The largest cities in the U.S. (2009)

[TheStranger]

As a point of comparison to the "metro LA/metro SD as one nearly complete single area", although metro Sacramento (Davis or Dixon as its westernmost point) and the Bay Area (Vacaville or Dixon as the northeasternmost segment) are adjacent to each other, neither area really comes across as one region.  Likewise, while Stockton and Sacramento are the same distance from each other as San Francisco and San Jose, and share some TV network coverage, they don't really fit as one metro area either.

[agentsteel53]

heh for some reason I totally forgot Maine is that close to Boston.  I was thinking "there's no York, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or even Connecticut"...

[agentsteel53]

I never really understood why the U.S. Census bureau considers Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino as separate MSA's. They're fully integrated and the Inland Empire is/was just an overflow area for people in search of affordable housing. Now that the Inland Empire is also almost completely urbanized, it continues all the way to Indio, and across the San Gabriel Mountains along I-15 corridor to Barstow.

Cajon Pass is a brief gap in urbanization, and then north of Victorville there is some significant distance with absolutely no development before one gets into Barstow.  

Will it ever stop? Who knows. Eventually the San Diego and Los Angeles metropolitan areas will grow together along the I-15 corridor. It's almost there already. I think you can even consider Ventura/Oxnard to be part of the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

yep, only a few short gaps around Fallbrook.  And yes, I consider Ventura to be part of the LA metro area - maybe even Santa Barbara but there's definitely a gap between the two.

[TheStranger]

This discussion reminds me of a fun fact I only realized recently:

Baltimore to Philadelphia is the same distance as San Francisco to Sacramento, yet the first listed corridor makes you go through three states!

[agentsteel53]

and Boston to DC is about the same length as San Jose to Los Angeles. 

[TheStranger]

and Boston to DC is about the same length as San Jose to Los Angeles. 

Actually, a bit longer - Boston-DC is 449 miles, about 15 miles longer than the distance from LA to SF via 101.

NYC-Philadelphia at 95 miles is another "same as Sacramento to SF" distance!

[agentsteel53]

Actually, a bit longer - Boston-DC is 449 miles, about 15 miles longer than the distance from LA to SF via 101.

okay, it's about 3% different.     take some old 101 alignments, then!

[TheStranger]

Actually, a bit longer - Boston-DC is 449 miles, about 15 miles longer than the distance from LA to SF via 101.

okay, it's about 3% different.    take some old 101 alignments, then!

The SF-LA distance via 80/580/5 is actually 381 miles, while SJ-LA via 101/152/5 at 340 miles is comparable to the Boston-Wilimington DE distance (348 miles).

Actually this brings up a good point: we hear all the talk of "megalopolis" areas, but how true is that concept?  How large are the gaps in urbanization between the relative endpoints anyway?

I'll come up with some numbers in a bit...

[TheStranger]

For instance...

the northernmost area I consider "Bay Area" along 101 would be Novato, but the northernmost urbanized area in those far reaches would be Santa Rosa...so from Santa Rosa to Gilroy is 133 miles of urbanization (including Marin County, SF, San Mateo County, SJ).

Between Gilroy and the next truly urban area (Salinas) is 30 miles, followed by the Paso Robles/Atascadero area (107 miles).

Past Atascadero, the next urbanized grouping is San Luis Obispo (17 miles), then 12 miles to the south of SLO is the Pismo Beach/Arroyo Grande area, itself 16 miles to the north of Santa Maria.

From Santa Maria to the west edge of the Santa Barbara area (Goleta) is 62 miles; the final non-urbanized stretch from Carpinteria to Ventura is 18 miles.

In the 442 or so miles from Los Angeles to Santa Rosa, 262 of those miles along 101 are (relatively) rural, while 180 of them are urban (of which 133 of those miles are from Gilroy to Santa Rosa!)

---



In comparison, along the 449 miles from Boston to Washington...

the first rural-ish section might be on 95 north of 695 to about Newark, about 53 miles.  Then the first few miles of the NJTP towards Camden (30 miles), followed by the segment of I-95 on the turnpike to East Brunswick (28 miles).

The final non-urban segment (along a routing involving 95-91-84-90) would be from Rockville, CT to Worcester, about 45 miles.

So 150 miles of rural pathway from Boston to Washington, slightly more than half as many on the Bay Area-SoCal corridor!

