HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 5:25 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
The Sacramento City Council’s opinion on annexation is that it’s much more expensive to provide municipal services than the ‘city’ can expect to receive in tax revenue from older established unincorporated neighborhoods.

564,657 people live in the ‘unincorporated’ parts of Sacramento (more than the 521,000 that live in the ‘city’ with boundaries that at times that defy logic.

Up until 1997, Sacramento was really the only city in the entire county except for Folsom and Galt. Attempts for city / county consolidation were rejected twice by voters. Had that passed Sacramento would have raked in additional tax revenue that were specific for municipalities and the city would have a ‘city’ population close to 1.5 million.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 5:31 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
setting aside somewhat irrelevant statistical dick measuring, i have to wonder if some of the inefficiency and waste in US government has to do with this hyper-balkanization of urban boundaries.

i grew up in silicon valley. in a 300 square mile area there are 10 or more independent cities. saratoga, los gatos, sunnyvale, cupertino, santa clara, san jose, mountain view, palo alto, fremont, milpitas, etc, each with a more-or-less complete governance structure. a scant few things are handled on the county level, and there are even too many of those.

the actual number of employees might not be all that different at the rank-and-file, but the number of "leaders" and leadership structures and different rules and regulations would be far lower. there would be one mayor, one city council, one planning commission or board, one chief of police, and so on, instead of dozens of each.

is it a coincidence that regions which are generally regarded as more efficient or business friendly have proportionally larger boundaries?

what would a bay area look like with the same 7-8M people but 3 fewer counties (6 instead of 9) and 50 fewer municipalities (50 instead of 100, with most of the combinations being in the urban core)?
I live in Paris area. In a 300 sq mile area, there are 130 independent cities !
The suburb where I live ( a "suburb" with 60,000 inh/sq miles) is less than a square mile.

The hyper-balkanization of urban boundaries is something we know well in France.
We created intercommunal structures because it's difficult to merge different municipalities but this created a new layer of administrative entity.
The power is shared between the cities, intercommunalities, departements (equivalent of counties) and region (in Paris case) but with no clear definition of what power and many citizens don't really understand what entities does what.

To put Paris in an European context.
London is 600 sq miles, Rome is 500 sq miles, Berlin is 340 sq miles, Madrid is 230 sq miles, Warsaw is 200 sq miles but officially Paris is just 40 sq miles.
Even Amsterdam has larger city bondaries than Paris.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 7:12 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
I think comparing the land area of the central city vs. the total urbanized area is a good way to identify "bloated" populations. For instance, NYC and Austin account for similar percentages of the urban population at around 44%, but Austin accounts for 50% of its urban land area while NYC only accounts for 9% of its urban land area.

Going back to the 1950 top 10 list, all of the central cities except L.A. account for 11% or less of their 2010 urban area.

NYC (9%)
Chicago (9%)
Philadelphia (7%)
Los Angeles (27%)
Detroit (10%)
Baltimore (11%)
Cleveland (10%)
St. Louis (7%)
Washington (5%)
Boston (3%)

1950 top 10 average (using 2010 areas): 10%

Now, looking at the top 10 in 2010, the central city population versus the urban area %age looks like this:

NYC (9%)
Los Angeles (27%)
Chicago (9%)
Houston (39%)
Philadelphia (7%)
Phoenix (45%)
San Antonio (77%)
San Diego (44%)
Dallas (19%)
San Jose (62%)

2010 top 10 average: 34%

Interestingly, the 1950 top 10 land area average using the 1950 urban area definitions also averages out to 34%. I'm not sure if that's just a coincidence or if it's a result of the Census Bureau changing the definition of an urban area. But what is clear is that the mid-20th century U.S. big cities cover a lot less land than the U.S. big cities of the early 21st century. The combined land area of the 1950 top 10 cities was roughly 1,606 square miles. That's the same area of 2.5 Houstons. The top 10 cities in 2010 covered over 3,600 square miles combined.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 8:45 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is offline
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,815
The numbers for Salt Lake City have the opposite bias. If SLC had been more aggressive in annexing the surrounding areas, it could have a million people today. The cities of the Salt Lake Valley, all of which "feel" like a continuous expansion southward of SLC proper, have about 1.2 million people together. Officially, SLC only has a bit more than 200k (17% of the MSA population).

On top of that, the population density number for SLC proper (1800/mi^2) is thrown off because half of the land within the city limits is protected wetlands and mountains. It's probably closer to 3600/mi^2 in reality, if not higher.
__________________
r/DevelopmentSLC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 9:43 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,888
This is from a thread I created a last year in C-D. I think it might interest some in this thread:

The census bureau provided this formula for determining daytime population:

Total resident population + Total workers working in area - Total workers living in area.

