HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 23, 2019, 11:48 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,106
More interested in urban areas.

Columbus is not bigger than San Francisco.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 12:10 AM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
More interested in urban areas.
Me too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 1:53 AM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
More interested in urban areas.

Columbus is not bigger than San Francisco.
Agree, it's disproportionate to cities with large areas. Growth of the metro area is a better indicator of healthy growth in a city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 4:03 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
More interested in urban areas.

Columbus is not bigger than San Francisco.
I think both figures are interesting, especially when the inner city starts to approach 800,000 to 1,000,000. Some of those cities begin to change in rather obvious ways, offering urban amenities that are very similar to those found in the inner cities of much larger metros. That is certainly the case with Austin. A new "Big City" vibe has become very palpable in recent years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 1:07 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,106
The ‘city’ of Boston, if we redrew the city limits to make it comparable to Austin as a percentage of total metro area population, urban form, population density, etc, would have 2.5 million people

New York would be around 12 million, LA 10 million, Chicago 5 million, Houston 3 million, Dallas 3 million, Philadelphia 3 million, Toronto 3.75 million, Detroit 2 million, San Francisco 4 million, San Antonio 1.5 million, Columbus 1 million.

Not saying Austin hasn’t grown but let’s be realistic
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 1:24 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
The Good Times
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The World's Piggy Bank
Posts: 3,650
New housing units:

Texas: 172,000!!!
--That's over 471 homes per day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 4:51 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,787
The Metro growth Numbers were released a month ago and we had a whole thread on it.

Most of the largest cities are the largest metros and most of the fastest growing cities are part of the fastest growing metros.

City stats are still city stats but yes in a modern context Metros/CSA's are a better gauge in modern context.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 1:41 PM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
America's Hometown
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lionville, PA
Posts: 11,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
More interested in urban areas.

Columbus is not bigger than San Francisco.
...and Phoenix and San Antonio aren't as big as Philadelphia.

If Philadelphia has the same land mass as those two cities, Philly's population would be well over 2 million because it would have to eat up a large chunk of the suburbs.

In terms of square miles, Philadelphia is by far the smallest city of the top 10.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 2:08 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
The Good Times
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The World's Piggy Bank
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyRising View Post
...and Phoenix and San Antonio aren't as big as Philadelphia.

If Philadelphia has the same land mass as those two cities, Philly's population would be well over 2 million because it would have to eat up a large chunk of the suburbs.

In terms of square miles, Philadelphia is by far the smallest city of the top 10.
Well, not yet. Metro Phila. is significantly larger than Metro Phoenix, however Metro Phoenix gained the second most residents behind DFW and the City of Phoenix gained the most residents from 2017-2018. Phoenix will pass up Boston by the 2020 census and it appears that Atlanta will pass up Philadelphia.

2018 Estimates:
8 Philadelphia MSA: 6,096,372 -- +2.20%
9 Atlanta MSA: 5,949,951 -- +12.55%
10 Boston MSA: 4,875,390 -- +7.09%
11 Phoenix MSA: 4,857,962 -- +15.86%

-----

24 San Antonio MSA: 2,518,036 -- +17.53%

San Antonio will probably pass up St. Louis and Baltimore in the mid 2020s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 2:37 PM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
America's Hometown
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lionville, PA
Posts: 11,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Well, not yet. Metro Phila. is significantly larger than Metro Phoenix, however Metro Phoenix gained the second most residents behind DFW and the City of Phoenix gained the most residents from 2017-2018. Phoenix will pass up Boston by the 2020 census and it appears that Atlanta will pass up Philadelphia.

2018 Estimates:
8 Philadelphia MSA: 6,096,372 -- +2.20%
9 Atlanta MSA: 5,949,951 -- +12.55%
10 Boston MSA: 4,875,390 -- +7.09%
11 Phoenix MSA: 4,857,962 -- +15.86%

-----

24 San Antonio MSA: 2,518,036 -- +17.53%

San Antonio will probably pass up St. Louis and Baltimore in the mid 2020s.
Even this is not equal land wise. The Philly MSA is 4602 square miles while Atlanta's is 8376 square miles.

