HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 1:58 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
To have a meaningful discussion for comparison of how OKC stacks up, take OKC's ~600 sq mile area and plop that atop Chicago, San Francisco, Philly, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle, Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, DC, Miami, Pittsburgh, St. Louis... and on down the line.

The top 10, top 20, etc. is going to look a lot different... and OKC ain't gonna be too high up there -- maybe not even top 50.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 2:48 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
To have a meaningful discussion for comparison of how OKC stacks up, take OKC's ~600 sq mile area and plop that atop Chicago, San Francisco, Philly, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle, Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, DC, Miami, Pittsburgh, St. Louis... and on down the line.

The top 10, top 20, etc. is going to look a lot different... and OKC ain't gonna be too high up there -- maybe not even top 50.
If Detroit absorbed only the suburbs that directly border it, the city would have a population of 1.25 million and be back in the top 10. Detroit would then have a population count similar to Dallas, but in an area only 80% the size of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 3:02 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
If Detroit absorbed only the suburbs that directly border it, the city would have a population of 1.25 million and be back in the top 10. Detroit would then have a population count similar to Dallas, but in an area only 80% the size of it.
That's interesting. I'd love to see what a largest cities list would look like if we took a 300 sq mi land area (what NYC is), and applied the measure uniformly to all cities. Then do it with 400, 500, 600 sq mi areas... and decrease it down to 200, 100...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 3:26 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
^^^^

SF would be quite big. If we just accounted for 300 sq miles.


No doubt Newark NJ and Jersey City would fit into that bubble or constraint.

Miami would balloon upwards. Being only 36 sq miles if we don't count water.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 3:36 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
That's interesting. I'd love to see what a largest cities list would look like if we took a 300 sq mi land area (what NYC is), and applied the measure uniformly to all cities. Then do it with 400, 500, 600 sq mi areas... and decrease it down to 200, 100...
The order would probably look something like the list of urbanized areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 3:41 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
The order would probably look something like the list of urbanized areas.
Right, it could mimic urbanized area and/or MSA list potentially... depending on the area parameter value and how it is applied, like if we took a uniform 10-mile radius circle and plopped it on top of the geographic center of a city's population in the case of a 300 sq mi land area... or adjusted for development patterns/terrain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 3:46 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
the 300 square miles should be centered on the anchor city's downtown location. otherwise, you get a place like Miami that can elongate 300 square miles and avoid non populated areas. cities like Minneapolis would benefit compared to a city like San Francisco.

otherwise, I don't see a point, you may as well use the urbanized area population info.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 3:47 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Right, it could mimic urbanized area and/or MSA list potentially... depending on the area parameter value and how it is applied, like if we took a uniform 10-mile radius circle and plopped it on top of the geographic center of a city's population in the case of a 300 sq mi land area... or adjusted for development patterns/terrain.
do you know of a site that has these map making tools? that would be fun to play around with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 4:01 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
the 300 square miles should be centered on the anchor city's downtown location. otherwise, you get a place like Miami that can elongate 300 square miles and avoid non populated areas. cities like Minneapolis would benefit compared to a city like San Francisco.

otherwise, I don't see a point, you may as well use the urbanized area population info.
yeah, that's the thing... how to adjust for the vast differences in city layout.

Though just doing the basic area of 100 - 700 square mile circles emanating from a city's downtown could be interesting (i.e., not avoiding non-populated areas in the case of coastal cities), since at certain radius distances you'll still pick up all/most of the population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
do you know of a site that has these map making tools? that would be fun to play around with.
I have an ancient GIS package, which is fine for the mapping, tracts part... but the data is way out of date.

Even Google maps has some pretty good functionalities for basic distance measurements, but I have no idea about online sites what would be good for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 4:17 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Right, it could mimic urbanized area and/or MSA list potentially... depending on the area parameter value and how it is applied, like if we took a uniform 10-mile radius circle and plopped it on top of the geographic center of a city's population in the case of a 300 sq mi land area... or adjusted for development patterns/terrain.
I don't think using a standard geometric constraint would be apples to apples. For instance, it's not a terrain issue, but I didn't include Windsor, Ontario, in the count for Detroit. With Windsor included, that's about 1.5 million people in an area that is roughly the same size as Dallas (in case you cared).

