PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : July 1 '06 CSA Census estimates (large MSAs with no CSAs added)



Pages : [1] 2

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 1:22 PM
Hi folks, there's been much talk recently about the latest census bureau MSA population estimates, based on the July 1 '06 estimates, but I checked the website yesterday and saw that they'd also compiled the CSAs, so I thought I'd post it. I added large MSAs to the list below, in cases where they don't have a corresponding CSA. The second number represents the raw growth from July 1 2000 (NOT April, 2000) to July 1 2006.

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
17. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
18. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
19. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
20. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

21. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032
23. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925
24. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
25. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
26. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
27. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
28. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
29. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
30. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

31. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927

Reverberation
Apr 10, 2007, 2:56 PM
How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.

shanthemanatl
Apr 10, 2007, 3:06 PM
How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.

Is it possible that the part of the Houston CSA that is not in the Houston MSA might have lost population?

Or did Houston lose some counties that were previously included in its CSA?

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 3:09 PM
I'm using a July to July reference period, NOT an April 2000 to July reference period. That's the difference you're noting. It would affect every number shown above, but in an equal manner for each CSA. I thought it was more informative to present an even 6-yr growth number versus a 6-yr plus 3 months period, in case people wanted to scale off the numbers for hypothetical future growth possibilities.

JiminyCricket II
Apr 10, 2007, 5:10 PM
it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?

vertex
Apr 10, 2007, 5:24 PM
I'm betting it won't. Judging by trends in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division of the MSA (it actually shrank so far this decade), along with the build-out in Orange county, the only place left for rampant growth is inland.

And judging by the quality-of-life problems already present for folks living inland, I think more people will simply vote with their feet and move on.

Crawford
Apr 10, 2007, 5:28 PM
it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?

How on earth would the above data lead you to this conclusion?

LA might pass NYC or it might not, but nothing in the above data would indicate LA's relative growth would lead it to pass NYC in the next decade.

I don't think LA will pass NYC anytime soon, not because of growth rates, but because of MSA/CSA definitions.

NYC is close to adding a few populous counties in PA and might even "steal" a county in NJ from Philly (Burlington) in the next few years. Also, NYC will merge with Philly long before LA merges with further away and smaller San Diego.

JiminyCricket II
Apr 10, 2007, 5:41 PM
How on earth would the above data lead you to this conclusion?

i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?

Crawford
Apr 10, 2007, 5:48 PM
i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?


LA is not growing 80% faster. Check your math.

You claimed LA is going to pass NYC in a decade. Using the above growth rate, it would still be short a few million 10 years from now.

You are also assuming:

1. Constant growth rates (which won't happen, rates for both cities will go up or go down) and
2. No change in the composition of the two CSAs (which probably won't happen).

vertex
Apr 10, 2007, 5:49 PM
i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?

If you simply extrapolate the numbers in a linear fashion, you could come to that conclusion.

But as we all know, growth is not linear. The only real growth occurring in the LA CSA right now is in Riverside, and I think that will slow down before LA can pass NY.

donybrx
Apr 10, 2007, 5:57 PM
it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?

As I think about this prospect, even if possible, notwithstanding earthquake activity, water shortages and the like (or severe drought in the east, for that matter)................who the hell cares?

bnk
Apr 10, 2007, 6:10 PM
How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.

Same thing for Chicago 407K MSA vs 390K CSA growth??

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 6:13 PM
:previous: Well, as far as who the hell cares, there are some individuals, myself included, who enjoy tracking population trends and who are fascinated by population stats. So there's that. I agree with prior posters, however, that if the LA CSA passes the NYC CSA it would have to still be a couple to several decades down the road, for reasons previously cited by several posters. Without question though, if and when that happens, it would be a momentous and historic shift in the nation's demographics, since the NYC area has been the most populous for, seemingly, forever. So, it's interesting and fun to think about.

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 6:22 PM
Same thing for Chicago 407K MSA vs 390K CSA growth??

well, before this gets out of hand, let me post some numbers, again, these are directly from the census tables, and reflect JULY 1, 2000 through JULY 1 2006 growth.

Atlanta MSA 856,266 Atlanta CSA 894,341
Houston MSA 797,790 Houston CSA 799,262
Chicago MSA 384,966 Chicago CSA 390,434

I think the discrepancies you are citing are going back to the April 1 2000 census base as a reference. I'm using July 1 through July 1 to get an even-year number comparison, not six years plus three months.

bnk
Apr 10, 2007, 6:33 PM
well, before this gets out of hand, let me post some numbers, again, these are directly from the census tables, and reflect JULY 1, 2000 through JULY 1 2006 growth.

Atlanta MSA 856,266 Atlanta CSA 894,341
Houston MSA 797,790 Houston CSA 799,262
Chicago MSA 384,966 Chicago CSA 390,434

I think the discrepancies you are citing are going back to the April 1 2000 census base as a reference. I'm using July 1 through July 1 to get an even-year number comparison, not six years plus three months.

Baby boom adds to area's growth
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/330043,4_1_JO06_JOLIETCENSUS_S1.article)

April 6, 2007

By ANDREA HEIN STAFF WRITER

JOLIET -- News that the population of the Chicago metropolitan area, including Joliet, has increased since 2000 probably won't shock most residents.

But people may be interested to learn that recent figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of births within the 14 counties stretching from Wisconsin through Indiana added more to the population than people moving into the area alone.

Understanding just how much Joliet, Will County and the Chicago region are expanding and how they rank compared to population changes nationwide depends on the population statistics and what is included or excluded from that data.

This week the U.S. Census Bureau released its list of population growth from 2000 to 2006 within metropolitan areas.

Defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for statistical purposes, the Chicago Metro Area includes Chicago, Naperville, Joliet, Elgin, Arlington Heights, Evanston, Schaumburg, Skokie, Des Plaines and Gary, Ind.

During the past six years, the Chicago Metro Area grew by more than 407,000 people: It now ranks 10th in the nation for numerical population growth, according to census data.

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 6:37 PM
:previous: yes, as I've stated a few times now, the difference is whether you are starting from April 2000 or July 2000 as a base. I posted a six year July to July comparison. That is the correct number for the Chicago MSA if you reference the April 2000 population numbers, but that's NOT what I used for my first post, for Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, or any other metro.

bnk
Apr 10, 2007, 6:39 PM
:previous:

Thanks I got you.

ltsmotorsport
Apr 10, 2007, 7:47 PM
Do you have the figures for the next 15?

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 8:29 PM
:previous: the next 16, using the same guidelines as in my first post (felt compelled to go one extra, since it was Vegas, with its absurd growth rate):

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
17. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
18. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
19. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
20. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

21. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032
23. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925
24. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
25. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
26. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
27. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
28. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
29. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
30. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

31. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 8:49 PM
You can see how crazy the growth in Las Vegas is by going up the list until you find a higher number of new people over that time period. You have to go all the way up to number 13, Phoenix! Vegas is adding more people than the next 17 larger MSAs or CSAs!

LosAngelesSportsFan
Apr 10, 2007, 10:12 PM
there goes the theory that LA wasnt growing. 500,000 more than the nearest other metro.