[agentsteel53]

there are degrees to urban-ness.  Salinas, Paso Robles, etc, are not particularly large towns, at least not compared to most of what you'll see on the Jersey Turnpike around Carteret and whatnot.  And nothing compares to New York City!

[huskeroadgeek]

It's important to note that what the government defines as a metropolitan area, and what most people would think of as being part of the metropolitan area aren't always the same thing. Sometimes a city might technically be in a larger city's metro area, but the residents of that city may not think of themselves in that way. The disucssion of what defines metro LA is an interesting one. In some sense, areas as far out as the Coachella Valley(Palm Springs-Indio), Victorville-Apple Valley and Ventura could be considered part of metro LA, even though they aren't part of the Los Angeles MSA(they are however part of the larger Los Angeles CSA). But then an area like the Antelope Valley(Lancaster-Palmdale) which is an all senses part of the Los Angeles MSA since it actually is in Los Angeles County is actually more separate from the city of Los Angeles itself than some areas further in distance because it is separated from LA by the San Gabriel Mountains.

[TheStranger]

there are degrees to urban-ness.  Salinas, Paso Robles, etc, are not particularly large towns, at least not compared to most of what you'll see on the Jersey Turnpike around Carteret and whatnot.  And nothing compares to New York City!

Salinas is pretty big (about 148K) so comparable to Paterson and Elizabeth; however, Newark and Jersey City are in the 250-270K range - comparable to Chula Vista and Stockton in population!  

The closest city to Newark, NJ (in terms of its codependence on a much larger neighbor) in California would be Long Beach...which is nearly at 500K.

[agentsteel53]

Salinas is pretty big (about 148K) so comparable to Paterson and Elizabeth; however, Newark and Jersey City are in the 250-270K range - comparable to Chula Vista and Stockton in population!  

The closest city to Newark, NJ (in terms of its codependence on a much larger neighbor) in California would be Long Beach...which is nearly at 500K.

and what are the population densities of these various places?  to me Salinas and San Luis Obispo and whatnot have always seemed a lot more spread out than, say, Paterson.

[agentsteel53]

Chula Vista

now there's a place I definitely don't consider to be its own city.  It's a part of San Diego as far as I can tell. 

[TheStranger]

Salinas is pretty big (about 148K) so comparable to Paterson and Elizabeth; however, Newark and Jersey City are in the 250-270K range - comparable to Chula Vista and Stockton in population!  

The closest city to Newark, NJ (in terms of its codependence on a much larger neighbor) in California would be Long Beach...which is nearly at 500K.

and what are the population densities of these various places?  to me Salinas and San Luis Obispo and whatnot have always seemed a lot more spread out than, say, Paterson.

This is where New Jersey trumps a lot of places (via the sheer amount of dense communities located near NYC)...Paterson for instance is only EIGHT square miles, while Salinas - with the same amount of people - is 22 square miles, more than twice as much land!

Newark actually has about as much square miles worth of land as Salinas, with 100K more people.

[TheStranger]

Chula Vista

now there's a place I definitely don't consider to be its own city.  It's a part of San Diego as far as I can tell. 

In that vein, would you associate San Mateo County and Marin County with San Francisco, or Santa Clara and Milpitas and Gilroy with SJ?

I don't think it's quite the same deal as areas that truly are identified with the core city (due to lack of incorporation + adjacent location), i.e. Paradise (next to Las Vegas) and Arden (next to Sacramento) which I noted earlier in their thread due to their non-use on mailing addresses.

[agentsteel53]

In that vein, would you associate San Mateo County and Marin County with San Francisco, or Santa Clara and Milpitas and Gilroy with SJ?

well, I tend to associate San Jose with San Francisco (though I really should be thinking about it the other way around!) so, to answer your question, yes.

same with Berkeley, Alameda, Hayward, etc all being Oakland to me.  (but, strangely, I don't associate Oakland with San Francisco or San Jose despite the fact that you can get there via Fremont or Richmond or whatnot through unbroken heavy urbanization.

[TheStranger]

In that vein, would you associate San Mateo County and Marin County with San Francisco, or Santa Clara and Milpitas and Gilroy with SJ?

well, I tend to associate San Jose with San Francisco (though I really should be thinking about it the other way around!) so, to answer your question, yes.

same with Berkeley, Alameda, Hayward, etc all being Oakland to me.  (but, strangely, I don't associate Oakland with San Francisco or San Jose despite the fact that you can get there via Fremont or Richmond or whatnot through unbroken heavy urbanization.

