Hudson County is more a "part" of NYC than Staten Island.

Santa Monica & Beverly Hills are more a "part" of LA than the SF Valley.

Evanston & Oak Park are more a "part" of Chicago than the Wild 100s.

In some cities, the city limits don't represent the true "city" area. They sometimes include remote, outlying areas and exclude denser areas that are closer to, and better integrated with, the central core.

On the other hand, some city boundaries are almost perfectly correlated with the actual "city". Indianapolis comes to mind, but I could be wrong about that example.

What do you guys think of the examples I gave? Lets also discuss how we would hypothetically re-draw the bounderies of different cities to better reflect what the true, functioning "city" really is.

For Louisville, I hate when people try to act like Southern Indiana (Clarksville, Jeffersonville, and New Albany) is like a whole different country when they are closer than most Louisville suburbs are to the CBD.

Evanston & Oak Park are more a "part" of Chicago than the Wild 100s.



Evanston is a tricky one. while it's general development pattern is more urban than big swaths of the "Wild 100s", evanstonians are a fiercely independent bunch and to hear you call their city "a part of chicago" would make them cringe. i would generally agree that evanston should have been annexed by the city back in the day to become the northside's equivalent to the southside's hyde park, but the annexation votes (while incredibly close) always came up just a few votes shy, and that has molded the independent evanston we see today. and that hasn't neccessarily been a bad thing, as i don't think evanston would have developed the strong city center it has today had it become just another city neighborhood 100 years ago.

the two chicago burbs that really do feel and act like city neighborhoods more than any others are cicero and berwyn. norridge and harwood heights should also be finally brought into the mix as well considering that they are entirely surrounded by chicago.

Pretty easy for Miami. Just make it the "UDB" (urban development boundary) of Miami-Dade County. Its what most people think of when they think of "Miami" anyway. The resulting population would be around 2.5 million. It would be so much easier (and cheaper tax wise as it would get rid of government duplication) than having 35 separate tiny cities governing the same area.

The UDB makes up about a third of the area of Miami-Dade County. It is the strict development boundary that stops Miami from sprawling like other cities. Outside of that area basically all you can build are farms, limestone quaries...etc.

Not suggesting this one should have happened but what if it did?

a "Greater San Francisco" had been created on the west coast the way that a "Greater New York" had on the east coast. Complete with boroughs.

as in...

San Francisco = Manhattan
Oakland (with adjacent East Bay) = Brooklyn
Peninsula (San Mateo County and into Santa Clara Co) = Queens
San Jose/Silicon Valley = Bronx
Marin/North Bay = Staten Island

what would that "Greater San Francisco" been like...and what would the implications of a far larger San Francisco meant to LA?

Evanston is a tricky one. while it's general development pattern is more urban than big swaths of the "Wild 100s", evanstonians are a fiercely independent bunch and to hear you call their city "a part of chicago" would make them cringe. i would generally agree that evanston should have been annexed by the city back in the day to become the northside's equivalent to the southside's hyde park, but the annexation votes (while incredibly close) always came up just a few votes shy, and that has molded the independent evanston we see today. and that hasn't neccessarily been a bad thing, as i don't think evanston would have developed the strong city center it has today had it become just another city neighborhood 100 years ago.

the two chicago burbs that really do feel and act like city neighborhoods more than any others are cicero and berwyn. norridge and harwood heights should also be finally brought into the mix as well considering that they are entirely surrounded by chicago.

most cities hit "brick walls" when they expanded outward. it was logical that Chicago would hit one in a college town with a strong identity of itw own in Evanston.

Hudson County is more a "part" of NYC than Staten Island.

How about this: we keep SI and the other four boroughs, but we make the Jersey side of the Hudson part of NY state...enough to accomodate two new boroughs that stretch from Jersey City to Fort Lee.

How cool would that have been....the Hudson becomes NYC's own just like the East River. And if it had happened, the areas across the Hudson (unlike the limited population of Staten Island) would have been integrated into the NYC subway system...with cross Hudson tunnels in far greater number than what PATH provides today. Manhattan would have been even more served by subway to accomodate lines coming in from the west.

One other (fairly) sure bet: the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the GW Bridge would have had other cross-Hudson neighbors.

Los Gatos, Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga, parts of Santa Clara and Milpitas are more San Jose than Coyote Valley is. Going down there is like stepping into a different world. I don't really know why it's in city limits.

