U.S. cities with bloated city proper populations due to annexation

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by Kenneth

If Detroit would merge with its county, we would be tied for 6th spot with the land gobbling Phoenix city, and our land area would be larger than Houston, which in my opinion both of these cities have dramatically cheated their way to the top of the charts.

Phoenix annexed empty desert and as some one mentioned earlier it still has almost 100 sq miles of empty desert in its city limits (mostly on the north side). It didn't annex population so much as population grew into its city limits.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

San Francisco should, at minimum, annex suburbs down to San Bruno. It probably won't happen, due to history and all, but a poster can dream.

Why? It certainly wouldn’t help San Bruno.

Secondly you’re talking about a completely different County.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by futuresooner

That hot spot of f**kery that is St. Louis County, MO...

That's a huge topic that needs to be addressed.

ha. the best i think we can hope for is similar municipalities consolidating. example: richmond heights, maplewood, brentwood combining. i think only metro pittsburgh is more balkanized?

[liat91]

I did some math a while back and added/subtracted land area from cities the best I could to equate them. I ranked them by CSA here using different definitions as well. I separated Baltimore and DC.

NYC: 9,800,303
LA: 5,393,603
Chicago: 2,809,502
San Francisco: 1,823,413
Philadelphia: 1,658,106
Dallas: 1,430,353
DC: 1,228,416
Houston: 1,179,577
Boston: 1,227,525
Atlanta: 771,604
Miami: 766,927
Detroit: 737,451
Phoenix: 677,376
Seattle: 744,949
Denver: 627,630
Minneapolis: 611,964
Tampa: 544,392
Cleveland: 514,873
Orlando: 511,675
San Diego: 701,936
Pittsburgh: 408,070
Portland: 440,145
St. Louis: 395,517
Charlotte: 404,237
Kansas City: 357,919

I mostly used zip code data to come to these numbers.

^ i don't understand what these numbers are supposed to represent. population within similar land areas? what was your base land area? how did you decide what land area to add/subtract?

[liat91]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

^ i don't understand what these numbers are supposed to represent. population within similar land areas? what was your base land area? how did you decide what land area to add/subtract?

I scoured over images on google maps. Looked at urban nodes, transit links, natural boundaries, extended regions of suburban sprawl etc..For example for NYC I added Hudson County, parts of Bergen, Newark and parts of Essex county, Mount Vernon and for Houston I chose zip codes that included and went one layer out from the 610 loop. I also used context to a degree in judging each city by the region it was in and historical growth patterns and layouts. I also looked at where it looked like distinct suburbia begins. What inner suburbs where distinct enough to not be an outer extension of the city. (I decided to exclude Evanston, but include Oak Park for Chicago, as the latter really seemed to be an extension of Chicago and the former sort of stood on its own.Wasn’t easy..

LA probably took me the longest.

I started to compute demographic data, but stopped at white percentage, because it was just to much.

^ okay... well, i applaud your effort. sounds like a lot of work. but i have my doubts that eyeballing Google Maps results in accurate comparisons of... whatever it is that you're trying to compare.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by liat91

I decided to exclude Evanston, but include Oak Park for Chicago, as the latter really seemed to be an extension of Chicago and the former sort of stood on its own..

and that's where you lost me.



here's the chicago/evanston border (howard street): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0194...7i16384!8i8192

typical downtown evanston street scene: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0484...7i16384!8i8192

typical evanston MFH residential side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0311...7i16384!8i8192

typical evanston SFH residnetial side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0308...7i16384!8i8192




here's the chicago/oak park border (austin boulevard): https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8936...7i16384!8i8192

typical downtown oak park street scene: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8886...7i16384!8i8192

typical oak park MFH residential side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8817...7i16384!8i8192

typical oak park SFH residential side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8924...7i16384!8i8192




it seems to me like an extremely subjective and arbitrary call to say the latter examples are an extension of the city and the former examples are not. evanston and OP are FAR more alike than they are different.

i understand that you put a lot of time and effort into calculating all of that, but without more rigorous and objective criteria, it's gonna be hard for anyone to put much stock in your results.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by liat91

I did some math a while back and added/subtracted land area from cities the best I could to equate them. I ranked them by CSA here using different definitions as well. I separated Baltimore and DC.

NYC: 9,800,303
LA: 5,393,603
Chicago: 2,809,502
San Francisco: 1,823,413
Philadelphia: 1,658,106
Dallas: 1,430,353
DC: 1,228,416
Houston: 1,179,577
Boston: 1,227,525
Atlanta: 771,604
Miami: 766,927
Detroit: 737,451
Phoenix: 677,376
Seattle: 744,949
Denver: 627,630
Minneapolis: 611,964
Tampa: 544,392
Cleveland: 514,873
Orlando: 511,675
San Diego: 701,936
Pittsburgh: 408,070
Portland: 440,145
St. Louis: 395,517
Charlotte: 404,237
Kansas City: 357,919

I mostly used zip code data to come to these numbers.

This list makes zero sense. I see a few errors (depending on your “definition”).

[futuresooner]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

This list makes zero sense. I see a few errors (depending on your “definition”).

Right? I'm trying to figure out how St. Louis GAINED population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by liat91

I did some math a while back and added/subtracted land area from cities the best I could to equate them. I ranked them by CSA here using different definitions as well. I separated Baltimore and DC.

