If Pittsburgh wasn't so artificially small (Washington, Indiana: oceanfront, crime, compensation)

[BrianTH]

So of the central cities of larger metros, Pittsburgh was one of only a few that ranked so much lower than its metro.

QED.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So of the central cities of larger metros, Pittsburgh was one of only a few that ranked so much lower than its metro.

QED.

No, not a few. The others in the 30+ places discrepancy: El Paso; Atlanta; Miami; Minneapolis; Tampa; St. Louis; Riverside CA; and the one with the biggest discrepancy, Salt Lake City, 75 places.

The funny thing is, I have posted on the Minneapolis and SLC boards, and I've never heard this kind of stuff there. They don't seem concerned about like like the Pittsburgh board is.

EVERY CITY IS DIFFERENT!

[BrianTH]

Sigh.

My statement was VERY VERY CLEARLY about cases in which the central city was ranked lower than the metro, not the other way around.

And having looked at dozens of comparisons, you found only a few similar cases.

Few | Define Few at Dictionary.com

few   [fyoo] adjective, few·er, few·est, noun, pronoun
adjective
1. not many but more than one

Like I said, QED.

[gg]

More populated doesn't mean better. Pittsburgh isn't going to swallow any of the outlying areas, so why discuss it?

[trackstar13]

According to wikipedia, Pittsburgh had a peak population of 676,806 with only 55.5 square miles of land and a significant portion of this land is too steep to build on. The real question is how many U.S. cities with a population of more than 676,806 have less than 55.5 square miles of land? Similar to much of the rest of the country, the city of Pittsburgh has experienced a significant population loss. However, unlike other metro areas like Jacksonville, Louisville, Houston, Fort Worth, etc. Pittsburgh has not annexed many of the local suburbs. Of course there are pros and cons to this idea of annexation, but the argument that Pittsburgh is similar in land size to other cities of comparable populations is pretty weak. Very few cities compare with the aforementioned numbers and the only ones that come to mind are Boston, San Francisco, Miami, and Washington D.C. You can't ignore Pittsburgh's past and the current city population numbers for Pittsburgh are accurate, but not representative of the real size of the metro area.

As the OP mentioned, Pittsburgh appears artificially small because much of the city population has been lost, but many of these people and a significant amount of new residents are living in the Pittsburgh metro. While this may not be an issue for major cities like San Francisco or Boston, it is a big deal for a place like Pittsburgh. This discrepancy is hurting the whole Pittsburgh area in several ways and while cities like Jacksonville appear to be ready to break into the top 10 in population, Pittsburgh is struggling to stay in the top 100. I am not saying Pittsburgh should annex everything, but if many other cities continue to annex like Jacksonville and Houston, places like Pittsburgh will struggle to compete for various federal grants, major events, and new business.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Sigh.

My statement was VERY VERY CLEARLY about cases in which the central city was ranked lower than the metro, not the other way around.

And having looked at dozens of comparisons, you found only a few similar cases.

Few | Define Few at Dictionary.com



Like I said, QED.

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).

[Copanut]

It's lawyer-speak.

[pman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyf0YwUJcqk

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I don't know what QED means

Q.E.D. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as "which was to be demonstrated".

My point is your analysis has actually confirmed what we have been saying.

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.

In other words, Pittsburgh is one of a few.

You can argue through time and eternity if 13% is few or not; I don't really think it is.

few   [fyoo] adjective, few·er, few·est, noun, pronoun

adjective
1. not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously.

noun
2.
( used with a plural verb ) a small number or amount: Send me a few.
3.
the few, a special, limited number; the minority: That music appeals to the few.

pronoun
4.
( used with a plural verb ) a small number of persons or things: A dozen people volunteered, but few have shown up.

Of course "one of a few" is a perfectly fine phrase to describe your findings.

And that is just the first 61.

As an aside, I have always noted I was talking about the central cities of larger metros. As you get past the top 50 or so metros, you are no longer talking about comparably large metros.

So I am fine with what you have done so far. Helpfully, you confirmed exactly what I was saying is true. Thank you for that.

Or, more succinctly: QED.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Copanut

It's lawyer-speak.

Math-speak, actually, plus some philosophy.