SteveD
Apr 10, 2007, 10:36 PM
Yep...LA way out in front then a big clump with Atlanta, Dallas and Houston next in line...

SacTownAndy
Apr 10, 2007, 11:01 PM
Some other changes since last year- it looks like both Charlotte and Sacramento have passed Cincinnati.

tocoto
Apr 11, 2007, 1:22 AM
From the numbers on your list it seems Boston should be #5.

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 1:33 AM
:previous: whoa nellie Tocoto! You're right! I'll go back and edit!! I was cutting and pasting from census spreadsheets, and made a careless error! :whip:

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 3:33 AM
I just noticed that I got moved again. Would a moderator please explain why this was moved from "City Discussions" to what I would presume it a far less viewed area of the forum, "United States"? After all, this thread, which lists the census bureau CSA population estimates, is fostering discussions about cities. I've only been in this forum for a little over a year, and I really would like an explanation. Is there some reason why it can't remain in "city discussions"? If so, what is it?

dktshb
Apr 11, 2007, 5:46 AM
I'm betting it won't. Judging by trends in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division of the MSA (it actually shrank so far this decade), along with the build-out in Orange county, the only place left for rampant growth is inland.

And judging by the quality-of-life problems already present for folks living inland, I think more people will simply vote with their feet and move on.

Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.

dktshb
Apr 11, 2007, 5:58 AM
I just noticed that I got moved again. Would a moderator please explain why this was moved from "City Discussions" to what I would presume it a far less viewed area of the forum, "United States"? After all, this thread, which lists the census bureau CSA population estimates, is fostering discussions about cities. I've only been in this forum for a little over a year, and I really would like an explanation. Is there some reason why it can't remain in "city discussions"? If so, what is it?
Well it seems to fit with all the other threads in this US Regional section.

LMich
Apr 11, 2007, 7:45 AM
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:

Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
Dallas - 12,360 mi²
New York City - 11,842 mi²
Houston - 10,908 mi²
Chicago - 10,874 mi²
Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
Denver - 9,085 mi²
San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
Boston - 7,227 mi²
Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
Detroit - 5,847 mi²
Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.

vertex
Apr 11, 2007, 7:52 AM
Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.

you're right, I read it wrong.

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 12:28 PM
:previous: One post up...LMich...thanks for posting that. I've said several times in this forum that, while enormous, Atlanta's land area is really not out of line with several other of the nation's largest metros, in particular other sunbelt sprawlers. This is not meant to minimize Atlanta's jaw-dropping sprawl, but it is meant to point out that the area is sometimes unfairly singled out, since there's really comparable sprawl in many other areas.

dave8721
Apr 11, 2007, 2:19 PM
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:

Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
Dallas - 12,360 mi²
New York City - 11,842 mi²
Houston - 10,908 mi²
Chicago - 10,874 mi²
Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
Denver - 9,085 mi²
San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
Boston - 7,227 mi²
Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
Detroit - 5,847 mi²
Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.

Wow. Miami really is the oddball of the sunbelt with its density. Check out the extents of the 4 major metros (all with relatively equal population):

Dallas - 12,360 mi²
Houston - 10,908 mi²
Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 3:03 PM
Yeah, Dave, if Miami was able to sprawl like that, rest assurred, it would, but it can't, because of the Everglades.

urban_encounter
Apr 11, 2007, 3:40 PM
Some other changes since last year- it looks like both Charlotte and Sacramento have passed Cincinnati.

22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032


It's amazing that even with a cool housing market Sacramento still jumped from #26 to #22, adding 269,032 people..

Although it looks like the housing market is finally starting to recover, with new homes sales jumping by 10% in the 1st quarter of '07 accoridng to the Business Journal...

dave8721
Apr 11, 2007, 6:36 PM
Yeah, Dave, if Miami was able to sprawl like that, rest assurred, it would, but it can't, because of the Everglades.

Actually the 5000 sq mile area includes a good chunk of the Everglades. I'd say well over half of the area listed as Miami's metro in unihabited and uninhabitable (less than 30% of Miami-Dade's ~2000 sqmiles are inhabited for example). So the populated portion of Miami's metro is closer to 2000 sq miles than 5000 sqmiles.

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 6:48 PM
Actually the 5000 sq mile area includes a good chunk of the Everglades. I'd say well over half of the area listed as Miami's metro in unihabited and uninhabitable (less than 30% of Miami-Dade's ~2000 sqmiles are inhabited for example). So the populated portion of Miami's metro is closer to 2000 sq miles than 5000 sqmiles.

Oh, I know Dave. My point is that Miami is only able to sprawl north and south, which it most certainly is doing, and can't go east or west due to the ocean and the Everglades. 75% of metro Atlanta's 5.5 million people live in the core five or six counties (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, etc), not the other 20+ that comprise the MSA and CSA. Of course I realize that central Miami is far more dense than central Atlanta.

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 7:01 PM
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032


It's amazing that even with a cool housing market Sacramento still jumped from #26 to #22, adding 269,032 people..

Although it looks like the housing market is finally starting to recover, with new homes sales jumping by 10% in the 1st quarter of '07 accoridng to the Business Journal...


Zowie!! I have to admit I'm not familiar with the area, but those towns following Sacremento caught my eye, so I pulled up microsoft streets and started looking around. Truckee is 100 miles from downtown Sacramento! That's part of the same metro?

ltsmotorsport
Apr 11, 2007, 8:38 PM
It has been for a few years now. It's not really a big deal since Truckee is a small mountain town of only 10-15k people. The census bureau believes that Truckee and some town in NV near Carson City are more tied to Sacramento than Reno, but I don't know if I feel that way. Probably doesn't matter though cause I'm sure Sacramento and Reno will be combined in the next 20 years, if not sooner.

Another question; have they included Stockton and/or Modesto in the Bay Area yet, or will that not happen for a while?

SteveD
Apr 11, 2007, 9:42 PM
The short answer is "no".

The long answer is, here's what the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area is. It's a combination of:

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Napa County, CA

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division
Alameda County, CA
Contra Costa County, CA
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division
Marin County, CA
San Francisco County, CA
San Mateo County, CA

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
San Benito County, CA
Santa Clara County, CA

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Santa Cruz County, CA

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Sonoma County, CA

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Solano County, CA

AccraGhana
Apr 11, 2007, 9:53 PM
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:

Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
Dallas - 12,360 mi²
New York City - 11,842 mi²
Houston - 10,908 mi²
Chicago - 10,874 mi²
Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
Denver - 9,085 mi²
San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
Boston - 7,227 mi²
Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
Detroit - 5,847 mi²
Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.

Like I said before, if you superimpose the land mass the constitutes metropolitan Dallas or Atlanta, over places like Detroit and Boston, the Detroit and Boston totals would shoot up by nearly a million folks. Thus, you really have just as many folks living in a given area but are simply not being counted due to the formula used to calculate totals. Hence, it’s not a true comparison.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me the practical functionality of these figures? I know that in regards to cities, money is often allocated from the State based upon the size of the city. I am wondering just how much politics is involved in these rankings given that the methodology is born from the federal governments Office of Management and Budget I believe.