I think counting 300 or 600 contiguous miles would make the point, and it would start to look the same as urbanized area the larger you made the land area parameter. For instance, if you counted 600 contiguous miles in Miami it would cover half of the urbanized area. If you assume that 50-60% of the population lives in that area, it would most likely be ordered in the same place as the Miami urbanized area, fourth behind NYC, LA, and Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 4:45 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
10 mile radius = 314 square miles

Detroit (including Windsor) = 1,676,930
Dallas = 1,305,068
Miami = 1,257,084 (some water)
Minneapolis = 1,262,872
Denver = 1,270,312
Atlanta = 918,355
Seattle = 831,088 (lots of water)
DC = 1,792,926
Chicago = 3,096,327 (some water)
St. Louis = 961,428
Houston = 1,431,672
Boston = 1,621,346 (some water)
Philadelphia = 2,201,664
Los Angeles = 3,853,219
Jersey City = 6,047,279 (map tool wouldn't center on lower Manhattan)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 4:51 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
10 mile radius = 314 square miles

Detroit (including Windsor) = 1,676,930
Dallas = 1,305,068
Miami = 1,257,084 (some water)
Minneapolis = 1,262,872
Denver = 1,270,312
Atlanta = 918,355
Seattle = 831,088 (lots of water)
DC = 1,792,926
Chicago = 3,096,327 (some water)
St. Louis = 961,428
Houston = 1,431,672
Boston = 1,621,346 (some water)
Philadelphia = 2,201,664
Los Angeles = 3,853,219
Jersey City = 6,047,279 (map tool wouldn't center on lower Manhattan)
I would center NY on Midtown (Grand Central or Times Square) if you're going to do it this way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 5:18 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I don't think using a standard geometric constraint would be apples to apples. For instance, it's not a terrain issue, but I didn't include Windsor, Ontario, in the count for Detroit. With Windsor included, that's about 1.5 million people in an area that is roughly the same size as Dallas (in case you cared).

I think counting 300 or 600 contiguous miles would make the point, and it would start to look the same as urbanized area the larger you made the land area parameter. For instance, if you counted 600 contiguous miles in Miami it would cover half of the urbanized area. If you assume that 50-60% of the population lives in that area, it would most likely be ordered in the same place as the Miami urbanized area, fourth behind NYC, LA, and Chicago.
Yeah, a standard circle is not a true "apples to apples" comparison in real life. Just a apples to apples from a purely geometric parameter. Theoretical exercise.

Urbanized area can be somewhat misleading in cases where a fully developed area is not highly populated; and obviously MSA is in actuality not a specific measure of the size of a city, but rather its reach (which as we well know on here, there are highly tenuous assumptions). At some circular square mileage measure, the largest city list would likely approximate highest population density list.

Interesting way to look at things regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
10 mile radius = 314 square miles

Detroit (including Windsor) = 1,676,930
Dallas = 1,305,068
Miami = 1,257,084 (some water)
Minneapolis = 1,262,872
Denver = 1,270,312
Atlanta = 918,355
Seattle = 831,088 (lots of water)
DC = 1,792,926
Chicago = 3,096,327 (some water)
St. Louis = 961,428
Houston = 1,431,672
Boston = 1,621,346 (some water)
Philadelphia = 2,201,664
Los Angeles = 3,853,219
Jersey City = 6,047,279 (map tool wouldn't center on lower Manhattan)
Cool, thanks for this. I wonder if at some radius, NYC is not the largest city? Like, if NYC was only 100 sq miles... roughly 6 mile radius... I imagine large portions of the most populous boroughs Brooklyn and Queens would be eliminated, if centered in Manhattan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 6:51 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
iheartthed, I haven't figured out how to manually adjust the circle, you type in the location and for some reason when you type in New York City, the only option I see is centered on Queens.

pj3000, the 6 mile radius over Queens = 3,550,731
10 mile radius = 6,919,864
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 7:22 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
10 mile radius = 314 square miles