NYC: 9,800,303
LA: 5,393,603
Chicago: 2,809,502
San Francisco: 1,823,413
Philadelphia: 1,658,106
Dallas: 1,430,353
DC: 1,228,416
Houston: 1,179,577
Boston: 1,227,525
Atlanta: 771,604
Miami: 766,927
Detroit: 737,451
Phoenix: 677,376
Seattle: 744,949
Denver: 627,630
Minneapolis: 611,964
Tampa: 544,392
Cleveland: 514,873
Orlando: 511,675
San Diego: 701,936
Pittsburgh: 408,070
Portland: 440,145
St. Louis: 395,517
Charlotte: 404,237
Kansas City: 357,919

I mostly used zip code data to come to these numbers.

Can you explain what you're doing? I'm not clear on your objective. I think earlier in this thread I added all of the communities that border Detroit to Detroit's population, and it was around 1.5M. There are no natural barriers around Detroit on 3 out of 4 sides, so the border is very porous between Detroit and all of its neighbors except Windsor. If you're doing what I think you're doing, your number should be somewhat similar to what I calculated before.

[Crawford]

I think he's trying to make some subjective addition of whether a neighboring suburb "fits" with the city proper fabric.

So, for example, for Detroit, Dearborn would be a natural inclusion, because it's essentially the same as neighboring parts of Detroit in terms of built form, but Southfield, given its sprawly postwar nature, wouldn't be included.

Maybe it would be more accurate to rank the geography of contiguous prewar development, which in some metros would extend far beyond city proper, and in others would only include a small portion of the city proper.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Yep. Same with Houston. It would double its population to 4.7 million.

Houston has an Extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) that spreads into different counties that's almost if not bigger than Harris County. It's population is over 4 million.

San Antonio is still actively annexing large swaths of land to add population, which separates it from places like Houston.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by TowerSpotter

Wow saw the Wikipedia size for Houston listed at 599 sq miles, which is what I always claimed it to be. A quick google search says it is at 669 sq miles also listed on the city website. Did Houston annex any more land recently that anyone knows of? If so where?

I live in the Montgomery county which is north of Houston and as far as I knew, New Caney was its own city. I noticed that the new housing development Tavola had City of Houston sewer tops. Kind of interesting. Also wondering if Houston could expand into another county.

Houston can expand into and already is in other counties and exercises jurisdiction over far outlying areas. Houston's utility district is present at Baybrook Mall for example.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think he's trying to make some subjective addition of whether a neighboring suburb "fits" with the city proper fabric.

So, for example, for Detroit, Dearborn would be a natural inclusion, because it's essentially the same as neighboring parts of Detroit in terms of built form, but Southfield, given its sprawly postwar nature, wouldn't be included.

Maybe it would be more accurate to rank the geography of contiguous prewar development, which in some metros would extend far beyond city proper, and in others would only include a small portion of the city proper.

That is pretty much exactly what I did. I also used different metrics based on a cities built form.

While much less important, I also looked at the size of the metro as a measure.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and that's where you lost me.



here's the chicago/evanston border (howard street): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0194...7i16384!8i8192

typical downtown evanston street scene: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0484...7i16384!8i8192

typical evanston MFH residential side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0311...7i16384!8i8192

typical evanston SFH residnetial side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0308...7i16384!8i8192




here's the chicago/oak park border (austin boulevard): https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8936...7i16384!8i8192

typical downtown oak park street scene: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8886...7i16384!8i8192

typical oak park MFH residential side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8817...7i16384!8i8192

typical oak park SFH residential side street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8924...7i16384!8i8192




it seems to me like an extremely subjective and arbitrary call to say the latter examples are an extension of the city and the former examples are not. evanston and OP are FAR more alike than they are different.

i understand that you put a lot of time and effort into calculating all of that, but without more rigorous and objective criteria, it's gonna be hard for anyone to put much stock in your results.

I actually included Evanston at first but then changed my mind. I looked also at how thick development continued after Oak Park vs Evanston. I also followed the neighborhood development pattern marching northward and it seemed like the city really does end at Rogers Park and not suddenly bulge from there with Evanston.

Oak Park bulges a bit, but nothing like Evanston and it’s also closer to the loop.

You could add Evanston I guess, but it really does seem to stand on its own a bit more.

[Steely Dan]

^ either way, that's a very subjective call on your part, which calls into question all of your results.

I get that you worked hard on it, but without rigorous, objective, consistently applied criteria, your numbers don't mean much on a comparative basis.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Can you explain what you're doing? I'm not clear on your objective. I think earlier in this thread I added all of the communities that border Detroit to Detroit's population, and it was around 1.5M. There are no natural barriers around Detroit on 3 out of 4 sides, so the border is very porous between Detroit and all of its neighbors except Windsor. If you're doing what I think you're doing, your number should be somewhat similar to what I calculated before.

Some of the places you added, are clearly suburbs to me. I added the donut hole cities, a few municipalities to the south and I think one on the NE side. Detroit and it’s metro just don’t equate to a 1.5 million city to me.

I could have added half of northern NJ to NYC and gotten to 11-12 million people, but I don’t see Clifton, NJ as being a part of NYC.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ either way, that's a very subjective call on your part, which calls into question all of your results.

I get that you worked hard on it, but without rigorous, objective, consistently applied criteria, your numbers don't mean much on a comparative basis.

Are the current boundaries any more impressive? Houston, Miami, LA....come on.

My boundaries are much more uniform than what exists now. Seattle is an example of a city I didn’t have to add or take away from.

I wish I knew how to make a map to see where I’m getting at. I also used census tracts, which makes things even more tedious.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by liat91

Are the current boundaries any more impressive. Houston, Miami, LA....come on.

Of course not.

The arbitrariness of municipal boundaries is well known around here.

But that doesn't mean that your subjective exercise has much value for comparative purposes.