I think a better methodology is to simply do a 100-mile radius from every core city and do a head count. The problem with that methodology, of course, is that the circle would truncate part of county totals and thus there would be no way to isolate and count the portion that intersects with the circle. However, a given radius would give a much better indication of how populated an area is than the methodology of commuting patterns.

urban_encounter
Apr 12, 2007, 1:12 AM
Zowie!! I have to admit I'm not familiar with the area, but those towns following Sacramento caught my eye, so I pulled up microsoft streets and started looking around. Truckee is 100 miles from downtown Sacramento! That's part of the same metro?


I don't totally understand Truckee either, since they are so far away. I suspect that it has more to do with the residents of Truckee commuting into to Sacramento for work since Truckee is mostly an Alpine town.

Most of the population of Sacramento MSA is Sacramento County (about 1.4 million) and the western edges of Placer and El Dorado County (about 20-25 minutes outside of DT Sacramento on I-80 and US-50 respectively)..

Arden Arcade is actually smack dab in the middle of Sacramento, and it's an unicorporated urban enclave of Sacramento County, that is trying to incorporate.

SteveD
Apr 12, 2007, 2:34 AM
I don't totally understand Truckee either, since they are so far away. I suspect that it has more to do with the residents of Truckee commuting into to Sacramento for work since Truckee is mostly an Alpine town.

Most of the population of Sacramento MSA is Sacramento County (about 1.4 million) and the western edges of Placer and El Dorado County (about 20-25 minutes outside of DT Sacramento on I-80 and US-50 respectively)..

Arden Arcade is actually smack dab in the middle of Sacramento, and it's an unicorporated urban enclave of Sacramento County, that is trying to incorporate.

Yes, I suspect you're right there. I know the census definition for inclusion in an MSA is an "employment interchange number" of 25 (meaning percent), but, they will include areas where the "employment interchange number" is as low as 15, if local opinion (in both areas) favors the combination.

SacTownAndy
Apr 12, 2007, 4:32 PM
Yes, I suspect you're right there. I know the census definition for inclusion in an MSA is an "employment interchange number" of 25 (meaning percent), but, they will include areas where the "employment interchange number" is as low as 15, if local opinion (in both areas) favors the combination.

Truckee is a small mountain town in Placer County between Sacramento and Reno (think Donner Party). Placer County has a few hundred-thousand residents of which I would say 85%-95% live within 15-20 miles or less of downtown Sacramento (in the suburbs along the Sacramento-Placer County lines). Because of where the huge majority of this county's population is weighted and because these people commute into Sacramento county, Placer County (rightfully so) is included in the Sacramento MSA and CSA. Because of this, the handful of people who live in the mountain communities of Placer County are included as well. I would agree though that Truckee as a community seems to have greater ties to Reno than to Sacramento. But because of the much larger Placer County suburbs like Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Auburn, Granite Bay, etc, close to Sacramento, the entire county is counted.

The same applies to El Dorado County as well. The vast majority of county residents live within 20 miles of downtown Sac, and because of this, the few people living in the mountains are included as well.

I would guess that these far flung communities account for maybe 2%-3% of the metro population (CSA) with the remaining 97%-98% living within a definite and defined urban area centered around downtown Sacramento. The vast majority of Placer and El Dorado Counties are a National Forest as well.

SteveD
Apr 12, 2007, 4:49 PM
:previous: SacTownAndy; Truckee is actually in Nevada County, not Placer County. Truckee (actually, the Truckee-Grass Valley Micropolitan area) is added to the Sacramento MSA to form the Sacramento CSA. The only way for that to have happened is for the standards which I previously mentioned, i.e. commuting patterns, either 25 percent minimum or 15 percent minimum plus local favorable opinion, to have been met within Nevada County. For "Truckee" to be named in the Sacramento CSA in the manner that it is must mean that Truckee is the largest municipal area within Nevada County.

ltsmotorsport
Apr 12, 2007, 6:11 PM
Yeah, it's definitely the I-80 connection that makes it possible to be included.

SacTownAndy
Apr 12, 2007, 7:19 PM
:previous: SacTownAndy; Truckee is actually in Nevada County, not Placer County. Truckee (actually, the Truckee-Grass Valley Micropolitan area) is added to the Sacramento MSA to form the Sacramento CSA. The only way for that to have happened is for the standards which I previously mentioned, i.e. commuting patterns, either 25 percent minimum or 15 percent minimum plus local favorable opinion, to have been met within Nevada County. For "Truckee" to be named in the Sacramento CSA in the manner that it is must mean that Truckee is the largest municipal area within Nevada County.

Ah, gotcha. My bad. With the way that I-80 snakes in between the two counties up there, I was thinking Truckee was in Placer County. I'm not very familiar with how the CSA definitions work- could it be that these people in Nevada County are commuting to Placer County or do they need to be commuting to Sacramento County to be included in the CSA? Just curious.

SteveD
Apr 12, 2007, 7:24 PM
Ah, gotcha. My bad. With the way that I-80 snakes in between the two counties up there, I was thinking Truckee was in Placer County. I'm not very familiar with how the CSA definitions work- could it be that these people in Nevada County are commuting to Placer County or do they need to be commuting to Sacramento County to be included in the CSA? Just curious.

I believe the standard for micropolitan or metropolitan areas to be rolled into an adjacent metropolitan area to form a CSA pertains to the percentage commuting to any of the adjoining metro's counties, which would mean, yes, it could include Nevada County to Placer County commuters, but, if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me on that.

BrianSac
Apr 14, 2007, 2:16 PM
I believe the standard for micropolitan or metropolitan areas to be rolled into an adjacent metropolitan area to form a CSA pertains to the percentage commuting to any of the adjoining metro's counties, which would mean, yes, it could include Nevada County to Placer County commuters, but, if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me on that.



Is SutterCounty included in the Sacramento CMA? It should, as it borders Sacramento County.

Also, What about the Marysville-Yuba City area would it ever be included in the Sacramento CMA.

One more thing: Stockton-Modesto has been mentioned about being included in SJ-Oak-SF CMA, why?

Why not put Stockton-Modesto in the Sacramento CMA, afterall the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto Media Market is the 19th largest in the USA, and Stockton-Modesto has always been part of the Sacramento Media Market, never the SJ-Oak-SF media market.

Side note: Will Sacramento International every change to SAC; instead of SMF. Currently, SAC stands for Sacramento's Executive Airport. SMF stands for Sacramento's International airport. There has been talk of closing the Executive airport; if that were the case then maybe SMF can be changed to SAC. I'll put this question out to the Transportation thread also for those that care.

BrianSac
Apr 14, 2007, 2:38 PM
:previous: the next 16, using the same guidelines as in my first post (felt compelled to go one extra, since it was Vegas, with its absurd growth rate):

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
17. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
18. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
19. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
20. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

21. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032
23. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925
24. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
25. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
26. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
27. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
28. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
29. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
30. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

31. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927



To Prove that I am a Population Nerd:

Beginning with the last 16 cities, I re-calculated the numbers for the 2010 census assuming all the cities grew by the same numbers from the 2000-06 period. This is what the CMA's would look like:

21. Sacramento: 2,480,822...up 1 rank.

22. Charlotte: 2,474,529....up 1 rank.
23. Pittsburg: 2,401,153....down 2.
24. Orlando: 2,397,169...up 2.
25. Portland: 2,338,801......same rank.
26. Cincinatti: 2,239,939...down 2.
27. Las Vegas: 2,214,159...up 4 ranks.
28. San Antonio: 2,164,968....up 2.
29. Kansas City: 2,161,423....down 2.
30. Indianappolis: 2,119,404...down 2.
31. Columbus: 2,065, 411...down 2 ranks.

