Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bartholomew

Small City, Big Metro

Recommended Posts

The following are the top 15 cities with the smallest population that have MSAs over 1,000,000 residents.

Rank; City; City Pop; MSA Pop; % MSA Pop living in city

1 Hartford, CT 124,848 1,184,564 10.54

2 Providence, RI 176,365 1,628,808 10.83

3 Richmond, VA 192,494 1,154,317 16.68

4 Orlando, FL 205,648 1,861,707 11.05

5 Rochester, NY 212,481 1,041,499 20.40

6 Birmingham, AL 233,149 1,082,193 21.54

7 Buffalo, NY 282,864 1,154,378 24.50

8 Riverside, CA 288,384 3,793,081 7.60

9 Cincinnati, OH 314,154 2,058,221 15.26

10 Tampa, FL 321,772 2,587,967 12.43

11 Pittsburgh, PA 322,450 2,401,575 13.43

12 St. Louis, MO 343,279 2,764,054 12.42

13 Minneapolis, MN 373,943 3,116,206 12.00

14 Miami, FL 379,724 5,361,723 7.08

15 Atlanta, GA 419,122 4,708,297 8.90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The following are the top 15 cities with the smallest population that have MSAs over 1,000,000 residents.

I think you mean Smallest city, Big Metro right?

A ranking based on the ratio of main city/Metro would be more intuitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean Smallest city, Big Metro right?

A ranking based on the ratio of main city/Metro would be more intuitive.

Yes. I meant small city, big metro but can't figure out how to edit the thread topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Albany's MSA population over 1 mil? If it isn't, it must be very close. I believe they have under 100,000 people living in the city.

btw, thanks for the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following are the top 15 cities with the smallest population that have MSAs over 1,000,000 residents.

Rank; City; City Pop; MSA Pop; % MSA Pop living in city

1 Hartford, CT 124,848 1,184,564 10.54

2 Providence, RI 176,365 1,628,808 10.83

3 Richmond, VA 192,494 1,154,317 16.68

4 Orlando, FL 205,648 1,861,707 11.05

5 Rochester, NY 212,481 1,041,499 20.40

6 Birmingham, AL 233,149 1,082,193 21.54

7 Buffalo, NY 282,864 1,154,378 24.50

8 Riverside, CA 288,384 3,793,081 7.60

9 Cincinnati, OH 314,154 2,058,221 15.26

10 Tampa, FL 321,772 2,587,967 12.43

11 Pittsburgh, PA 322,450 2,401,575 13.43

12 St. Louis, MO 343,279 2,764,054 12.42

13 Minneapolis, MN 373,943 3,116,206 12.00

14 Miami, FL 379,724 5,361,723 7.08

15 Atlanta, GA 419,122 4,708,297 8.90

Could these figures be an indication of how much low-density sprawl surround these cities? I know it's true for Hartford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could these figures be an indication of how much low-density sprawl surround these cities? I know it's true for Hartford.

I think it's true for Providence aswell. I checked that city out on Google Earth, it seems that the Providence metro area covers about a quarter/ a third of the entire state!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Albany's MSA population over 1 mil? If it isn't, it must be very close. I believe they have under 100,000 people living in the city.

btw, thanks for the list.

Albany's CSA (Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area) has a population of 1,141,637 but the MSA has only 845,269.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say its a good indicator of sprawl, but you also have to look at other factors. Some cities can hide the fact that they have sprawl in their stats. Phoenix, az has horrible sprawl but doesnt show up on the list only because the actual city limits of phoenix is so large. Im not sure about the cities on this list but i would guess that they probly dont have very large city limits. I know the twin cities dont have huge city limits, but the metro is still very sprawled. I remember reading something from the twin cities metro planning commition that the twin cities was the second most sprawled metro after atlanta. Im not sure how true that is but if they claimed it it must be somewhat true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much an indication of sprawl but rather an indication that the city is locked in by already separate muncipalities (some of them very dense and not sprawling at all) that are well established as their own governmental unit. Also a sign that annexation is impossible for the city. As for Atlanta, however, it seems like an indication of massive sprawl. Hartford and Providence do have sprawl too, but they also have very dense communities right around them that are actually their own separate municipalities (i.e. Central Falls, Pawtucket, Cranston, Woonsocket, West Warwick, RI).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's true for Providence aswell. I checked that city out on Google Earth, it seems that the Providence metro area covers about a quarter/ a third of the entire state!!

Actually the Providence MSA covers the entire state and Bristol County, MA. Then again, our state isn't even twice the size of the City of Houston.

Not so much an indication of sprawl but rather an indication that the city is locked in by already separate muncipalities (some of them very dense and not sprawling at all) that are well established as their own governmental unit. Also a sign that annexation is impossible for the city. As for Atlanta, however, it seems like an indication of massive sprawl. Hartford and Providence do have sprawl too, but they also have very dense communities right around them that are actually their own separate municipalities (i.e. Central Falls, Pawtucket, Cranston, Woonsocket, West Warwick, RI).

