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.
1. That's very misleading considering Metro Atlanta would have 85% to 90% of it's population in area of Metro Philly. You assuming that extra 3,000 sq mi adds a lot of population to Atlanta MSA it doesn't. Philly metro area is 5,118 sq mi while Atlanta MSA is 8,376 sq mi, but Atlanta MSA would be at least around the 5.5 million range in Philly MSA area, Atlanta basically has larger exurban ring. There numerous exurban counties in metro Atlanta that add a lot of area by not much population like Jasper is 14,140 in 373 sq mi or Meriwether with 21,068 in 505 sq mi. So basically Philly would not be much bigger than Atlanta MSA pop even if you took 1/3 of MSA area away.
I remember while ago a Boston poster was arguing the same thing against Atlanta with Boston, but did not know Atlanta has more people than Boston MSA area than Boston does already. So it was actually Boston is one Benefiting CSA wise, by having Providence RI and Manchester NH, that like as if Birmingham and Chattanooga was in Atlanta CSA range instead of very small MSAs.
But This is often the case with most larger MSA over 5,000 to 6,000 sq mi plus ATL, DFW, Houston, Phoenix, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis etc. even if took 1/3 to half their area sq mi away their population would still be nearly what they are. So arguing the opposite that places like Philly etc that if they were a few 1k sq mi bigger sort missing the understanding. Arguing that places like Philly and Boston who are next to other metros should gain more area while ignoring that. The Large Metros who are not surrounded another they're only gaining extra exurbs in the first. In about 5 to 6 years Atlanta would probably have more people in Philly MSA then Philly does anyways, So never mind the extra exurb ring. It's just exurb ring.
2. The other thing. Understanding why commuting patterns is important itself. commuting patterns in a metro is being used like Gravity in a solar system.
Just as upward growth their is outward growth. And I know on city data we hate sprawl but its still a form of growth. The difference between Philly and Atlanta. Atlanta is causing place B existence or growth. Without Atlanta place B wouldn't be there or no where near it size. For example Woodstock, GA was less than 3k in 1980 but now it's 30k. The growth of Woodstock is being cause expansion of Atlanta. So question becomes why So should a place be apart of Philly if your not sure Philly causing it existence or the reason it's growing?
So it was actually Boston is one Benefiting CSA wise, by having Providence RI and Manchester NH, that like as if Birmingham and Chattanooga was in Atlanta CSA range instead of very small MSAs.
Springfield, MA and Portland, ME are closer to Boston than Chattanooga is to Atlanta. Though perhaps I misunderstand your point.
Springfield, MA and Portland, ME are closer to Boston than Chattanooga is to Atlanta. Though perhaps I misunderstand your point.
Yes, my point was if Chattanooga and Birmingham were closer to Atlanta with in Atlanta CSA. it would be like how Providence RI and Manchester NH are to Boston MSA.
but my larger point, metro areas population are centralize, the population is not spread out equally. So if a MSA is huge there a distortion with a huge exurban ring.
like DC, Boston and Philly Metro areas are 3,500 sq mi to 5,200 sq mi they don't have a giant exurban ring.
than you have metros like Atlanta, DFW, Houston, Chicago Phoenix who are like 8,000 to 14 sq mi. which seem crazy but is misleading. 80 to 90% of Atlanta, DFW, Houston, Chicago Phoenix MSA would be in that 3,500 sq mi to 5,200 sq mi.
Yes, my point was if Chattanooga and Birmingham were closer to Atlanta with in Atlanta CSA. it would be like how Providence RI and Manchester NH are to Boston MSA.
but my larger point, metro areas population are centralize, the population is not spread out equally. So if a MSA is huge there a distortion with a huge exurban ring.
like DC, Boston and Philly Metro areas are 3,500 sq mi to 5,200 sq mi they don't have a giant exurban ring.
than you have metros like Atlanta, DFW, Houston, Chicago Phoenix who are like 8,000 to 14 sq mi. which seem crazy but is misleading. 80 to 90% of Atlanta, DFW, Houston, Chicago Phoenix MSA would be in that 3,500 sq mi to 5,200 sq mi.
Is that accurate? Boston and Philadelphia metros are among the most densely populated. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and especially Phoenix rank lower (more than 10-15%).
Atlanta ranks much lower than Philadelphia when looking at density and urban area population. Separately, if you expand Philadelphia metro to ~8,400 sq mi, the population would balloon from ~6.1M to over 8M.
Maybe I missed (or misinterpreted) your point, but if you shrunk all of those metros to the size of Philadelphia's, Atlanta and Phoenix would not be within 10-20% of ~6.1M people.
(Joakim3's post above explains the UA point well).
Philly’s UA has 5.5 Million people in 1981 sq. miles
Atlanta UA “only†has 4.6 Million people in 2645 sq. miles
So while Atlanta is larger by MSA/CSA Philly is still a significantly larger city in form and function
No one was arguing Atlanta had significantly larger city that wasn't the point of the conversation. The point of conservation was over MSA itself. MSA "wise" Philly is not much bigger than Atlanta. Even if you made Atlanta MSA Philly MSA size. the gap be just a few 100ks.
The poster was out a flaw over MSA were size, When actually it doesn't matter much. Saying what if Philly MSA had Atlanta that size, my point was that pointless. In area of Philly-boston MSAs size 3,500 to 5,000 would already give most of the top 20 metros like 80-90% of it's MSA population anyways. that last 3,000 sq mi in metro Atlanta is exurban would be just 10 to 15 counties that 10k to 30k. It doesn't Actually move the needle much for Atlanta.
