Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you subtract Staten Island's population and land area from NYC, it's city proper size is very similar to Chicago. As you can see NYC is still much larger in population either way you put it.
New York City; 244 sq.miles; population: 7,706,403
Chicago; 227 sq. miles; population: 2,695,598
I didn't say anything about Chicago being the same size as NYC.
So are you saying an extra 70 sq miles would give Chicago an additional 1.3 million people
Ahh, forgot bout ye olde last census data and still thinking 2.9 mil in my head. Not sure, just guesstimating. I do know that some of the suburbs have a higher density than the neighboring city area. Also I said close, not sure what the data is. It's probably more like 3.4 mil now that I think about it.
It's interesting how much smaller the counties are "back east" (meaning east of the Rockies) than the counties are in the West.
I mean, Texas is a big state, but it has 254 counties!! California is also big, but it only has 58 counties. Heck, California has fewer counties than South Dakota (which has 66)!
I've always wondered why there are just so many counties in the East (or conversely so few in the West). In any event, I'm sure that would help explain the large populations of counties in CA, AZ, etc...
If Los Angeles county had been in Texas, it probably would have been divided into 5 or 6 counties.
It's interesting how much smaller the counties are "back east" (meaning east of the Rockies) than the counties are in the West.
I mean, Texas is a big state, but it has 254 counties!! California is also big, but it only has 58 counties. Heck, California has fewer counties than South Dakota (which has 66)!
I've always wondered why there are just so many counties in the East (or conversely so few in the West). In any event, I'm sure that would help explain the large populations of counties in CA, AZ, etc...
If Los Angeles county had been in Texas, it probably would have been divided into 5 or 6 counties.
Like a lot of things, I think it has to do with the time period in which they were established. The West had a few sizable settlements in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but they were pretty spread out. A lot of area was virtually uninhabited (some of it still is, especially in the more rugged mountainous or desert areas).
Conversely, in the east, there were small towns and settlements all over the place. It wouldn't really make sense for the people in a lot of these towns to have to travel a day or more to get to the county seat/courthouse. Likewise, it wouldn't make sense for law enforcement to have to cover vast amounts of land (and people), especially in pre-automobile times.
With the invention of the automobile and subsequent creation of highways, distance no longer became such a factor. So as the West grew, they didn't have such a need to create new counties.
Just a fun little exercise here...California has 58 counties, while Tennessee has 95. If the average county size held the same, California would have 369 counties if they were the same average size as Tennessee counties. Tennessee would have just 15 if they were the same average size as California's.
(for reference, Tennessee's average county size is 443.6 square miles, California's is 2,822.3)
Like a lot of things, I think it has to do with the time period in which they were established. The West had a few sizable settlements in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but they were pretty spread out. A lot of area was virtually uninhabited (some of it still is, especially in the more rugged mountainous or desert areas).
Conversely, in the east, there were small towns and settlements all over the place. It wouldn't really make sense for the people in a lot of these towns to have to travel a day or more to get to the county seat/courthouse. Likewise, it wouldn't make sense for law enforcement to have to cover vast amounts of land (and people), especially in pre-automobile times.
With the invention of the automobile and subsequent creation of highways, distance no longer became such a factor. So as the West grew, they didn't have such a need to create new counties.
Just a fun little exercise here...California has 58 counties, while Tennessee has 95. If the average county size held the same, California would have 369 counties if they were the same average size as Tennessee counties. Tennessee would have just 15 if they were the same average size as California's.
(for reference, Tennessee's average county size is 443.6 square miles, California's is 2,822.3)
What you say makes sense, but CA and TX were settled around the same time and became states of the Union within 5 years of each other (if memory serves). You'd think TX would have followed the more "western" model of fewer, larger counties, especially when so much of it even to this day is so sparsely populated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
