If Pittsburgh wasn't so artificially small (Denver, Lake City: crime rate, school, taxes)

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Atlanta: 40/9 [31 places]
Miami: 44/8 [36 places]
Minneapolis: 48/16 [32 places]
Tampa: 53/13 [40 places] (More than Pittsburgh)
St. Louis: 58/19 (Identical to Pittsburgh's 39 places)
Riverside, CA: 59/12 [47 places]=(More discrepant than Pgh)
Salt Lake City: 123/48 [75 places] (Much more discrepant than Pgh)

Since when is Tampa the 13th largest metro in the country? Also, even though Riverside is technically a seperate metropolitan area than Los Angeles, it really is part of it.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I don't know what QED means, is that some sort of disguised profanity? OK, I made a mistake with El Paso. It's hard to look at these numbers and not mess up once in a while. Its discrepancy goes the other way. Spare me your "unrighteous wrath". Of the other seven, let's look at city pop rank/MSA rank:

Atlanta: 40/9 [31 places]
Miami: 44/8 [36 places]
Minneapolis: 48/16 [32 places]
Tampa: 53/13 [40 places] (More than Pittsburgh)
St. Louis: 58/19 (Identical to Pittsburgh's 39 places)
Riverside, CA: 59/12 [47 places]=(More discrepant than Pgh)
Salt Lake City: 123/48 [75 places] (Much more discrepant than Pgh)

So, for the first 61 MSAs, 7 have roughly the same amount or more discrepancy than Pittsburgh. Including Pittsburgh in that list is 8 (7 + 1) and you have 13% of all 61 MSAs with a city considerably smaller than the MSA ranking. You can argue through time and eternity if 13% is few or not; I don't really think it is. And that is just the first 61. You could go through the whole list and probably find some more examples, but you can do it this time, from 62 to at least 123 (Lexington, KY through SLC).

Most of the cities you mentioned have mitigating factors related to their discrepancies. Even so, it seems like you really had to reach just to find a few cities. Pittsburgh needs to compete with Louisville, Indianapolis, Lexington, Raleigh, etc. and all of these places have a much larger amount of land incorporated as part of the city. Here are a few possible explanations:

Atlanta = higher crime in the city or a perception by former residents so more urban sprawl
Crime in Atlanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miami = very small in terms of land area, mainly because it is on an ocean. Additionally, most people can't afford to live in the small, oceanfront city so they move further out.

Minneapolis = right next to (about 10 miles) from the second largest city in the state (St. Paul). This is a really bad example, because it would be like Pittsburgh being right next to Philly and that would lead to a huge discrepancy between city and metro area populations.

Tampa = largest tourist town in the middle of a major tourist area so the metro area just includes all of the other smaller retirement and tourist towns in the area.

St. Louis = the only good example you listed because it is similar in size in terms of population and land area as Pittsburgh. Maybe they need to annex just like Pittsburgh?

Riverside = nothing more than an exurb of Los Angeles "It is also part of the Greater Los Angeles area."
Riverside, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salt Lake City = the only major urban area for many miles so the Salt Lake City metro includes much more land area than it probably should.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Since when is Tampa the 13th largest metro in the country? Also, even though Riverside is technically a seperate metropolitan area than Los Angeles, it really is part of it.

OK, Tampa is 18. I knew I made a few mistakes. Still, not much difference. FWIW, it's right on the chart. Yada, yada, yada. Everyone has an exception for some place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Since when is Tampa the 13th largest metro in the country? Also, even though Riverside is technically a seperate metropolitan area than Los Angeles, it really is part of it.

Not that it matters, but I'd also note that Minneapolis and Tampa both have "twin" cities. San Francisco and Riverside arguably do as well. That's an interesting issue in itself, but potentially makes them not really comparable to Pittsburgh in their own way.

Twin cities (geographical proximity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I see another poster noted some of this as well.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by Katiana

OK, Tampa is 18. I knew I made a few mistakes. Still, not much difference. FWIW, it's right on the chart. Yada, yada, yada. Everyone has an exception for some place.

Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True. But Riverside is only marginally larger than a quarter of the other cities in its "metro". In my opinion, its no different than the LA area. The only difference is there is a mountain on one side of the boarder. Not the mention Pittsburgh has a million hills

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by track2514

Most of the cities you mentioned have mitigating factors related to their discrepancies. Even so, it seems like you really had to reach just to find a few cities. Pittsburgh needs to compete with Louisville, Indianapolis, Lexington, Raleigh, etc. and all of these places have a much larger amount of land incorporated as part of the city. Here are a few possible explanations:

Atlanta = higher crime in the city or a perception by former residents so more urban sprawl
Crime in Atlanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miami = very small in terms of land area, mainly because it is on an ocean. Additionally, most people can't afford to live in the small, oceanfront city so they move further out.

Minneapolis = right next to (about 10 miles) from the second largest city in the state (St. Paul). This is a really bad example, because it would be like Pittsburgh being right next to Philly and that would lead to a huge discrepancy between city and metro area populations.

Tampa = largest tourist town in the middle of a major tourist area so the metro area just includes all of the other smaller retirement and tourist towns in the area.

St. Louis = the only good example you listed because it is similar in size in terms of population and land area as Pittsburgh. Maybe they need to annex just like Pittsburgh?

Riverside = nothing more than an exurb of Los Angeles "It is also part of the Greater Los Angeles area."
Riverside, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salt Lake City = the only major urban area for many miles so the Salt Lake City metro includes much more land area than it probably should.

Didn't see this when I wrote the last post. Talk about yada, yada, yada!

Reach? I didn't create these statistics, the census bureau did. I just put them all together. Kill the messenger! I'm not going to answer every one of these issues. They're a deflection. It is what it is.

Crime rate? Who's talking about crime rates, or tourist areas, or cities out in the middle of nowhere like SLC? Are you friends with the mayor of London, perchance?

BTW, Denver has an airport that is ~ 50 sq. miles, 1/3 of the city. Virtually no one lives in the airport area. So Denver should get some special compensation b/c its density is really higher than it looks on paper. I believe Pittsburgh's airport is outside the city limits. J/K. It is what it is, in EVERY city.

[BrianTH]

I'd say at least Miami and St Louis are really pretty comparable. Atlanta is sorta an oddball because it actually isn't all that small--it is just relatively un-dense. But I'd also put DC on the list--the rankings approach doesn't really do justice to how little of the Washington Metro Area is in the District.

Anyway you slice it, though, Pittsburgh is one of only a few.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

BTW, Denver has an airport that is ~ 50 sq. miles, 1/3 of the city. Virtually no one lives in the airport area.

As we have pointed out before, even without the airport, Denver is way bigger than Pittsburgh. Also, some research confirmed that when Denver annexed the land for the airport, it also added some populated and/or developable areas.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'd say at least Miami and St Louis are really pretty comparable. Atlanta is sorta an oddball because it actually isn't all that small--it is just relatively un-dense. I'd also put DC on the list.

Anyway you slice it, though, Pittsburgh is one of only a few.

It's one of the 13%.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

It's one of the 13%.

Which makes it one of "not many but more than one".

QED.