Phoenix MSA is over 14000 square miles.

I mean the Philly MSA doesn't even include Trenton, NJ which is closer to Philly than it is New York whose gets it included.

No matter how the numbers are spun, Philly gets looked at as a "smaller" when those of us who live here know that what it says on paper doesn't apply in reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 3:38 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
The Good Times
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The World's Piggy Bank
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyRising View Post
Even this is not equal land wise. The Philly MSA is 4602 square miles while Atlanta's is 8376 square miles.

Phoenix MSA is over 14000 square miles.

I mean the Philly MSA doesn't even include Trenton, NJ which is closer to Philly than it is New York whose gets it included.

No matter how the numbers are spun, Philly gets looked at as a "smaller" when those of us who live here know that what it says on paper doesn't apply in reality.
Are you trying to make a point with totally useless stats? You don't really think that the Phoenix MSA is 14,000 square miles? That's analogous to dismissing New York City's size because the population density of America is only 92 ppsm.

I feel like we've had this same discussion a thousand times.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ma...4d-112.4291464

Look at the map of Maricopa County. All of the empty land with a population of zero is in your 14,000 square mile number. Within the freeway loop system, there are well over 4 million people. Western metros do not have low density sprawl like their eastern counterparts. The development ends abruptly to empty/rugged/federally restricted lands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 3:55 PM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
America's Hometown
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lionville, PA
Posts: 11,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Are you trying to make a point with totally useless stats? You don't really think that the Phoenix MSA is 14,000 square miles? That's analogous to dismissing New York City's size because the population density of America is only 92 ppsm.

I feel like we've had this same discussion a thousand times.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ma...4d-112.4291464

Look at the map of Maricopa County. All of the empty land with a population of zero is in your 14,000 square mile number. Within the freeway loop system, there are well over 4 million people. Western metros do not have low density sprawl like their eastern counterparts. The development ends abruptly to empty/rugged/federally restricted lands.
I think the discussion is made a thousand times because there is no one perfect way to determine rankings of cities or metro areas when their land sizes are all far different. It's like apples to oranges. If the land mass of Metro Atlanta is twice a big as Philadelphia..with the roughly the same population...is it really bigger? Some might say yes and some might say no. Anyone can spin this to suit their agenda. That's my point. I just think this is all just wanker wagging anyway. Philadelphia is growing and on the right track after decades of going the wrong way and that's all I care about. We don't need to be a fast growing metro area...first off all...we couldn't handle a rapid increase in population because our highway network can't even handle the people who live here now...and SEPTA has a lot of work to do to handle any quick increase in ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 9:46 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
The ‘city’ of Boston, if we redrew the city limits to make it comparable to Austin as a percentage of total metro area population, urban form, population density, etc, would have 2.5 million people

New York would be around 12 million, LA 10 million, Chicago 5 million, Houston 3 million, Dallas 3 million, Philadelphia 3 million, Toronto 3.75 million, Detroit 2 million, San Francisco 4 million, San Antonio 1.5 million, Columbus 1 million.

Not saying Austin hasn’t grown but let’s be realistic
I am being realistic, but you are putting your own spin on my observations. All I am saying is that now that Austin's city population has grown close to 1 million, there are a lot more urban amenities in place- things like really nice center-city parks and trails, a 24 hour downtown with a lot of residents, sophisticated dining options, more varied cultural offerings, and a vibrant feel to the central parts of the city that was lacking in years past. Of course Austin does not compare to most of the larger cities you listed, but now that it has grown to close to one million residents, it offers many of the same things found in the core of cities with much larger metros.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 9:49 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,106
Austin is a specialized music and tech and university and government town, of course it’s going to offer lots of unique things compared to it’s less endowed peers

But as a core city within an urban area, a population of 600-800k on an apples to apples basis with Boston at 2.5 million would be accurate
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 11:35 AM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Austin is a specialized music and tech and university and government town, of course it’s going to offer lots of unique things compared to it’s less endowed peers