If somebody doesnt beat me to it, I'll do the top 20 next.

SteveD
Apr 14, 2007, 2:42 PM
:previous: I love it! I'm a population nerd too..yes, please do the top group too! I won't have time to today. So, you are taking the six year growth and adding another 2/3 of that to approximate 4 more years? Very cool. Yes, please do the top group! :tup:

Avian001
Apr 14, 2007, 3:40 PM
FYI, here's a graphical representation of the list for the top 25. The ticks at the left represent increments of 2 million people.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6209/usurbangraphbg4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

BrianSac
Apr 14, 2007, 4:16 PM
To Prove that I am a Population Nerd:

Beginning with the last 16 cities, I re-calculated the numbers for the 2010 census assuming all the cities grew by the same numbers from the 2000-06 period. This is what the CMA's would look like:

21. Sacramento: 2,480,822...up 1 rank.

22. Charlotte: 2,474,529....up 1 rank.
23. Pittsburg: 2,401,153....down 2.
24. Orlando: 2,397,169...up 2.
25. Portland: 2,338,801......same rank.
26. Cincinatti: 2,239,939...down 2.
27. Las Vegas: 2,214,159...up 4 ranks.
28. San Antonio: 2,164,968....up 2.
29. Kansas City: 2,161,423....down 2.
30. Indianappolis: 2,119,404...down 2.
31. Columbus: 2,065, 411...down 2 ranks.

If somebody doesnt beat me to it, I'll do the top 20 next.

1. NY: 22,545,715...same rank.
2. LA: 19,110,390....same.
3. CHi: 10,115,751.....same.
4. DC: 8,818,513....same.
5. Boston: 7,613,912...same.
6. SJ-OAK-SF: 7,341,209....same.
7. Dallas: 7,194,256.....up 1.
8. PHILLy: 6,550,615...down 1.
9. Houston: 6,440,339...same.
10. Atlanta: 6,373,008.....same.
11. Miami: 5,898,425....same.
12. Detroit: 5,453,563....same.
13. PHX: 4,799,832....same.
14. SEAttle: 4,13,676.....same.
15. Minneapolis: 3,720,355.....same.
16. Denver: 3,207,568...up 1.
17. San Diego: 3,057,975....down 1.
18. Tampa: 2,991,027...up 2.
19. STL: 2,959,410....same.
20. Cleveland: 2,888,582......down 2.

SteveD
Apr 14, 2007, 4:22 PM
:previous: Very interesting! Thanks! I guess it's gonna take another ten years for Houston and Atlanta to slide past Philly, and for Dallas to slide past SJ-Oak-SF and Boston....Nice graph Avian! Thanx! The really smooth progression is interrupted by a rather sudden drop off between Detroit and Phoenix...

BrianSac
Apr 14, 2007, 4:44 PM
To Prove that I am a Population Nerd:

Beginning with the last 16 cities, I re-calculated the numbers for the 2010 census assuming all the cities grew by the same numbers from the 2000-06 period. This is what the CMA's would look like:

21. Sacramento: 2,480,822...up 1 rank.

22. Charlotte: 2,474,529....up 1 rank.
23. Pittsburg: 2,401,153....down 2.
24. Orlando: 2,397,169...up 2.
25. Portland: 2,338,801......same rank.
26. Cincinatti: 2,239,939...down 2.
27. Las Vegas: 2,214,159...up 4 ranks.
28. San Antonio: 2,164,968....up 2.
29. Kansas City: 2,161,423....down 2.
30. Indianappolis: 2,119,404...down 2.
31. Columbus: 2,065, 411...down 2 ranks.


The US Census Bureau always shortchanges California much more than other states, so the California Dept. of Finance as their own figures for California cities. This is where SAC really should be: same rank, but close to 100,000 above Charlotte than 6,000.

20. Cleveland: 2,888,582...down 2 ranks.
21. Sacramento: 2,560,812.....based on Cal. Dept. of Finace estimates......up 1 rank.
22. Charlotte: 2,474,529....up 1.
23. Pittsburg: 2,401,153....down 2.
24. Orlando: 2,397,169...up 2.
25. Portland: 2,338,801......same rank.
26. Cincinatti: 2,239,939...down 2.
27. Las Vegas: 2,214,159...up 4 ranks.
28. San Antonio: 2,164,968....up 2.
29. Kansas City: 2,161,423....down 2.
30. Indianappolis: 2,119,404...down 2.
31. Columbus: 2,065, 411...down 2 ranks.

unusualfire
Apr 14, 2007, 5:03 PM
To Prove that I am a Population Nerd:

Beginning with the last 16 cities, I re-calculated the numbers for the 2010 census assuming all the cities grew by the same numbers from the 2000-06 period. This is what the CMA's would look like:

21. Sacramento: 2,480,822...up 1 rank.

22. Charlotte: 2,474,529....up 1 rank.
23. Pittsburg: 2,401,153....down 2.
24. Orlando: 2,397,169...up 2.
25. Portland: 2,338,801......same rank.
26. Cincinatti: 2,239,939...down 2.
27. Las Vegas: 2,214,159...up 4 ranks.
28. San Antonio: 2,164,968....up 2.
29. Kansas City: 2,161,423....down 2.
30. Indianappolis: 2,119,404...down 2.
31. Columbus: 2,065, 411...down 2 ranks.

If somebody doesnt beat me to it, I'll do the top 20 next.


A guess you are assuming no other counties or msa are added to each of theses places or even some taken away?

Trae
Apr 14, 2007, 6:51 PM
:previous: One post up...LMich...thanks for posting that. I've said several times in this forum that, while enormous, Atlanta's land area is really not out of line with several other of the nation's largest metros, in particular other sunbelt sprawlers. This is not meant to minimize Atlanta's jaw-dropping sprawl, but it is meant to point out that the area is sometimes unfairly singled out, since there's really comparable sprawl in many other areas.
Well, the counties in Texas are large. I know of about three counties in Houston's CSA that have minimal development. The rest is rural and redneck-like.

Avian001
Apr 14, 2007, 10:48 PM
....The really smooth progression is interrupted by a rather sudden drop off between Detroit and Phoenix...


Yeah, I noticed that too. It's also interesting that Phoenix is growing faster than Seattle right now, which is growing a bit faster than Minneapolis, which is growing faster than San Diego. That graph will probably smooth out in that area. (Of course that doesn't mean that any one of those cities won't suddenly take off in a spurt like so many other American cities have in the last 50 years.) Anyways, it's an interesting snapshot of recent growth.

LMich
Apr 14, 2007, 11:55 PM
Well, the counties in Texas are large. I know of about three counties in Houston's CSA that have minimal development. The rest is rural and redneck-like.

It's not about physical development, though, but about commuter patterns, so how rural and urban a particular CSA county is really doesn't matter. This can be said of most area (i.e. mostly rural counties tied to the central area). And, in a case like LA County (a HUGE county), this makes it much more an anamoly than any Texas county, so it's not that big of a deal.

