Geographic misconceptions you hear

[Davy-040]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

City limits give you a control factor as they generally don't change. Metro boundaries can and do change. Two cities may share a metro but they're still two distinct entities; each with it's own mayor, city council and police force as well as schools, taxes etc.

When comparing large cities it always makes more sense to go by Metropolitan Area instead of City Limits.

Miami and Minneapolis are not even in the top 40 most populated cities in the U.S. if just going by city limits.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Davy-040

When comparing large cities it always makes more sense to go by Metropolitan Area instead of City Limits.

Miami and Minneapolis are not even in the top 40 most populated cities in the U.S. if just going by city limits.

I'm not sure why that make sense to you. As I mentioned, metro areas are inconsistent. The San Francisco Bay Area recently grew bigger due to commute patters but the city of San Francisco itself has never grown beyond it's 49 square miles. You're basing your comparison strictly on population which again, changes if the boundaries of a metro change. What if you want to compare wages or taxes? Those vary by city limit. San Francisco has the highest minimum wage in California. Not the metro, the city. Neighboring cities in the same metro have lower wages.

Try telling the people across the bay in Berkeley and Oakland that city limits don't matter. There is a street that straddles the city limit in places between those two cities. For about a mile or so, the city limit runs right through the front yard of the properties on the south side of the street. Berkeley is to the north of it, Oakland to the south. This means that their address is in Berkeley but the house is in Oakland. The residents got to vote some years ago on whether they wanted to move the line completely into one city or another and they unanimously voted against moving it. The taxes, voting and schools are in Berkeley and Berkeley has better schools. However, their building codes are in Oakland and Oakland is generally more lenient when it comes to property issues such as getting permits to remodel and adding a room on etc. So it does matter.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I'm not sure why that make sense to you. As I mentioned, metro areas are inconsistent. The San Francisco Bay Area recently grew bigger due to commute patters but the city of San Francisco itself has never grown beyond it's 49 square miles. You're basing your comparison strictly on population which again, changes if the boundaries of a metro change. What if you want to compare wages or taxes? Those vary by city limit. San Francisco has the highest minimum wage in California. Not the metro, the city. Neighboring cities in the same metro have lower wages.

Try telling the people across the bay in Berkeley and Oakland that city limits don't matter. There is a street that straddles the city limit in places between those two cities. For about a mile or so, the city limit runs right through the front yard of the properties on the south side of the street. Berkeley is to the north of it, Oakland to the south. This means that their address is in Berkeley but the house is in Oakland. The residents got to vote some years ago on whether they wanted to move the line completely into one city or another and they unanimously voted against moving it. The taxes, voting and schools are in Berkeley and Berkeley has better schools. However, their building codes are in Oakland and Oakland is generally more lenient when it comes to property issues such as getting permits to remodel and adding a room on etc. So it does matter.

They matter for the reasons you describe but they're not the most important factor when it comes to urban and demographic "heft".

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by Davy-040

When comparing large cities it always makes more sense to go by Metropolitan Area instead of City Limits.

Miami and Minneapolis are not even in the top 40 most populated cities in the U.S. if just going by city limits.

Well, while Americans get a bum rap abroad, otherwise well-educated people in other countries are just as ignorant about the United States. I live in a mid-sized Southern city. I was in New Zealand several years ago on assignment. My contact on the ground was a lovely woman. In an effort to make conversation on my first day down, she asked,

"Now your city, isn't very large, is it?"

To that I replied, "No. It's really not. About a million two in the metro area." She laughed.

"Oh. In other words, it's bigger than Auckland." And she told that story to anyone who would listen for the remainder of the two weeks I was there.

I got to know some other guys while I was there. We talked about how, upon my return to the states, I would be taking my family on a vacation to Canada.

"Well, are you going to fly there?"

"No. We'll drive."

"Across the Great Lakes?"

"Well, no. There are plenty of bridges."

I literally had to break out Google Maps and show him all the places we could cross. He literally thought that the Great Lakes divided Canada and the United States.

And, of course, whenever I go to Canada, I'm always interested in the misconceptions people up there have about my part of the country. I guess they've watched way too many episodes of In The Heat Of The Night or something. And the Canadian who asked me if my state were next to New Mexico was kind of par for the course.

None of this is to harsh on the citizens of those countries. But geography is a hard-won thing. Don't expect people from elsewhere to know your own country the way you do.

[Greysholic]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

None of this is to harsh on the citizens of those countries. But geography is a hard-won thing. Don't expect people from elsewhere to know your own country the way you do.

MTE. I find the notion that Americans are more ignorant than people of other nationalities super cringey, like ask your parents if they can point out Japan on a world map first you haughty moron lol.