Daly City is much like the parts of San Francisco which it borders. Berkeley, Emeryville and San Leandro all look and feel just like Oakland.

The 91 green municipalities cover a total area of a little over 1,100 sq. mi. The population is about 3.7 million. If you include Windsor (across the river from Detroit), the number jumps to nearly 4 million.
http://www.downriverdetroit.net/detroiturbancore.jpg

Philly could incorporate some of the places in Delco, like Upper Darby and Cobbs Creek.

For Louisville, I hate when people try to act like Southern Indiana (Clarksville, Jeffersonville, and New Albany) is like a whole different country when they are closer than most Louisville suburbs are to the CBD.

Louisville and the cities along it on the river in Indiana and its suburbs are kinda like their own little area, and is truely the gateway to the south.

If you expand out, your municipality will add a bunch of conservative suburban voters. Do you really want that?

This would be Hartford if it was in another part of the country...anything in the black.

The map is Hartford County, BTW.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3616/hartfordcountyet5.gif


This "new" Hartford would have a population of 558,976 in 2000, and would have an area of almost 313 square miles. So density would decline markedly. Anyway, this is the true Hartford that the stats hide. It would also be rich. Too bad that every town is like it's own country around here.

I don't believe that it would be much more conservative, because Hartford's liberalism is strong, and the suburbs are quite socially liberal. Out of all the towns in the black, none of them went for Bush in the last election, well except possibly Avon.

I don't mean bush-conservative necessarily. Just a tendency to vote no on bond issues and so on. Or at least not as overwhelmingly less.

I don't necessarily think so. A lot of Detroit's inner-ring suburbs are havens for union workers and others who are more fiscally liberal.

I really don't know with Chicago. Much of the city doesn't feel like the city at all, and many suburbs feel more urban than the city...as mentioned above. I really don't know how I would re-draw the city's boundaries. I think this topic has been done ad nauseam, at least in the Chicago forum.

I don't mean bush-conservative necessarily. Just a tendency to vote no on bond issues and so on. Or at least not as overwhelmingly less.

Possibly, I'm not too sure. I believe the only conservatism you will find around here is fiscal.

How about this: we keep SI and the other four boroughs, but we make the Jersey side of the Hudson part of NY state...enough to accomodate two new boroughs that stretch from Jersey City to Fort Lee.

How cool would that have been....the Hudson becomes NYC's own just like the East River. And if it had happened, the areas across the Hudson (unlike the limited population of Staten Island) would have been integrated into the NYC subway system...with cross Hudson tunnels in far greater number than what PATH provides today. Manhattan would have been even more served by subway to accomodate lines coming in from the west.

One other (fairly) sure bet: the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the GW Bridge would have had other cross-Hudson neighbors.

hmm interesting thoughts.

Staten Island really looks like it should be part of Jersey geographically. Also I could see why the drew the borders the way they did, the Hudson is fairly wide and makes a good natural boundary.

I really wonder what the subway would of looked liked if they went with your boundaries though.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/5/5c/300px-Staten_Island_Highlight_New_York_City_Map_Julius_Schorzman.png

Evanston is a tricky one. while it's general development pattern is more urban than big swaths of the "Wild 100s", evanstonians are a fiercely independent bunch and to hear you call their city "a part of chicago" would make them cringe. i would generally agree that evanston should have been annexed by the city back in the day to become the northside's equivalent to the southside's hyde park, but the annexation votes (while incredibly close) always came up just a few votes shy, and that has molded the independent evanston we see today. and that hasn't neccessarily been a bad thing, as i don't think evanston would have developed the strong city center it has today had it become just another city neighborhood 100 years ago.

the two chicago burbs that really do feel and act like city neighborhoods more than any others are cicero and berwyn. norridge and harwood heights should also be finally brought into the mix as well considering that they are entirely surrounded by chicago.
The way things are going I am starting to think that some of those old industrial south suburbs (Harvey, Phoenix, Dolton, et al) should just join the city.

Mike

houston has a huge hold on people all the way from wharton to college station and conroe, and galveston. huge influence around houston.

Boston would probably absorb Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline. All three are extremely urban, and I'm pretty sure Cambridge and Somerville have a higher population density than Boston.

Raleigh would probably lose a lot of areas in the north, especially around Falls Lake. It's more suburban than Cary.