I did say, after all, to take into account the size of counties in each state.

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 1:36 AM
Well I live here, and I can think of two counties of off the top of my head that are real rural. Chambers and Waller county. Chambers is in the eastern side, and Waller is in the northwestern side. Both have development popping up in them, but they both straddle the border of Harris County (3.6 million people, the size of Dallas and Tarrant County in the Metroplex combined). The people in those small developments all commute to Houston. You go just a bit away from those small developments, your in rural America. There are just enough people commuting to Houston (since there are no large population centers in those counties), to Houston.

Just go to Google Earth, and see what I am talking about.

BrianSac
Apr 15, 2007, 1:42 AM
North American Stats: If you added in Canadian cities: 2006, & Mexican cities 2005
Mexican cities are shortchanged, here dont have latest stats

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Mexico City, 19,230,000* this does not include the whole DF
3. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
4. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
5. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300

6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
7. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
8. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
9. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
10. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
11. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

12. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
13. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
14. Toronto, 5,113,149
15. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
16. Guadalajara, Mexico, 4,100,000
17. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
18. Monterrey, Mexico, 3,660,000
19. Montreal, Canada, 3,635,571
20. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
21. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
22. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
23. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
24. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
25. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

26. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
27. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,291,780 269,032
28. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925


29. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
30. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
31. Vancouver, BC, 2,116,581
32. Puebla, Mexico, 2,110,000
33. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
34. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
35. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
36. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
37. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

38. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927

LMich
Apr 15, 2007, 2:10 AM
Well I live here, and I can think of two counties of off the top of my head that are real rural. Chambers and Waller county. Chambers is in the eastern side, and Waller is in the northwestern side. Both have development popping up in them, but they both straddle the border of Harris County (3.6 million people, the size of Dallas and Tarrant County in the Metroplex combined). The people in those small developments all commute to Houston. You go just a bit away from those small developments, your in rural America. There are just enough people commuting to Houston (since there are no large population centers in those counties), to Houston.

Just go to Google Earth, and see what I am talking about.

I'm not real sure at what you're getting at. This can be said of countless metro areas in the country. Just about all of them include really rural counties that get counted in MSA and CSA. It's all about commuting patterns. Are you just describing the area to everyone?

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 2:11 AM
Well, not many states have as large of counties as California or Texas. That is one reason why Los Angeles' CSA is over 30,000 square miles, and Houston's is over 10,000 square miles.

I started to start rambling off towards the middle of my post. Sorry about that.

LMich
Apr 15, 2007, 2:15 AM
But, particularly Metro Houston, Harris County is really the only one that I'd say maybe larger than your average county. Other than that, most are of a pretty normal size. So, I don't really think you can just chalk up Houston's large area to large counties. It can be chalked up, moreso, to being sprawled, just like other cities that boomed after the introduction of the automobile.

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 2:26 AM
Harris County: 1,728 sq. miles
Brazoria County: 1,386 sq. miles

The smallest county in metro Houston is Galveston County: 398 sq. miles.

LMich
Apr 15, 2007, 4:01 AM
Dude, the Houston Metro is one of the more sprawled. It's not an opinion, and I'm not sure why you're protesting, so much.

SteveD
Apr 15, 2007, 4:16 AM
Dude, the Houston Metro is one of the more sprawled. It's not an opinion, and I'm not sure why you're protesting, so much.

Trae, he's right. I haven't been able to really figure out what you're trying to say either. The only point I was making earlier is that Atlanta is unfairly single out for obscene sprawl, when, in fact, there's similar sprawl in numerous other large metros, particularly the sunbelt ones, like Dallas, Houston, and LA.

LMich
Apr 15, 2007, 4:57 AM
Well, now it looks like I'm going to be picking, but even if you take the Urbanized Area of Atlanta, it's UA is only smaller than Chicago's (and not by much), and New York's, of course. It's also the least dense out of the top 20 or 30 so UA's. It really is in a league of its own in its sprawl:

Atlanta UA: 3,499,840 / 5,083.1 square kilometers / 1,783.3 people per square miles
Houston UA: 3,822,509 / 3354.7 square kilometers / 2,951.1 people per square miles

In fact, you have to go down to number 47 and 48 Charlotte and Nashville UA's before you find any less dense than Atlanta's, and both of there are barely less dense:

47. Charlotte UA: 1,745 ppsm
48: Nashville UA: 1,741 ppsm

Atlanta is singled out for good reason, as it is an anamoly when talking about this nation's largest metros and urban areas.

austin356
Apr 15, 2007, 6:20 AM
Well, now it looks like I'm going to be picking, but even if you take the Urbanized Area of Atlanta, it's UA is only smaller than Chicago's (and not by much), and New York's, of course. It's also the least dense out of the top 20 or 30 so UA's. It really is in a league of its own in its sprawl:

Atlanta UA: 3,499,840 / 5,083.1 square kilometers / 1,783.3 people per square miles
Houston UA: 3,822,509 / 3354.7 square kilometers / 2,951.1 people per square miles

In fact, you have to go down to number 47 and 48 Charlotte and Nashville UA's before you find any less dense than Atlanta's, and both of there are barely less dense:

47. Charlotte UA: 1,745 ppsm
48: Nashville UA: 1,741 ppsm

Atlanta is singled out for good reason, as it is an anamoly when talking about this nation's largest metros and urban areas.



Good work...... Exactly as I thought, but interesting none the less.


It is quite obvious that terrain differences play a very large role in the density of what sprawl in the south.

Houston is built on flat more tightly packed areas (comparable to desert development in the west) and Atlanta has to provide ever nomadic winding roads in order to develop. One does not even need to have been to either of these cities to determine this, but rather a quick look at Google Earth unmistakably shows this.


There are certain trade offs and benefits. For example you gain density in Houston, but things look (by suburban comparative standards) less homogeneous in Atlanta.

I also think this leads to Houston being able to densify with greater ease as the market begins to demand.

LMich
Apr 15, 2007, 8:01 AM
LaI'm not so sure that's a completey accurate prediction. Much like Pittsburgh, I'd suspect because of the hilly topography, Atlanta will develop some very dense nodes of urbanity. Houston may be able to develop more uniform density across the board, but hilly topography kind of forces super urban nodes.

Still, with our dependence on the car, and how auto-oriented many of these cities are built, we're decades off from that. For some of these newer sprawled cities, it's going to take a near complete reworking of transportation infastructure (i.e. the streets and highways) for them to fill back in on a human-scale, and, that's even if they want to do that in the first place. Who knows, many of these cities may simply develop commuter rail systems, and simply keep stretching them out for even further flung counties, allowing more sprawl.

I mean, I took at a city like Las Vegas. At 131 square miles (some of which is mountain), and 591,536 (2006 - City of Las Vegas Estimate), it gives you a pretty respectable population density of 4,508 ppsm for a new sunbelter. But, it still functions as nothing more than a collection of dense suburbs, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future for the sole fact that, in order for it to function as an urban city, the infastructure would have to be completely reworked to transform it into something much more human-scaled.