Detroit (including Windsor) = 1,676,930
Dallas = 1,305,068
Miami = 1,257,084 (some water)
Minneapolis = 1,262,872
Denver = 1,270,312
Atlanta = 918,355
Seattle = 831,088 (lots of water)
DC = 1,792,926
Chicago = 3,096,327 (some water)
St. Louis = 961,428
Houston = 1,431,672
Boston = 1,621,346 (some water)
Philadelphia = 2,201,664
Los Angeles = 3,853,219
Jersey City = 6,047,279 (map tool wouldn't center on lower Manhattan)
some more cities:

Sunnyvale, CA = 1,258,550 (San Jose off center)
Salt Lake City = 612,948 (includes empty areas to the west)
Portland, OR = 1,027,583
Sacramento = 973,039
San Diego = 1,130,422 (some water, off center)
Columbus, OH = 925,494
Charlotte = 583,838 (seems way too low)
Tempe, AZ = 1,111,663 (Phoenix off center, includes mountain)
Austin = 664,556 (includes empty land in the west)
San Antonio = 1,108,692
Baltimore = 1,308,812
Kansas City = 728,591

I think we're seeing that a 10 mile radius isn't perfect because of the linear development pattern of some cities that excludes urbanized areas and includes lightly developed or non developed areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 8:16 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
10 mile radius = 314 square miles

Detroit (including Windsor) = 1,676,930
Dallas = 1,305,068
Miami = 1,257,084 (some water)
Minneapolis = 1,262,872
Denver = 1,270,312
Atlanta = 918,355
Seattle = 831,088 (lots of water)
DC = 1,792,926
Chicago = 3,096,327 (some water)
St. Louis = 961,428
Houston = 1,431,672
Boston = 1,621,346 (some water)
Philadelphia = 2,201,664
Los Angeles = 3,853,219
Jersey City = 6,047,279 (map tool wouldn't center on lower Manhattan)
"some water" for chicago?

a 10 mile radius out from downtown chicago is almost half (~43%) lake michigan.

this image below is a 10 mile radius circle centered on chicago's city hall.

__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 19, 2020 at 8:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 8:41 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
"some water" for chicago?
The center was sw of the loop, included maybe 15 - 20% of water.
I just checked Oak Park, almost zero water coverage, excludes low density south Chicago and the population = 2,751,218
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 8:45 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
The center was sw of the loop, included maybe 15 - 20% of water.
oh, i thought you were placing the center of all the circles over "downtown", for the sake of a consistent measure.

the truth is there is no perfect apples-to-apples way to measure these things because not all cities occupy a vast featureless plain of buildable land, with a discreet "downtown" in the center and concentric rings of development evenly radiating out from it in all directions.

when we want to remove the arbitrariness of "city propers", while also avoiding the pitfalls of the census bureau's MSA/CSA county mash-up game, the Urban Area (UA) is the best available measure we have to get closest to an apples-to-apples comparison of the relative sizes of US "cities". it certainly ain't perfect, but it's the best we got.

and going by UA, OKC will not be touching the top 10 in the US anytime soon.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 19, 2020 at 9:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2020, 8:56 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
oh, i thought you were placing the center of all the circles over "downtown", for the sake of a consistent measure.

the truth is there is no perfect apples-to-apples way to measure these things because not all cities occupy a vast features plain of buildable land, with a discreet "downtown" in the center and concentric rings of development evenly radiating out from it in all directions.

when we want to remove the arbitrariness of "city propers", while also avoiding the pitfalls of the census bureau's MSA/CSA county mash-up game, the Urban Area (UA) is the best available measure we have to get closest to an apples-to-apples comparison of the relative sizes of US "cities". it certainly ain't perfect, but it's the best we got.

and going by UA, OKC will not be touching the top 10 in the US anytime soon.
the website I found today to calculate populations within defined radii isn't perfect. it requires a location to by typed in and then it populates. some are directly on top of a downtown, others are off center. it provides a good picture, but not perfect.

also, I'm not sure what information the site is using. it might be from the 2010 census. it also might mix old and new population numbers, I just don't know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2020, 4:18 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Maybe if they annex Tulsa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.