City Daytime Population, 2017:
9,357,951 New York, NY
4,169,529 Los Angeles, CA
3,018,200 Houston, TX
2,920,652 Chicago, IL
1,748,650 Phoenix, AZ
1,690,048 Philadelphia, PA
1,634,176 San Antonio, TX
1,612,856 San Diego, CA
1,568,654 Dallas, TX
1,162,937 Washington, DC
1,152,296 Austin, TX
1,125,330 San Francisco, CA
1,025,253 Charlotte, NC
1,000,876 Indianapolis, IN
985,692 Boston, MA
974,659 Jacksonville, FL
955,106 Columbus, OH
932,078 Ft Worth, TX
925,272 San Jose, CA
914,920 Seattle, WA
866,071 Denver, CO
786,218 Nashville, TN
783,699 Portland, OR
779,661 Atlanta, GA
773,051 Oklahoma City
771,580 Memphis, TN
740,398 Miami, FL
718,597 Baltimore, MD
712,345 Las Vegas, NV

Here are the numbers for these cities:

Total workers in city/city/total employed residents in city
4,808,014 New York, NY 4,072,761
+735,263(number of workers who commute into city limits)

2,162,404 Los Angeles, CA 1,992,316
+169,778

1,851,938 Houston, TX 1,083,455
+768,483

1,533,399 Chicago, IL 1,329,197
+204,202

935,759 San Diego, CA 740,422
+193,337

902,901 Phoenix, AZ 780,329
+122,572

897,287 Dallas, TX 669,708
+227,579

844,345 Washington, DC 375,380
+468,965

826,350 San Antonio, TX 704,120
+122,230

765,060 Philadelphia, PA 655,875
+109,185

764,331 San Francisco, CA 523,364
+240,967

741,685 Austin, TX 540,104
+201,581

671,818 Boston, MA 371,220
+300,598

621,037 Charlotte, NC 454,819
+166,218

616,952 Seattle, WA 426,777
+190,175

556,785 Denver, CO 395,335
+161,450

547,845 Indianapolis, IN 409,971
+137,874

543,664 Atlanta, GA 250,293
+293,371

529,865 Columbus, OH 453,929
+75,936

515,878 Jacksonville, FL 433,281
+82,597

498,298 Miami, FL 221,237
+277,061

493,152 Portland, OR 357,258
+135,894

481,725 Nashville, TN 363,069
+118,656

481,025 Ft Worth, TX 423,115
+57,910

418,978 San Jose, CA 529,023
−110,045

414,512 Oklahoma City, OK 306,596
+129,403

404,453 Memphis, TN 285,109
+119,344

384,529 Baltimore, MD 277,580
+106,949

371,989 Las Vegas, NV 301,320
+70,669

Glaring Observation: Houston has more inbound commuters than New York City. WOW.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 11:21 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 iheartthed View Post
I think comparing the land area of the central city vs. the total urbanized area is a good way to identify "bloated" populations.
yeah, it's as good of a proxy measure as we're ever gonna get.

as of 2010, there were 41 US Urban Areas with a 7 figure population (not including San Juan in PR).



1M+ US Urban Areas by % of land area within central city limits:
  1. Jacksonville - 140.9%
  2. San Antonio - 77.2%
  3. Memphis - 63.4%
  4. San Jose - 62%
  5. Indianapolis - 51.2%
  6. Austin - 50.7%
  7. Virginia Beach - 48.3%
  8. Kansas City - 46.5%
  9. Phoenix - 45.1%
  10. San Diego - 44.4%

  11. Columbus - 42.5%
  12. Charlotte - 40.2%
  13. Salt Lake City - 39.3%
  14. Houston - 38.5%
  15. Las Vegas - 32.6%
  16. Los Angeles - 27%
  17. Portland - 25.4%
  18. Denver - 22.9%
  19. Sacramento - 20.8%
  20. Dallas - 19.1%

  21. Orlando - 17.6%
  22. Milwaukee - 17.6%
  23. Tampa - 11.8%
  24. Baltimore - 11.3%
  25. Detroit - 10.3%
  26. Cleveland - 10%
  27. Cincinnati - 9.9%
  28. Chicago - 9.3%
  29. San Francisco - 9%
  30. New York - 8.8%

  31. Seattle - 8.3%
  32. Philadelphia - 6.8%
  33. St. Louis - 6.7%
  34. Pittsburgh - 6.1%
  35. Minneapolis - 5.4%
  36. Atlanta - 5%
  37. Washington - 4.6%
  38. Providence - 3.4%
  39. Miami - 2.9%
  40. Boston - 2.6%
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 25, 2020 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 12:52 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbermingham123 View Post
Good point... context aside tho, I still cant believe Canada has a city with an area of 11 billion square miles
No, it is really 100 trillion square miles.

Some city boosters include moose in the population counts. If only to counteract the despicable activities of Statistics Canada, who apparently have a hate-on for some Alberta cities.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 1:55 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
I overwhelmingly tend to perceive under-annexation as more of a problem in the U.S.

I think of Detroit, Buffalo, Atlanta and Miami as cities that are obviously under-sized relative to their urban area.
Exactly. No US city is really "bloated". There are only few examples of normal size while the vast majority could do much better with annexations.

In fact, I believe the US should eliminate this tier of administration and consolidate counties and cities.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:08 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
That has downsides too. Suburbanites tend to vote "no" for some types of core-centric measures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:10 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
No, it is really 100 trillion square miles.