SteveD
Apr 15, 2007, 12:57 PM
:previous: thanks for posting those stats. That's not new to me, and really wasn't the point I was making. Maybe I shouldn't have been using the word "sprawl", I should have been talking "land area". It's a well known fact that metro Atlanta is the least dense large metro in the nation. The point that I was making is that the land area of it's MSA and CSA is not grossly larger than many other comparatively sized metros, again, in particular, the sunbelt boomers. My point was that most people, I believe, incorrectly assume that the land area of metro Atlanta is way bigger than that of say, Dallas or Houston, when in fact, the stats LMich posted earlier show that it's actually smaller. People get the wrong idea when they hear "28 counties" because Georgia's counties are so tiny. That's really all I was trying to convey. Of course I'm not saying Atlanta is more dense. I couldn't say that. It's the least dense big metro in the country.

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 3:43 PM
It's all in the county size. The farther west you go, to larger the counties are. You can't even say that Los Angeles sprawls out for over 30,000 sq. miles. Los Angeles and Riverside counties are so large. Both of those counties are mostly rural. Maricopa County in the Phoenix metro contains 3.5 out of the 4 million people in Phoenix's metro. Again, that county is huge. In Harris County (Houston), you can be on farms and still see Houston's skyline. Many parts of Harris County are still very rural. Again, 3.6 out of Houston 5.5 million people live there (metro wise, not CSA). If you could split up the counties and make them smaller (like Georgia's size), Houston sq. miles would be smaller. As you can see by the urban areas LMich posted, Atlants sprawls out more than Houston or Dallas. That should give you an indicator on how much more "sprawly" metro ATL is.

PremierAtlanta
Apr 15, 2007, 3:46 PM
This may come off as ridiculous but in a way I'm glad that Atlanta (read as Atlanta's metro) is not so densely packed. Other than the long commute patterns and difficulty for making transit numbers work, I really like having space. I would think that a high percentage of the about 810,000 people who moved to Atlanta between 2000 and 2006 also found the space one of the appealing factors of moving to Atlanta. There are even ITP neighborhoods where homes are on 5-20 acre lots. This adds to the appeal because you are in your own private area yet 5 miles from the Buckhead business district.

I'm the oddity here so excuse my interference.

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 3:48 PM
Atlanta grew by 890,000 since 2000, but I agree with you. You can have a mansion and be right behind Buckhead (same with Uptown Houston as well). Out of the 824,000 people who moved to Houston since 2000, I am sure they all found a good place...in the suburbs.


Just to show you how large the counties are:

Los Angeles:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Map_of_California_hightlighting_the_LA_Metro_Area.PNG

Phoenix:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Phoenixmetro.png

Houston:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/HSB_MSA.png

Atlanta:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Atlanta-metroclean.png

SteveD
Apr 15, 2007, 3:52 PM
It's all in the county size. The farther west you go, to larger the counties are. You can't even say that Los Angeles sprawls out for over 30,000 sq. miles. Los Angeles and Riverside counties are so large. Both of those counties are mostly rural. Maricopa County in the Phoenix metro contains 3.5 out of the 4 million people in Phoenix's metro. Again, that county is huge. In Harris County (Houston), you can be on farms and still see Houston's skyline. Many parts of Harris County are still very rural. Again, 3.6 out of Houston 5.5 million people live there (metro wise, not CSA). If you could split up the counties and make them smaller (like Georgia's size), Houston sq. miles would be smaller. As you can see by the urban areas LMich posted, Atlants sprawls out more than Houston or Dallas. That should give you an indicator on how much more "sprawly" metro ATL is.

I'm not arguing with you. Atlanta sprawls REAL bad. Houston and Dallas sprawl PRETTY bad. Is that good enough for you? 70% of Atlanta CSA's 5.5 million people live in the core four or five counties also, similar to the Harris County percentage of the Houston CSA and MSA.

SteveD
Apr 15, 2007, 3:54 PM
:previous: trae, that graphic you posted is horribly misleading and puts a bold exclamation point on what I've been trying to convey. As I've said on several occasions now, and I will try to make this the last time, the Houston and Dallas CSA land areas are larger than those of Atlanta. You can't post maps of different scale like that for comparison purposes. It's a direct contradiction.

PremierAtlanta
Apr 15, 2007, 3:55 PM
Atlanta grew by 890,000 since 2000, but I agree with you.

Ture, Atlanta metro grew by 890,000 but I am sure not all 890,000 moved to the city of Atlanta. That's why I said 810,000 chose the suburbs which means that many people obviously like less density.

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 4:16 PM
:previous: trae, that graphic you posted is horribly misleading and puts a bold exclamation point on what I've been trying to convey. As I've said on several occasions now, and I will try to make this the last time, the Houston and Dallas CSA land areas are larger than those of Atlanta. You can't post maps of different scale like that for comparison purposes. It's a direct contradiction.
Your right. Bad map. Regardless, their land area may be larger, but they (don't know about Dallas, but Houston), does not sprawl out that far.

Trae
Apr 15, 2007, 4:17 PM
Ture, Atlanta metro grew by 890,000 but I am sure not all 890,000 moved to the city of Atlanta. That's why I said 810,000 chose the suburbs which means that many people obviously like less density.
Also take into account that about half of that are births (the 890,000 figure).

LMich
Apr 16, 2007, 1:25 AM
This is really getting ridiculous. It's like judging an ugly girl contest. They are both a total mess when it comes to transit if even its changing, slowly, a huge indicator in what makes something urban or not, and both have many decades before they can even begin to resemble anything walkable. They are both (along with Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix...) perfect examples of the New American city, including the good, the bad, and the oh-so very ugly.

But, if you don't mind hour commutes, pollution, walkability...urbanity is the last thing on your mind, and you'll find a welcome mat waiting for you, here.

PhillyRising
Apr 16, 2007, 1:56 AM
This is really getting ridiculous. It's like judging an ugly girl contest. They are both a total mess when it comes to transit if even its changing, slowly, a huge indicator in what makes something urban or not, and both have many decades before they can even begin to resemble anything walkable. They are both (along with Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix...) perfect examples of the New American city, including the good, the bad, and the oh-so very ugly.

But, if you don't mind hour commutes, pollution, walkability...urbanity is the last thing on your mind, and you'll find a welcome mat waiting for you, here.

Amen and Thank You!

PhillyRising
Apr 16, 2007, 2:02 AM
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:

Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
Dallas - 12,360 mi²
New York City - 11,842 mi²
Houston - 10,908 mi²
Chicago - 10,874 mi²
Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
Denver - 9,085 mi²
San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
Boston - 7,227 mi²
Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
Detroit - 5,847 mi²
Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.

Wow...I'm impressed that Philadelphia is 7th in population but one of the smallest CSA's in land size. This is a very densely populated area.

Rail Claimore
Apr 16, 2007, 3:10 AM
It's like judging an ugly girl contest.

:haha: So true...

But you're right to observe those numbers. In terms of the physical expanse of a contiguous developed area, Atlanta is probably #3 in the country, behind Chicago and New York. Those are the only three US metros I've been to that sprawl at least 50 to 60 miles in every geographically possible direction.

