200,000, but the metro area is 1,200,000." Actually, it's a little shy of that number, but I was estimating.
"Oh. Well that makes Birmingham bigger than Auckland, our biggest city. How funny." So for the rest of the shoot, she'd tell people that story.
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 only urban area in New Jersey that I could see separated from the Philly urban area is the Atlantic City urban area. Largely because of the pine barren the separates it. Overall the urban area metric pretty decent but it has its flaws. 
