These are all cities whose metros have around ten times as many people as the cities themselves. It shows much American cities are sprawling fast and how suburbs are swallowing up their core cities.
city name/ city pop/ metro pop
(approximate figures)
Atlanta/ 420,000 / 4,900,000
http://imgsrv.homes.com/imgsrv/d5/75/121041755.jpg
Boston/ 580,000 / 5,600,000
http://www.ptexpress.com/pictures/cityscape-12.jpg
San Francisco/ 750,000 / 7,200,000
http://www.sfbayimages.com/new_images/400_IMG_1129.jpg
Minneapolis/ 370,000 / 3,300,000
http://www.stumble.com/rjnemeth/MPLSSKYLINE1.jpg
Orlando / 200,000 / 1,900,000
http://goflorida.about.com/library/graphics/orlandoskyline.jpg
Miami / 380,000 / 5,300,000
http://ithaki.vcl.uh.edu/~pavlidis/AVSS2003/images/MiamiSkyline.jpg
Salt Lake City / 170,000 / 1,500,000
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Front/SLCTown+.jpg
Baltimore / 650,000 / 7,800,000
http://dy999.acm.jhu.edu/pictures/ravens%20v%2049ers%20(44-6)%2011-30-03/baltimore%20skyline.JPG

I just estimated the populations, if you have more accurate figures then post them.

Interesting topic.

Many outsiders to the Bay Area are shocked at just how large the Bay Area outside of San Francisco actually is.

Washington,D.C.
560,000/7,900,000

Grand Rapids,MI is also nearly 10x smaller than it's CSMA.

Well, of the 3 largest cities and metro areas, the ratio of city population to it's entire metro goes something like this.....

1) New York City= 8.1 million, CSA= 22 million
37% live in the city to 63% in the suburbs

2) Los Angeles= 3.9 million , CSA= 18 million
22% live in the city to 78% in the suburbs

3) Chicago = 2.9 million, CSA = 9.7 million
30% live in the city, 70% in the suburbs.

The bigger problem in all of this is when their is little coordination amongst the primary city and the suburban towns. The ratio isn't that big of a deal if each town demanded "smart growth".......

There are some cities....San Antonio being a good example that have a very high percentage of the population in the city limits, but is still sprawlsville.....then cities like Boston (yes the outer burbs are spawlicious) that have a low percent in the central city, but many of the neighboring towns are also dense and offer a continuation of Boston to the point that it is difficult to tell when you leave Boston/Suffolk County and entering a surrounding town/county.....the transit system, street system, park system are all coordinated to act as one municipaility (except schools).

You have to realize that many of these metros have secondary or node cities that are just as urban as the primary city.

Hartford 125,000 / 1,670,000

http://www.enjoyhartford.com/images/homepages/t_genius.gif

Washington,D.C.
560,000/7,900,000

The Washington and Baltimore numbers are a little deceiving since the metro populations include both Washington and Baltimore... If you take either without the CMSA numbers I don't they fall into the 10X category?

Towns are also dense and offer a continuation of Boston to the point that it is difficult to tell when you leave Boston/Suffolk County and entering a surrounding town/county.....the transit system, street system, park system are all coordinated to act as one municipaility (except schools).

Agreed, but technically, they don't share anything except the MBTA (transit) and interstates. Schools, streets, garbage collection, utilities, social services, parks (Boston Parks System (http://www.cityofboston.gov/parks/pdfs/os7bmaps1.pdf), are all separate creating mass inefficencies.

The main thing it shows is how drastically different some cities draw their boundaries. Does the fact that most of Jacksonville and Houston's metro populations reside in the actual city limits (because the city limits are huge) mean those cities are less sprawled than Miami, SF, and Boston? No it just means that Miami, SF and Boston all have tiny city limits and in the case of Miami and SF (and DC/Baltimore) have multiple large cities inside their metros.

Exactly. If this shows anything this shows simply how some central cities are physically small and others large.

Actually the current population of Boston had dropped to around 569,000. Most people fled to the suburbs because of the high cost of living in Boston. However Boston is starting to recover.

Hartford 125,000 / 1,670,000

Yeah, I forgot Hartford and should have mentioned Providence too.

The main thing it shows is how drastically different some cities draw their boundaries. Does the fact that most of Jacksonville and Houston's metro populations reside in the actual city limits (because the city limits are huge) mean those cities are less sprawled than Miami, SF, and Boston? No it just means that Miami, SF and Boston all have tiny city limits and in the case of Miami and SF (and DC/Baltimore) have multiple large cities inside their metros.

I'm not denying that Houston and Jacksonville sprawl like crazy, this thread just emphasizes the fact that the sprawling of suburbs are "suffocating" their core cities. If you notice that with the exception of Orlando, all the central cities listed are either losing population or growing dreadfully slow. If these trends continue, these cities will all but disappear. St. Louis and Cleveland are also heading in this direction. If they annexed their inner ring suburbs, this wouldn't happen.

Houston and Jax will continue to grow and thrive and have no risk of being swallowed up. Miami, SF, and DC/Baltimore have multiple large cities in their metros because their suburbs have sprawed out so much that they merged with those other cities.

St. Paul= 280,404
metro- 3,300,000

also... obviously Oakland...

St. Paul= 280,404
metro- 3,300,000

also... obviously Oakland...

Its kind of a good thing if a city is landlocked because it will still try to get bigger but when it gets bigger it will get denser because it is landlocked take a city like phoenix that still has lots of land to expand and the city does nothing to get denser it just spreads out and the city planner do nothing until it is out of land thats when they get the heat turned up on them

Actually the current population of Boston had dropped to around 569,000. Most people fled to the suburbs because of the high cost of living in Boston. However Boston is starting to recover.