LMich
Apr 16, 2007, 4:38 AM
Chicago and NYC are lucky to have such expansive water boundaries. It's helped them create some really dense nodes of activity. They are also lucky to have grown very centralized economies.

tocoto
Dec 15, 2007, 9:28 PM
:haha: So true...

But you're right to observe those numbers. In terms of the physical expanse of a contiguous developed area, Atlanta is probably #3 in the country, behind Chicago and New York. Those are the only three US metros I've been to that sprawl at least 50 to 60 miles in every geographically possible direction.


No offense but I find it mind boggling that someone truly thinks Atlanta is that big and that other places don't sprawl as much or more than Atlanta. Please go to LA, Boston, Philly, SF bay.

atlantaguy
Dec 16, 2007, 5:11 PM
I have driven through and around all the cites you mentioned, and there is no way that Boston or Philly sprawl out to the extent Atlanta does. No way.

dante2308
Dec 16, 2007, 9:03 PM
Atlanta sprawls. Its so dauntingly huge that my trip home to the suburbs this break will be thirty-five miles and I'll still be in an area with more jobs than people promoting the construction of skyscrapers in the area. Atlanta is so vast and unplanned that the world outside your daily commute is unknowable. People would be hopelessly lost if they strayed from the highways and tried to make a forty miles trip with roads. Atlanta is so large that it is impossible for fifth ring of suburbs to see the CBD due to the curvature of the earth.

Atlanta is the kind of city where you drive through one skyline, see a lot of trees, then drive through another and another before you finally reach an urban area. It is important to realize, though, that there is a limit to how far people will commute when traffic reaches a certain level. The growth has already started turning in on itself and the city of Atlanta itself had more permits than any County in the metro area (other than the one its in of course). Here is a nice reminder of the city. The photo is credited so I hope this is kosher.

Buckhead (north City of Atlanta) (no this is not the CBD, this is the view from one outer business district to another)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4009/p1011284es5.jpg
ATLksuGUY

Also, the city of Atlanta has a density of 3,690 people per square mile and a core density of tens of thousands of people per square mile. I know my block is urban and I don't ever leave my little urban area except to visit the family so its not like you can't have the 'urban' lifestyle around here.

tocoto
Dec 24, 2007, 5:08 AM
Atlanta sprawls. Its so dauntingly huge that my trip home to the suburbs this break will be thirty-five miles and I'll still be in an area with more jobs than people promoting the construction of skyscrapers in the area. Atlanta is so vast and unplanned that the world outside your daily commute is unknowable. People would be hopelessly lost if they strayed from the highways and tried to make a forty miles trip with roads. Atlanta is so large that it is impossible for fifth ring of suburbs to see the CBD due to the curvature of the earth.

Atlanta is the kind of city where you drive through one skyline, see a lot of trees, then drive through another and another before you finally reach an urban area. It is important to realize, though, that there is a limit to how far people will commute when traffic reaches a certain level. The growth has already started turning in on itself and the city of Atlanta itself had more permits than any County in the metro area (other than the one its in of course). Here is a nice reminder of the city. The photo is credited so I hope this is kosher.


ATLksuGUY

Also, the city of Atlanta has a density of 3,690 people per square mile and a core density of tens of thousands of people per square mile. I know my block is urban and I don't ever leave my little urban area except to visit the family so its not like you can't have the 'urban' lifestyle around here.


I go to Atlanta often for business. It has lots of freeways and low density sprawl that gives way to the sticks 40 miles from the city. 40 miles from Boston is Providence with a metro of 1.6 million. To the west is Worcester with a metro over 500,000. To the north is Portland, ME metro over 500,000. There really is no comparison between metro Boston and Metro Atlanta. Boston is much more extensive and dense. After you get done looking at pictures and reading US census statistics for what that's worth, try driving from Warwick, RI to Portland, ME at 5PM any weekday or on a holiday. Even on one of the loop freeways that goes around Boston it's about 150 miles of endless congestion.

SacTownAndy
Dec 31, 2007, 9:47 PM
I've learned that the OMB has recently added two additional counties to Sacramento's CSA (Yuba City, CA MSA = Sutter, Yuba counties). The revised 2006 number now looks like this:


Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Yuba City, CA-NV CSA

Sacramento County- 1,374,724
Placer County- 326,242
Yolo County- 188,085
El Dorado County- 178,066
Nevada County- 98,764
Sutter County- 91,410
Yuba County- 70,396
Douglas County, NV- 45,909

Total: 2,373,596

SteveD
Dec 31, 2007, 10:49 PM
SacTownAndy, where did you get that info? I'd like to see if any other metros have been redefined...I'm pleased to see this thread still alive..it's almost time for next year's thread!

SacTownAndy
Jan 2, 2008, 10:29 PM
SacTownAndy, where did you get that info? I'd like to see if any other metros have been redefined...I'm pleased to see this thread still alive..it's almost time for next year's thread!

Steve-

Someone actually pointed it out to me in the CaliForum. So I went directly to the OMB's website and looked up Sacramento on their list of CSA designations. Sure enough, there the new designation including Yuba City was. I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but it had to have been some point in the last year- the last census estimates were only the "Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Truckee" counties (which didn't include Sutter and Yuba), whereas now it's listed as "Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City" CSA and now includes Sutter and Yuba counties (the Yuba City MSA was added).

I don't think there was a press release or anything, so if there are any metros you're curious about specifically and knew what they were beforehand, I would go to the CSA listing and look them up. It might be a pain but that's the only way I can think of for right now.

Here is the document I was looking at specifically, updated 11/20/07:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2008/b08-01.pdf

unusualfire
Jan 7, 2008, 12:24 PM
^ Wow thats larger than the state of New Jersy. Cincinnati region would be way over 4 million with that kinda real estate.

tmac14wr
Feb 11, 2008, 11:39 PM
I go to Atlanta often for business. It has lots of freeways and low density sprawl that gives way to the sticks 40 miles from the city. 40 miles from Boston is Providence with a metro of 1.6 million. To the west is Worcester with a metro over 500,000. To the north is Portland, ME metro over 500,000. There really is no comparison between metro Boston and Metro Atlanta. Boston is much more extensive and dense. After you get done looking at pictures and reading US census statistics for what that's worth, try driving from Warwick, RI to Portland, ME at 5PM any weekday or on a holiday. Even on one of the loop freeways that goes around Boston it's about 150 miles of endless congestion.

I don't think he's disputing which city is bigger at all, because it's not much of a question. Obviously Boston is more built up, and has much larger/urban areas surrounding the city. Atlanta is built up in a completely different way. As you mentioned, if you move outside of the central part of Atlanta, it becomes very low density, borderline rural in many areas. But if you continue to travel on a main street, you'll probably run into a little mini-city cluster which is basically just a glorified Suburban Office park, only with larger buildings. This is what I think Dante was trying to say...not that it's built up more than anywhere else, but the fact that you can leave the main city, be in a very low density/rural area, but if you follow a main road you're just going to run into another little area like you were before. Whenever I go through or visit Atlanta (which is only a couple hours from my university), I'm always amazed by how decentralized the city is...it's very unique in the sense that it's developed in the most cookie-cutter style possible. I know not everyone in the world loves urbanity, but I hope that few cities choose to develop in this manner.

JDRCRASH
Feb 12, 2008, 5:30 AM
I've heard that Houston sprawls alot to.