But as a core city within an urban area, a population of 600-800k on an apples to apples basis with Boston at 2.5 million would be accurate
Yer still missing the point... but no reason to digress further.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 1:55 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 24,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Austin is a specialized music and tech and university and government town, of course it’s going to offer lots of unique things compared to it’s less endowed peers

But as a core city within an urban area, a population of 600-800k on an apples to apples basis with Boston at 2.5 million would be accurate
Austin is closing in on 1 million in the city proper. Its metro is still fairly small.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 5:23 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 805
As always comparing city sizes and populations is fraught with statistical jiggery-pokery. For example, density is highly related to age and geography in the US. Older cities were not built upon an auto dependent population and sprawl is largely dependent on land availability. Cites like Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta had very few restraints geographically and could spread widely through auto access. One can only speculate what NYC would be like if it had developed in the mid 20th century – Albany might be a suburb and dozens of mid-rise business parks could have covered all of NJ and Conn.
Having earlier lived mostly in quite dense cities I am always struck by how different Atlanta is. When we moved here 25 years ago the metro area population was about half the present population. Watching millions added to an area is instructive. Only in recent years has the central area started to grow in density, but in addition there are so called “urban-suburban” areas that have formed quite dense older central city like characteristics. Consequently it is hard to know what is “downtown” and it shows that such concepts are historically dated Mumfordish notions of what constitute a city. The political city of Atlanta is less than 10% of the metro population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 6:34 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman View Post
As always comparing city sizes and populations is fraught with statistical jiggery-pokery. For example, density is highly related to age and geography in the US. Older cities were not built upon an auto dependent population and sprawl is largely dependent on land availability. Cites like Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta had very few restraints geographically and could spread widely through auto access. One can only speculate what NYC would be like if it had developed in the mid 20th century – Albany might be a suburb and dozens of mid-rise business parks could have covered all of NJ and Conn.
Having earlier lived mostly in quite dense cities I am always struck by how different Atlanta is. When we moved here 25 years ago the metro area population was about half the present population. Watching millions added to an area is instructive. Only in recent years has the central area started to grow in density, but in addition there are so called “urban-suburban” areas that have formed quite dense older central city like characteristics. Consequently it is hard to know what is “downtown” and it shows that such concepts are historically dated Mumfordish notions of what constitute a city. The political city of Atlanta is less than 10% of the metro population.
I doubt NYC's metropolitan area would have extended all the way to Albany under any circumstance. There's a reason why cities like Hartford, Scranton and Kingston aren't part of NYC's metropolitan area and it's that after a while, distances get too long for commuting, even by car. In the end, NYC's urban area is less dense than LA's, so if it developed later, it probably wouldn't cover much more land, it would just have the density more evenly distributed between the core and the outer suburbs.

There's also significant differences in densities for post-war suburbia. In California and South Florida it's about as dense as early 20th century streetcar suburbs, right around the 6-15k ppsm mark at the census tract level. In the Southeastern cities, it's around 1-2k ppsm. In Texas, Phoenix and Vegas, it's somewhere in between at around 4-6k ppsm and in the Midwest it's usually around 3-4k ppsm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 9:29 PM
tdawg's Avatar
tdawg tdawg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NY,NY
Posts: 2,522
You could substitute Atlanta for Austin here and it would still be accurate:
"Austin is a specialized music and tech and university and government town."
__________________
From my head via my fingers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 9:56 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyRising View Post
Even this is not equal land wise. The Philly MSA is 4602 square miles while Atlanta's is 8376 square miles.

Phoenix MSA is over 14000 square miles.

I mean the Philly MSA doesn't even include Trenton, NJ which is closer to Philly than it is New York whose gets it included.

No matter how the numbers are spun, Philly gets looked at as a "smaller" when those of us who live here know that what it says on paper doesn't apply in reality.
The square mile area is two massive counties and not at all relevant to the population.

Even phoenix city limits contains hundreds of square miles of mountain preserve parks and empty deserts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:48 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.