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.
MSA's are infinitely more reliable than using "city population" when it comes to generating a list that accurately ranks the largest and most important areas in the country from a business/cultural/population/size/influence perspective. The list of the 15 largest MSA's gives you a pretty accurate ranking of the largest and most important areas of this country:
Not perfect as Riverside doesn't have much of identity as people just think of it as being part of LA. But overall, that is a fairly accurate ranking of the most important areas in this country. You have the same Big-3 as the city populations, the 2 major Texas areas, the large east coast areas, and places that have boomed in recent years like Atlanta and Miami. From a business/commerce/population/cultural influence perspective, this is a fair list of the 15th largest and most important areas.
Now lets look at the 15 largest "cities":
1. New York, 2. LA, 3. Chicago, 4. Houston, 5. Philly, 6. Phoenix, 7. San Antonio, 8. San Diego, 9. Dallas, 10. San Jose, 11. Jacksonville, 12. Indy, 13. Austin, 14, San Francisco, 15. Columbus.
The fact that "city population rankings" present a ranking that lists places like Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Austin, and Columbus as being larger than places likeDenver, Atlanta, Boston, and Miami shows you that using city populations is an extremely arbitrary and useless way of ranking the largest and most important cities in this country. Indy is a great city, but if it is above Atlanta on a list measuring size, then something is wrong with the list. MSA's might not be perfect, but using them at least presents a ranking that for the most part is an accurate representation of the order of largest and most important areas in this country.
City population rankings have a lot more discrepancies than MSA rankings and it's not even close. Using city population gives you a list that presents an extremely flawed order of the nation's most important areas. MSA's OTOH hand give you a list that gives a pretty accurate ranking of the most important areas in this country from a population/commerce/business/culture/overall influence perspective.
Like I said in earlier posts, city population rankings are just as useless as using MSA's. For example, The Riverside MSA has over 27000 sq. miles. 27000 SQUARE MILES!!! How many states are smaller in size than the Riverside MSA? There are many examples like this across the country. On the other hand, another problem with the MSA is that it splits some regions. The Bay Area, Greater LA, Greater Cleveland, Balt/Wash and Raleigh/Durham are examples of this. This is why MSA's are just as useless as city proper populations!! But if we're going to use one these ridiculous government metro definitions, the CSA is the way to go.
The list of the largest MSA's gives you a fairly accurate ranking of the largest and most important areas of this country from a business/cultural/size/population/commerce perspective. The list of largest "cities" doesn't. That's why MSA's are better.
The 15 largest MSA's consist of the "Big 3" (NYC, LA, Chicago), the influential east coast areas (Philly, Boston, DC), the large west coast areas (SF, Seattle, Phoenix), the two massive Texas areas (Dallas and Houston), two southern areas that have rapidly grown (Atlanta and Miami), and a place that still has a large impact on manufacturing in this country (Detroit). It does also gives you Riverside, which is the only place on here that really doesn't have it's own identity as most people usually think of it as being part of LA. Overall though, it seems like a pretty legit list to me.
As I mentioned above, the ranking of largest "cities" generates a list that ranks places like Indy, Jacksonville, Columbus and Nashville as being larger than Denver, Boston, Atlanta, and Miami. Any list that generates such a goofy ranking of cities is extremely arbitrary and unreliable when it comes to trying the rank the most important areas in this country. Indy has almost double the "city" population of Atlanta, yet Atlanta's urban core is infinitely larger than that of Indy. That's because Downtown Atlanta is the center of a metro area that is home to millions and millions of more people. People from all over the Atlanta metro area work there every day even though they live in suburbs that aren't technically in Atlanta.
Of course the boundaries between Indy and Carmel/Greenwood matter on a local level as far as schools, government, taxes, etc are concerned. No one would ever argue otherwise. But from a national perspective, the metro area is what counts. If you meet some people on a cruise, are you going to say that you are from Greenwood, Indiana? Or are you going to say the Indy area? The cities in this country that people view as being the largest are those at the center of dynamic metro areas (Atlanta, Miami, Boston) which are home to millions and millions of people and exert a large influence on the rest of the country. The fact that Indy annexes it's entire county might inflate it's "city" size, but no one in their right mind would ever view Indy as being an overall bigger place than Boston. That has been the point all long as to why MSA's are better.
I went to undergrad at IU Bloomington and a TON of people from the Chicago area live there. People from Downers Grove, Naperville, or Evanston would simply tell you they were from "Chicago" when you first meant them. If you asked specifically then they would tell you the suburb, but they say "Chicago" first. Obscure suburbs matter from a local perspective, but when you are meeting someone from a different area of the country you simply tell them you are from the namesake of the major metro area. If you meet someone in LA on a business meeting, are you going to say you are from Stockbridge, Georgia, or Atlanta? Would you say Lynn, Massachusetts or Boston?