Some city boosters include moose in the population counts. If only to counteract the despicable activities of Statistics Canada, who apparently have a hate-on for some Alberta cities.
Brazil has only two subdivisions, "estados" (states) and "municípios" (municipalities or simply cities). There are over 5,568 compared to the 3,000 or so counties in the US. As such, you can expect very big municipalities, mostly in Amazon:

Altamira, PA: 159,533 km² (larger than Georgia)
Barcelos, AM: 122,461 km² (larger than Pennsylvania)
São Gabriel da Cachoeira, AM: 109,181 km² (size of Tennessee)

And the smallest:

Santa Cruz de Minas, MG: 3.5 km²
Águas de São Pedro, SP: 3.6 km²
São Caetano do Sul, SP: 15.3 km²
Poá, SP: 17.3 km²
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 4:29 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
yeah, it's as good of a proxy measure as we're ever gonna get.

as of 2010, there were 41 US Urban Areas with a 7 figure population (not including San Juan in PR).



1M+ US Urban Areas by % of land area within central city limits:
  1. Jacksonville - 140.9%
  2. San Antonio - 77.2%
  3. Memphis - 63.4%
  4. San Jose - 62%
  5. Indianapolis - 51.2%
  6. Austin - 50.7%
  7. Virginia Beach - 48.3%
  8. Kansas City - 46.5%
  9. Phoenix - 45.1%
  10. San Diego - 44.4%

  11. Columbus - 42.5%
  12. Charlotte - 40.2%
  13. Salt Lake City - 39.3%
  14. Houston - 38.5%
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas
This definitely passes the eyeball test more than % of MSA population. I'm still surprised Houston lands out of the top 10 and below a regimented metro like Salt Lake City. I presume it's due to the north county sprawl being mostly out of city limits (and a testament to just how enormous Houston's footprint is).

With the 2020 urban areas I'm curious to see if Memphis and San Jose trade places. The Bay Area seems to have a near-constant footprint while DeSoto County, Mississippi (Memphis suburbs) is booming outwards.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:19 PM
ckh ckh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 78
A lot of Southern, along with some Western and Midwestern cities come to mind. I'm thinking of Phoenix, Columbus OH, Nashville, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Madison WI, Fresno, any NC city, Charleston SC, Louisville, Chattanooga and Knoxville TN, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:33 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Exactly. No US city is really "bloated". There are only few examples of normal size while the vast majority could do much better with annexations.

In fact, I believe the US should eliminate this tier of administration and consolidate counties and cities.
I think the opposite is true in America. most people don't want to be a part of the anchor city because they receive lower quality city services and they pay their taxes to a city government that is headquartered 15 miles away, feel neglected by the services they receive and the politicians that represent them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:43 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
I think the opposite is true in America. most people don't want to be a part of the anchor city because they receive lower quality city services and they pay their taxes to a city government that is headquartered 15 miles away, feel neglected by the services they receive and the politicians that represent them.
Then those people should pay true market rates for the services they receive, rather than being directly and indirectly subsidized by the people who do reside within the anchor city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:48 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
big area cities arent a problem, the real issue is the opposite, that many more older cities need to merge and annex.

old fashioned duplication of resources and suburban mini fiefdom governments are wasteful and holding them back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 3:07 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
big area cities arent a problem, the real issue is the opposite, that many more older cities need to merge and annex.

old fashioned duplication of resources and suburban mini fiefdom governments are wasteful and holding them back.
A problem in the rustbelt is that many of the old municipalities that surround the core city are in as bad or worse economic and physical shape than the core city is. The city doesn't need the added strain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 3:15 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
big area cities arent a problem, the real issue is the opposite, that many more older cities need to merge and annex.

old fashioned duplication of resources and suburban mini fiefdom governments are wasteful and holding them back.
Yep, I definitely agree here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 3:17 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
A problem in the rustbelt is that many of the old municipalities that surround the core city are in as bad or worse economic and physical shape than the core city is. The city doesn't need the added strain.

actually thats why they especially need to combine forces and reduce wasteful duplication.


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 3:33 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
big area cities arent a problem, the real issue is the opposite, that many more older cities need to merge and annex.

old fashioned duplication of resources and suburban mini fiefdom governments are wasteful and holding them back.
The Bay Area should do this. There was a movement in 1912 that if successful would have annexed everything within 20 miles of SF--but the response from Oakland: Bitch please.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 3:43 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
actually thats why they especially need to combine forces and reduce wasteful duplication.


Well it's not so much the potential benefits of reducing duplication...

It's the fact that cities do not want to take on the additional burden of having to expand their provision of services and not gaining revenue in return. In many cases, it would be a financial loss for the city.

The city would not get net benefits in tax revenues because there is no tax base to pull from... these places are often smaller, dirt poor municipalities which can barely pay for a police force of 5 people, cannot afford to demolish its crumbling houses, nor even fix its sidewalks... Why would a city want that?
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 8:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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