I tend to think of the Bay Area as three very closely-spaced urban cores (especially SF and Oakland) with a surrounding set of suburbs for each one, but making up their own region when combined...kinda like the relationship between Baltimore and Washington, or Wilmington/Philadelphia/Camden/Trenton.

LA is so massive that I have a very hard time really think of Orange County as anything other than a region codependent on LA's presence (same deal with Long Beach).

Interestingly, Toledo and Detroit are much more like Sacramento and Stockton: two closely-spaced urban cores that have NOT merged into one.

[Stephane Dumas]

I tend to think of the Bay Area as three very closely-spaced urban cores (especially SF and Oakland) with a surrounding set of suburbs for each one, but making up their own region when combined...kinda like the relationship between Baltimore and Washington, or Wilmington/Philadelphia/Camden/Trenton.

I wonder if we could compare with some Canadian cities? Toronto and Hamilton was once two closely-spaced urban cores but they seems to be merged into one and then some neighboorhing areas like St. Catherines, Barrie, Waterloo-Kitchener-Cambridge, Guelph, Brantford could be one day absorbed in the GTA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_Area then if the urbanization continue to extend into the Niagara peninsula englobing Welland and Niagara Falls, we might have a "international megalopolis" composed of Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo.

If Metro Detroit had included also the Canadian side of the Detroit-Windsor area, the population of the area is 6000000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit%E2%80%93Windsor

[golden eagle]

although one should not underestimate the growth in states as North Carolina and Georgia.

Almost a decade ago, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a story on how Charlotte, Atlanta and Birmingham could all meet and form one big metro called Charlantingham. Sounds far-fetched, but who knows?

[golden eagle]

Someone mentionned at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4832867&postcount=6 then St.Louis population had increased since 2000

An increase of 6,000 people in 8 years after a 50,000 loss in the previous 10 years and a ~500,000 loss in the preceding 50 years. Apparently, St. Louis has hit rock bottom. I don't think cities can empty out forever. Gentrification may turn the tide, but it will never reach pre-1970 levels.

Washington is also on the rebound. Their population is just a shade under 600K. I believe it went below that in the 90s.

San Francisco had a roller-coaster population rise and decline. The early 2000s saw the population to over 784K, only to go down to 773K, but now has gone up well over 800K. Any possible explanation for the rise and fall and rise again?

[golden eagle]

What an interesting thread.

I read somewhere that Phoenix and Tucson will become one giant metropolis soon. With growth rates of 50% every 20 years it can't be too long before it happens.

Not far-fetched at all. North of Tucson is Marana, which has almost tripled since 2000. Marana sits just south of rapidly-growing Pinal County, so it's very possible for Tucson and Phoenix will meet.

[TheStranger]

San Francisco had a roller-coaster population rise and decline. The early 2000s saw the population to over 784K, only to go down to 773K, but now has gone up well over 800K. Any possible explanation for the rise and fall and rise again?

While SF is primarily built out, there is plenty of new infill development in the China Basin/South of Market areas, a good mix of commercial and residential.  (Of course, some of it can also depend on how the population count is achieved, too...)

[huskeroadgeek]

What an interesting thread.

I read somewhere that Phoenix and Tucson will become one giant metropolis soon. With growth rates of 50% every 20 years it can't be too long before it happens.

Not far-fetched at all. North of Tucson is Marana, which has almost tripled since 2000. Marana sits just south of rapidly-growing Pinal County, so it's very possible for Tucson and Phoenix will meet.

I've never actually traveled on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson, but it looks to me like there is still quite a bit of open area in between the two cities.

[golden eagle]

What an interesting thread.

I read somewhere that Phoenix and Tucson will become one giant metropolis soon. With growth rates of 50% every 20 years it can't be too long before it happens.

Not far-fetched at all. North of Tucson is Marana, which has almost tripled since 2000. Marana sits just south of rapidly-growing Pinal County, so it's very possible for Tucson and Phoenix will meet.

I've never actually traveled on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson, but it looks to me like there is still quite a bit of open area in between the two cities.

Well, it is (I've traveled it only once, back in 2003), but Marana is halfway between Tucson and Eloy, which I guess you call the "gateway" to metro Phoenix to the south. Depending on quickly Phoenix spreads out southward, it may not be too long before all the open country becomes urbanized.