Also, our metro consists of other non-contiguous cities such as Newport, New Bedford, and Fall River.

Yes. I meant small city, big metro but can't figure out how to edit the thread topic.

Members can't edit their thread titles once they are posted, I edited it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that Atlanta has a lot of sprawl, the county line goes right through the center of the urban area which immediately puts a lot of the population in another municipality. The list is as much of a reflection of the differing laws in each state on what comprises a city as it is anything else. For example a city may have consolidated with the county government and would possibly deserve to be on that list, but isn't because the actual city makes up hundreds of square miles.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions related to sprawl or density from that list unless you understand what limitations there are on the city limits each case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's true for Providence aswell. I checked that city out on Google Earth, it seems that the Providence metro area covers about a quarter/ a third of the entire state!!

Providence MSA covers all of Rhode Island plus Bristol County, Massachusetts, however it is only 1601 square miles in area. It is one of the smaller MSAs over 1 million, if not the smallest and has a density over 1000 people per square mile, one of the densest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else think its odd that they include rural areas in MSA's? I know it's done based on commuting, but I feel like rural areas included in an MSA are almost like an oxymoron. Like Providence, for example, its metro includes almost all of RI, including very rural communities near the Connecticut border. Take them outta the picture and you leave out maybe a few thousand people but a huge amount of area, more accurately displaying the metro's density. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about those other places, but here is the story with Pittsburgh: The city proper is about 55 square miles, not very large. It is surrounded by other towns, which are very definitely suburbs, but which have their own separate governments. The city has been unable to annex any of these. Thus you get a city with less than 400,000 people but a metro area of more than 2 million.

It would be beneficial to the whole region if the city could annex some or all of the suburbs, but the suburban legislators won't allow it, and they obviously outnumber city legislators in the state gov't. It's a constant problem that the city has to compete with its own suburbs for tax dollars and businesses, making cooperation difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else think its odd that they include rural areas in MSA's? I know it's done based on commuting, but I feel like rural areas included in an MSA are almost like an oxymoron. Like Providence, for example, its metro includes almost all of RI, including very rural communities near the Connecticut border. Take them outta the picture and you leave out maybe a few thousand people but a huge amount of area, more accurately displaying the metro's density. Any thoughts?

Absoultely - which is why I often refer to 'Urban Area' rather than MSA to view the size of a city. In fact I think they shouldn't even refer to MSA to describe Metropolitan Statistical Area, but as Commuting Statistical Area - of course they will have to find a new name for the current CSA.

Otherwise - a MSA should be based on the following criteria:

Primary county featuring UA of 50k >

Additional counties 50% > population within UA & commuting > 25% (rather than 15%).

Otherwise the Census should create classifications of MSA, to note 'primary' / 'secondary' (in case of edge cities), 'suburban' & 'exurban'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I like your idea of the commuting statistical area. I don't think it should go county by county for MSA's though, since many counties are half urban half rural, even in the Northeast where the counties are smaller in area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say its a good indicator of sprawl, but you also have to look at other factors. Some cities can hide the fact that they have sprawl in their stats. Phoenix, az has horrible sprawl but doesnt show up on the list only because the actual city limits of phoenix is so large. Im not sure about the cities on this list but i would guess that they probly dont have very large city limits. I know the twin cities dont have huge city limits, but the metro is still very sprawled. I remember reading something from the twin cities metro planning commition that the twin cities was the second most sprawled metro after atlanta. Im not sure how true that is but if they claimed it it must be somewhat true.

okc has sprawl and huge city limits. about 528,000 people in a city that covers an area of over 600 sq. miles. talk about leg room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see the numbers as a percentage of total metro area. Obviously, Orlando is way up there and Miami and Tampa would be there from Florida, Jacksonville would be the opposite as it is the largest city in Florida but only the 4th biggest metro.

Atlanta's the one that surprises me, it's very small compared to what I would think it would be. Compare that 420k to the 1.23 million in Dallas and 550k in Ft Worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Louisville is another one that comes to mind. By city standards, Louisville would have 257K, with a metro of 1.3 million, since it makes up portions of Indiana & Kentucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta's the one that surprises me, it's very small compared to what I would think it would be. Compare that 420k to the 1.23 million in Dallas and 550k in Ft Worth.

Well it doesn't surprise me. If we are talking about city propers then Atlanta is only 132.4 sq miles. The city limits are tiny in comparison to Dallas' 342.5 sq miles and Fort Worth's 292.5 square miles.

Just for numbers sake, lets say that Atlanta's municipal boundary was the size of Ft Worth or Dallas. The population numbers would be:

Atlanta @ 292.5 sq miles = 927,870

Atlanta @ 342.5 sq miles = 1,086,480

As you can see, then Atlanta would have a very sizeable population. If Atlanta squeezed 1.23 million people into 132.4 square miles then it would have to look like New York City....or Chicago. That would be a population density of 9290 people per square miles. WOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.