This brings up an interesting question...does population loss necessarily mean a city is "declining". I've read somewhere that Pittsburgh's population is falling but that the character of the population is changing...i.e. more singles, alternative couples, etc., often with higher levels of education and income than the people who are leaving. In essence, the "quality" of the population is improving while the overall population numbers are decreasing...

Exactly. If this shows anything this shows simply how some central cities are physically small and others large.

I thought this was obvious, but reading other postings, I guess it isn't as some people are taking it to heart.

Using the same rational for city proper or central city (downtown) for NYC, the isle of Manahattan is only pop 1.5MM, which has declined since 1900-1930s. The arbitrary 'liberal US metro' calcs would put the suburbs well over 10Xs, using the same apples to apples comparison to a city like SF, or Boston.

And how exactly would you do this for the Baltimore-Washington Metro. Its funny that I see people using first Baltimore city proper, and then Washington, but they are included in the same metro.

Still I'm not sure if comparing municipal population with metro population will really tell you anything. Just a thought - of course both are rather abstract indicators of population, but municipal population is VERY abstract. That doesn't truly reflect the urban center of any population - there may be population loss in one area - but another area may experience a population gain.

Comparing population by a buffer from a city center might explain a little more, but I admit that isn't perfect either. Still - a 10 or 20 mile population buffer describes the urban core much better than comparing a small municipality such as Orlando with a larger one such as Jacksonville. Especially since Orlando's population boom in downtown is much more noticable than what the municipal population indicates.

Yeah, some cities may have small definitions of area but that doesn't necessarily make these statistics bad indicators. Many cities are creating "edge cities" a large distances from the definition of the city. These edge cities are almost always the result of sprawl and aren't necessarily bad.

Fort Worth.

Fort Worth.

You can almost consider Fort Worth a "suburb" of Dallas.

The main thing it shows is how drastically different some cities draw their boundaries. Does the fact that most of Jacksonville and Houston's metro populations reside in the actual city limits (because the city limits are huge) mean those cities are less sprawled than Miami, SF, and Boston? No it just means that Miami, SF and Boston all have tiny city limits and in the case of Miami and SF (and DC/Baltimore) have multiple large cities inside their metros.

Very good post.

im suprised nobody said st. louis yet around 330,000 people in city limits and around 2,800,000 in metro.

Greenville, SC

2004 estimates (rounded)
City: 56,000
Metro: 584,000

But SC has really restrictive annexation laws. For comparison, in 2000 Greenville's urbanized area was 300,000.

Based on 2000 data

Norfolk 234,000
Metro 1,600,000

Closer to 15% but whatever...

I'd say washington DC and Atlanta take the cake for this thread. Washington DC is the 4th largest metro in America (only after NYC, LA, and Chcago of course) With over 6 million people in the metro area, when less than 600,000 people live in DC itself. Atlanta only has about 400,000 people in the city proper itself, and then around 4-5 million in it's ever sprawling suburbs.

I just learned about this in Texas government...

In Texas, the reason for a lack of a metro population is becuase each incorporated city has a five mile extra territorial jurisdiction. Within this area no "suburban" city can form, yet the larger city is allowed to annex it if it wishes to. When two cities expand they have to both agree where the official boundry will be.


By the way Fort Worth is definatly its own city, not anything close to a suburb of Dallas.

Wilmington 70,000 MSA 620,000

But think about this, aren't most, if not all, metros supposed to be way bigger than the actual city? I mean, Americans have wanted to live outside of the city since the beginning on the 20th century!

Metro versus center city size is largely a function of historic geopolitical decisions. Center city boundaries were set in stone in some parts of the country and can never grow; other areas allow annexation of surrounding areas by the center. In some areas you had a relatively big city surrounded by many older incorporated towns that will not give up their identity and be absorbed into the “center-city”. Newer cities are particularly subject to these political whims and that’s why you get such variation. This is not just an American phenomenon, London is a good example of the absorption of countless towns and villages, now just sections of London, e.g. Kensington, Knightsbridge, etc.

For the US, over the years the inability to “rationalize” city expansion has resulted in the problem we have of comparing cities on most parameters. It has also given rise to all kinds of attempts to rationalize public services, e.g. mass transit, fire service, police, etc. Sometimes it works well as in the DC Metro development and sometimes it results in truncated systems like MARTA in Atlanta.

KATOWICE (Poland)
city- about 250.000-300.000
metro- more than 3.000.000

RHEIN-RUHR (Germany)
There is no one main city but none of them is bigger than 600.000-700.000
metro- about 7.000.000

Chicago 12 million soon? w/ Milwaukee. The metros are creeping close to eachother...almost touching.

Harrisburg, Pa

city 48,000
CSA 643,000

http://www.algocentral.com/arsenal/books/thumbs/bomb.jpg

Chicago 12 million soon? w/ Milwaukee. The metros are creeping close to eachother...almost touching.

Actually, I think the metros do touch because the Census defines them by county, with Kenosha part of Chicagoland and Racine part of the Milwaukee metro. Hope I'm getting the county names right.

I'd say washington DC and Atlanta take the cake for this thread. Washington DC is the 4th largest metro in America (only after NYC, LA, and Chcago of course) With over 6 million people in the metro area, when less than 600,000 people live in DC itself.
Clearly DCs metro isnt the 4th largest in the country, thats the DC-Baltimore combined CSA.

DC metro is still 10x the size of the city proper though. I think it's 7th in MSA.

Thats fine. I just want people to use the right numbers. Or at least include the 18th largest city in the US and its Metro in the CSA data they use.