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.
but thats basically every city in the GTA. Toronto has no small suburbs like Chicago or NYC has. It really doesn't make a difference though, because the suburbs are just way huger in land area.
San Jose: 939,899
San Francisco: 799,185
Oakland: 401,489
Followed by 12 more cities with over 100k residents:
Fremont, 201,691
Santa Rosa, 154,212
Hayward, 140,606
Sunnyvale, 130,519
Concord, 122,204
Vallejo, 116,844
Santa Clara, 108,518
Fairfield, 104,897
Richmond, 102,120
Berkeley, 101,555
Daly City, 101,005
Antioch, 100,586
Here's the 2009 estimates from the State of California.
San Jose 1,006,982
San Francisco 845,559
Oakland 425,068
Fremont 215,636
Santa Rosa 161,496
Hayward 150,878
Sunnyvale 138,826
Concord 124,599
Vallejo 121,055
Santa Clara 117,242
Berkeley 107,178
Daly City 107,099
Fairfield 106,440
Richmond 104,513
Antioch 100,957
The Hampton Roads area is kind of weird to think about here. The most "urban" city is Norfolk, popn 235,000. But Norfolk is surrounded by suburbs/rural-burbs with populations as large or even larger than it. For example, the City of Virginia Beach, popn 440,000 but spread over 250 sq miles! The City of Chesapeake, popn 220,000 spread over 350 sq miles (larger than NYC, folks!). The City of Suffolk, popn 80,000 spread over 400 sq miles!!
but thats basically every city in the GTA. Toronto has no small suburbs like Chicago or NYC has. It really doesn't make a difference though, because the suburbs are just way huger in land area.
I remember passing through Toronto as a 16 year old and seeing a "Mississauga population 600,000" sign on the freeway and thinking "their suburbs are larger than my state's largest city"
Didn't today's Toronto proper used to 5 separate cities, each w/ ~500,000 people? I have old Rand McNally (1996) maps that list York, North York, Etobicoke, etc as independent cities
Yeah it was all emalgamated (sp?) like 10 years ago. I think actual toronto was like a million, and the rest were like 400, 000 (each) or so. Im not exactly sure though.
The Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL metro area is interesting too. When East Moline got larger (when I lived in the area, it had a claim to be the center of civilization; since the defining act of civilization is agriculture, and at the time both red and green combines were made there) the moniker went from being the "Tri-Cities" to the "Quad Cities." Then Bettendorf grew larger than EM, and "Quint Cities" started coming in. Then Milan started to grow, and in contemplation of what would come next, went back to the Rand McNally's "Quad Cities."
Fox. DFW is similar in size to Boston as a whole but is structured VERY differently. Dallas is far more sprawling and low density. Boston is a higher density, particularly near the core of the city. In fact, most of Boston's "suburban" cities really feel like Extensions of Boston itself. Even Quincy to the South feels like part of Boston. Dallas is very different in this regard. Fort Worth doesn't feel like Dallas... it feels like its own city. Same with many of the other cities on that list.
The metro area of Boston also infriges upon other metro areas in Mass. RI, and NH. For example, Boston is about the same distance from Worcester (about 180,000) as Dallas is to Fort Worth. However, Worcester isn't part of Boston's MSA (though it is part of Boston's CSA). Providence RI (178,000) is only a little bit further away as is Manchester NH (107,000), etc. but given their locations, they're "technically" not part of Boston's MSA (though again, they're all part of the CSA) which leads to some funny statistics.
This is a great post and is interesting to me since I am from New England but live in Dallas now. The metros are very different and I appreciate each for what they are. I have to correct you on a few things. For one, Dallas to Ft. Worth is much closer than Boston is to Worcester. Boston is about 42 miles from Worcester while Dallas and Ft. Worth city borers are as close as 18 miles apart. And while it's true that the immediate suburbs of Boston are compact and dense, the overall urban area density is higher in DFW than greater Boston. Providence is close to 50 miles away and very much feels like a separate metro. Dallas and Ft. Worth share suburbs which almost seamlessly connect the two cities thereby giving one the impression that you never leave the built up areas of the DFW Metroplex.
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.
You should look at the Pearl river delta. It has an amazing