Also what you just post is UA what also misleading for similar reasoning, UA continue as long as 1 k sq mi. Atlanta continue to have 1 K as far out as 2645 sq. miles which itself is misleading because Atlanta would have 3.8 mil just 1,600 sq mi. You factor in Philly city is a million than Atlanta city than add what I said earlier Atlanta would be probably around 500k smaller in Philly MSA size. It make sense.
Is that accurate? Boston and Philadelphia metros are among the most densely populated. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and especially Phoenix rank lower (more than 10-15%).
Atlanta ranks much lower than Philadelphia when looking at density and urban area population. Separately, if you expand Philadelphia metro to ~8,400 sq mi, the population would balloon from ~6.1M to over 8M.
Maybe I missed (or misinterpreted) your point, but if you shrunk all of those metros to the size of Philadelphia's, Atlanta and Phoenix would not be within 10-20% of ~6.1M people.
(Joakim3's post above explains the UA point well).
Philly MSA is 5,000 sq mi Atlanta is 8,000 sq m. Atlanta would have the buck is current near 6.1 million in Philly MSA 5,000 sq mi, yes that exactly what I'm saying.
Atlanta 5 core county is 3.8 mil just 1,600 sq mi. Even the urban area as pointed out is 4.6 Million people in 2600 sq. miles. That would be 4.6 million with 1,200 sq mi to go before that 5,000 sq mi mark.
Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and especially Phoenix MSA density is distorted by extra exurban ring. Even if you took 1/3 MSA sq mi away the would nearly be same pop maybe just a few 100k short. in fact DFW and Houston might be denser then Philly with in Philly 5,000 sq mi MSA area altogether.
The point of me bring this up because you can't expand Philly and Boston MSA. So saying Philly metro in 8,000 sq mi doesn't make sense because that's not just Philly...... Futhermore Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Chicago etc have large MSA because there's no other MSA around them and they only gaining an exurban ring. they have an 3,000 sq mi plus ring that doesn't actually change up much of there population.
Last edited by chiatldal; 06-12-2021 at 10:20 PM..
Is that accurate? Boston and Philadelphia metros are among the most densely populated. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and especially Phoenix rank lower (more than 10-15%).
url]
That's false. Phoenix, Houston and DFW have denser urban areas than Boston and Philadelphia. Boston and Atlanta can have their little war but don't confuse cities west of the Mississippi with those east of it. Houston , Phoenix and DFW have more uniform density. Built more like LA which FYI is the most dense big UA in the country
in the 2010 census
Phoenix was 1222 ppsm
Houston was 1150ppsm
DFW was 1111 ppsm
Philadelphia 1060ppsm
Boston was 861ppsm
Atlanta was 659ppsm
That's false. Phoenix, Houston and DFW have denser urban areas than Boston and Philadelphia. Boston and Atlanta can have their little war but don't confuse cities west of the Mississippi with those east of it. Houston , Phoenix and DFW have more uniform density. Built more like LA which FYI is the most dense big UA in the country
in the 2010 census
Phoenix was 1222 ppsm
Houston was 1150ppsm
DFW was 1111 ppsm
Philadelphia 1060ppsm
Boston was 861ppsm
Atlanta was 659ppsm
I was making point to them that DFW and Houston are actually more populated in Philly MSA then Philly is already,
but even this misleading because density across different areas size. The more further out the lower the density. So if comparing a small area to much bigger area the larger area maybe distorted.
That's why I'm using Philly and Boston MSA area as standards. Since Atlanta, Houston and DFW MSA are view as too big, I using Boston and Philly as "good" MSA sizes. This is shocking to a lot of posters on this board but If you trim off the extra area of DFW, Atlanta, Houston and etc MSA area to Philly and Boston MSA sizes. it wouldn't actually move the needle much.
Atlanta would only be a few 100k smaller than Philly MSA while Houston and Dallas would still be bigger than Philly MSA.
Yes, my point was if Chattanooga and Birmingham were closer to Atlanta with in Atlanta CSA. it would be like how Providence RI and Manchester NH are to Boston MSA.
But that's the thing: they're not. If Chattanooga and Birmingham were as close to Atlanta as PVD and Manch are to Boston, then it'd be a completely different metro area.
Quote:
like DC, Boston and Philly Metro areas are 3,500 sq mi to 5,200 sq mi they don't have a giant exurban ring.
But they do. And the reason is that there's no drop in development between Boston, Manchester, Worcester, and Providence. The jump in population between Boston's MSA and CSA shows how important that fact is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
That's false. Phoenix, Houston and DFW have denser urban areas than Boston and Philadelphia. Boston and Atlanta can have their little war but don't confuse cities west of the Mississippi with those east of it. Houston , Phoenix and DFW have more uniform density. Built more like LA which FYI is the most dense big UA in the country
in the 2010 census
Phoenix was 1222 ppsm
Houston was 1150ppsm
DFW was 1111 ppsm
Philadelphia 1060ppsm
Boston was 861ppsm
Atlanta was 659ppsm
Exactly. Metro Boston isn't particularly dense, but it is large. And the lack of density doesn't necessarily make it sprawly. In fact, it jumps between urban/rural very often with only a few towns being truly suburban throughout.
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.