Everything is going to be somewhat arbitrary - just look at how our 50 states vary in size and scope. MSA's might not be perfect, but when compared to "city populations" they generate an infinitely more accurate ranking of the largest areas in this country from a business/cultural/size/population/commerce perspective. Indy could annex the entire 9 county region and claim that it's city population is 1.7 million, but it wouldn't do a thing to change the rest of the country's perception of how big Indy really is.
If someone was proud to live in Greenwood, I would suspect they would say that's where they're from, and then might follow it up with a directional reference of, "Just south of Indy", for example. When people want to be associated with the "business/cultural/size/population/commerce" that is when people say "Indianapolis" instead of "a suburb of Indianapolis". The same goes for the people you met at IU. They wanted to be associated with and viewed as a resident/everyday participant in, "Chicago".
If I lived next you and you had a pool in your backyard, does that mean I have a pool? It shouldn't matter that there are "arbitrary" lines separating my house and property from your house and property, right? I mean, I don't live in your house, I didn't pay to have the pool installed, I don't pay for the chemicals for it, I don't clean it out, and I'm not liable for any possible injuries people might receive from using it... So as your next door neighbor separated by arbitrary boundaries, I have a pool, right?
Once again, city population is not a "one-size-fits-all" measure of a city's importance or relevance. I would say population density of a city is much more relevant there. But it is a measure of how much that city can effect the area in which the city resides.
47% of the Indianapolis Metro lives inside Indianapolis.
8% of the Atlanta Metro lives inside Atlanta.
A new rail system for the metro is going to be voted on for both Indianapolis and Atlanta that will primarily focus on the core cities.
Which one is going to have an easier time getting 51% of the metro population to vote "Yes" on a new system that primarily services the city, with limited expansion into the other parts of the metro?
If every single person in Indy voted yes, and some people in the towns and cities in Indy's metro voted yes, the system gets built.
If every single person votes yes for the system in Atlanta, it still needs 43% from the other towns and cities, otherwise the people NOT LIVING IN ATLANTA get to decide if Atlanta builds the new system. Check out the Atlanta forum to see how well their current MARTA situation is turning out. Even though those suburbanites might claim, "Atlanta", it seems like there a quite a few people who don't want any of their tax money going to Atlanta (the actual city) for expansion.
City boundaries and their populations do matter.
Last edited by A2DAC1985; 07-13-2012 at 10:07 AM..
Reason: my math was fuzzy
Indianapolis is bigger than Atlanta! Because metro doesn't count! I can see the Narnians arguing that Indianapolis is a more major place for that reason, lol.
Indianapolis is bigger than Atlanta! Because metro doesn't count! I can see the Narnians arguing that Indianapolis is a more major place for that reason, lol.
They do, and that's why they're fighting so hard in this losing battle to say that city limits matters.
It's really not about city limits. It's about how important they feel, and they'll use any gimmick to prop themselves up and make themselves look better.
They want more taxpayer-sucking events like the Super Bowl, because they need to see their city on television. That makes them feel important. They want the entire country also to think they're important so they might one day actually become really important.
The truth is that Indy's fine where it is. It could use better food, but the size is about right. When cities start getting bigger than Indy, like Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco, a lot of problems come with that. Indy's relatively cheap, and the highways are uncluttered. Get a decent Italian beef down here, and call it a day.
They do, and that's why they're fighting so hard in this losing battle to say that city limits matters.
It's really not about city limits. It's about how important they feel, and they'll use any gimmick to prop themselves up and make themselves look better.
They want more taxpayer-sucking events like the Super Bowl, because they need to see their city on television. That makes them feel important. They want the entire country also to think they're important so they might one day actually become really important.
The truth is that Indy's fine where it is. It could use better food, but the size is about right. When cities start getting bigger than Indy, like Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco, a lot of problems come with that. Indy's relatively cheap, and the highways are uncluttered. Get a decent Italian beef down here, and call it a day.
Greg honestly go back to trolling the California forums. your useless comments are getting old and annoying.
Also stop making that stupid arguement that Indianapolis was robbed and suffered a horrible loss of a million dollars for the Super Bowl. you obivioiusly have NO idea what publicity is or economic impact so keep your opinions of the Super Bowl to yourself until you study it alot more and realize what major benefits the great city of Indianapolis got from the Super Bowl.
The truth is that Indy's fine where it is. It could use better food, but the size is about right. When cities start getting bigger than Indy, like Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco, a lot of problems come with that. Indy's relatively cheap, and the highways are uncluttered.
This I actually agree with. I don't know about the food, but that's just because I'm not an adventurous eater. But as for the city, bigger is not always better. As much as people love to complain about the traffic, a quick trip to Chicago makes you realize how good we have it here. I mean, most of the time during rush hour, traffic flows pretty well except for a handful of known bottlenecks. And Indy, really the Midwest as a whole outside Chicago, is a cheap area to live, which is another major plus.
The truth is that Indy's fine where it is. It could use better food, but the size is about right. When cities start getting bigger than Indy, like Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco, a lot of problems come with that. Indy's relatively cheap, and the highways are uncluttered. Get a decent Italian beef down here, and call it a day.
True. I would add that we get decent pizza along with the Italian beef.
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.