But dude, L.A. dominates.
In fact, I remember seeing a quote calling Mammoth Lakes "The Farthest Suburb of L.A." Of course, on the way up there, you have to go through the desert. The Mojave Desert is pretty desolate(except for California City, Mojave, etc)
I actually wouldn't be suprised if that will be the next prime hotspot in the next real estate upturn.

reggiesquared
Feb 15, 2008, 1:10 AM
Compare the land area of the Mexican cities mentioned a few posts back to their relative populations.

Try to pack 17 million (mexico city) people inside phoenix.

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-area-125.html

Trae
Feb 16, 2008, 3:13 PM
Have you seen those Mexico City slums?

urban_encounter
Feb 17, 2008, 7:11 PM
I've learned that the OMB has recently added two additional counties to Sacramento's CSA (Yuba City, CA MSA = Sutter, Yuba counties). The revised 2006 number now looks like this:


Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Yuba City, CA-NV CSA


Sacramento County- 1,374,724
Placer County- 326,242
El Dorado County- 178,066
Yolo County- 188,085
Nevada County- 98,764
Sutter County- 91,410
Yuba County- 70,396
Douglas County, NV- 45,909

Total: 2,373,596



Actually the 2007 population estimates for the Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Yuba City CSA as compiled from the California Department of Finance are;


Sacramento 1,415,117
Placer 329,818
Yolo 197,530
Yuba 71,612
El Dorado 178,689
Sutter 95,516
Nevada 98,764
Douglas NV 45, 909


Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Yuba City CSA total population 2,432,955

(without Douglas NV which is silly imo is 2,387,406)

urban_encounter
Feb 18, 2008, 4:54 PM
^ Wow thats larger than the state of New Jersy. Cincinnati region would be way over 4 million with that kinda real estate.


That's only about 6,784 mi² (as noted above)..


Most of Sacramento's Metropolitan Population is within a 20-25 minute drive of downtown that sits between Folsom Lake and Downtown Sacramento (near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers.)

The Alpine additions are a collection of very small towns along Highway 50 and Highway 80 such as Placerville, Pollock Pines etc...


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/02_sacramento2m.jpg

dante2308
Mar 7, 2008, 6:09 AM
I go to Atlanta often for business. It has lots of freeways and low density sprawl that gives way to the sticks 40 miles from the city. 40 miles from Boston is Providence with a metro of 1.6 million. To the west is Worcester with a metro over 500,000. To the north is Portland, ME metro over 500,000. There really is no comparison between metro Boston and Metro Atlanta. Boston is much more extensive and dense. After you get done looking at pictures and reading US census statistics for what that's worth, try driving from Warwick, RI to Portland, ME at 5PM any weekday or on a holiday. Even on one of the loop freeways that goes around Boston it's about 150 miles of endless congestion.

Um, wasn't really talking about Boston. On Atlanta, it seems to me that the city works just fine. Even rush hour isn't that serious despite the chorus of whiners. I'm also not sure where walkability comes in. Most cities are only walkable in their urban core, but Atlanta has several urban cores and you an pretty much get everything you want by train or by foot. If you want to talk auto-centric, I dare you to get by in South Florida without a car.

I heard a poster talking about how incredibly dense Miami was but I seriously doubt that amounts to much. I remember sneaking through backyards and hopping fences to get to the shopping center a couple dozen feet from my house down there growing up. In suburban Atlanta, at least the neighborhoods aren't fenced off like some kind of criminal element is stalking around. I don't know if its just Alpharetta, but for being 35 miles from downtown, you can get around it surprisingly well on a bike. Of course Atlanta itself begs you get out of your car by never providing enough parking. Half a million train passengers a day don't lie. If you're going to a sporting event or a concert you automatically use mass transit, no questions asked.

After all Atlanta is drop dead gorgeous. A city in the rolling hills embedded in a dense canopy and free for the most part of the dehumanized oppression of grid networks and numbered streets. If its between Manhattan and Atlanta I'll take nature's beauty over mankind's efficiency any day. Everyone is so damed relaxed and friendly here, homes are on the cheep, and jobs are as ubiquitous as the grass. This city is missing nothing. There is a reason why it tops the list in growth by percentage and only second in raw numbers to LA-Riverside. There is no recession here, no housing crash, no end to the growth. The city is bright blue too so no worries there either. Isn't it nice to be in a city that people drop billions to create new projects out of sheer love of the city? Isn't it nice to be in the city that is building the largest monument built in the US in six decades, the Millennium Arch? Isn't it nice to see a plethora of cranes everywhere heralding that the future is always even brighter than today? Yes it is.

LMich
Mar 7, 2008, 8:15 AM
Are you kidding? You've got a state so desperate for water to feed those that want their cake and to eat it too it's literally trying to redraw state borders. Do you realize how much more a negative impact that the sprawled urban area has on that dense canopy than a 'dehumanizing' gridded urban area?

There are legitimate reasons to appreciate Atlanta. It's sprawling layout (especially, if you're a true nature lover) is not one of them in the least bit. Yes, there is a reason why it tops the growth list, because the vast majority of people don't much care about future negative consequences as long as they got their's. It's the rule that this country has lived under for too long that you can buy now and pay later. The areas waters and air are screaming at it, and everyone's pretending that they don't hear it.

dante2308
Mar 7, 2008, 1:13 PM
Are you kidding? You've got a state so desperate for water to feed those that want their cake and to eat it too it's literally trying to redraw state borders. Do you realize how much more a negative impact that the sprawled urban area has on that dense canopy than a 'dehumanizing' gridded urban area?

There are legitimate reasons to appreciate Atlanta. It's sprawling layout (especially, if you're a true nature lover) is not one of them in the least bit. Yes, there is a reason why it tops the growth list, because the vast majority of people don't much care about future negative consequences as long as they got their's. It's the rule that this country has lived under for too long that you can buy now and pay later. The areas waters and air are screaming at it, and everyone's pretending that they don't hear it.

We aren't as desperate for water as you would imagine and that had nothing to do with the city in as much as it had to do with the worse drought in recorded history. We conserved our way right out of the crisis and the drought is essentially over. Plans are already in place to make sure that never happens again all without ever harming the river system. Yes I would like to know what impact Atlanta has on the mostly lifeless forest it inhabits. There is a reason why people don't ever complain about the environmental impact here. As shown in that photo, it is mostly intact at the end of the day not to mention the countless preservation projects across the city.

The quality of life is soaring here and as much as people hate sprawl on paper, it isn't as if there is a huge environmental problem here. I hate to say it to the tenants of this whole 'smart growth' agenda but it may have many more consequences than the alternative. Unfortunately, having to shell out most of your income for your home is a great shame of cities like Portland and Miami and these places crash first when a recession comes around. The slight increase in efficiency is not really worth having a computer generated traditional city based on old and failing theories.

We even get around the problems with uninodal sprawl by having multiple urban centers each with the potential for dense development. And yes there is something comfortingly human about not having gridded streets numbered 1 to 200 in every direction.

I never said the sprawl was why people moved here. I said it was the physical beauty among a dozen other things I listed, but since you brought it up, I'll have to respond to the knee jerk reaction to Atlanta from out-of-towners.