HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 8:07 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
I don't know what's going on with regional Pittsburgh, but I'm sure Pitt benefits from outsiders that have already been taxed by their own community that then come into Pburgh's city limits to spend their post tax money there.
Of course Pittsburgh does. But those benefits are far, far less than the liabilities that come from subsidizing the “outsiders” to live at an artificial price point in their far suburban/exurban community.

What aren’t you getting about the fact that it is nowhere near an equal financial exchange?

Once again, let those who reside in suburbs/exurbs pay actual market rates for infrastructure if they want to live there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 8:14 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Of course Pittsburgh does. But those benefits are far, far less than the liabilities that come from subsidizing the “outsiders” to live at an artificial price point in their far suburban/exurban community.

What aren’t you getting about the fact that it is nowhere near an equal financial exchange?

Once again, let those who reside in suburbs/exurbs pay actual market rates for infrastructure if they want to live there.
ok, I don't not believe you, can you provide some numbers? how much does a resident of Pittsburgh pay in taxes to subsidize people outside of the city limits and vice versa. every metropolitan region is different in their form of regional taxation, I have no idea what is going on in Pitt. is it fair to blame people that live outside of Pitt and rarely ever go into the city of Pitt for anything?

or Miami? you have two residences, you might have a preference as to which is your primary residence in the same manner that a suburbanite chooses to live there instead of the anchor city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 8:32 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
there aren't any movements that I know of for Ft Lauderdale to join Miami. Cambridge to join Boston. Marietta to join Atlanta. St. Paul to join Minneapolis. Bellevue to join Seattle. Tempe to join Phoenix. Evanston to join Chicago. Santa Monica to join Los Angeles. St. Pete to join Tampa. and there aren't any movements for even smaller cities to join those other smaller cities either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 8:59 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 1,850
I've expanded Steely Dan's list to the 500k-1M range to see where Oklahoma City falls. No surprise there, given the city limits look like this:


  1. Oklahoma City - 147.7%
  2. Jacksonville - 140.9%
  3. Bakersfield - 108.2%
  4. Colorado Springs - 104.0%
  5. El Paso - 103.1%
  6. Nashville - 89.5%
  7. Louisville - 79.8%
  8. San Antonio - 77.2%
  9. Albuquerque - 75.4%
  10. Tucson - 68.0%
  11. Fresno - 67.7%
  12. New Orleans - 67.4%
  13. Memphis - 63.4%
  14. San Jose - 62%
  15. Tulsa - 60.1%
  16. Omaha - 53.3%
  17. Indianapolis - 51.2%
  18. Austin - 50.7%
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 9:26 PM
3rd&Brown 3rd&Brown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 875
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.
Philadelphia can't annex anything else (and hasn't in 100+ years) because its boundaries are co-terminal with its county line, but there are struggling suburban towns in Eastern Delaware County (over West Philadelphia's border) that I personally think would benefit from annexation in today's climate.

Gentrification has moved so far west in West Philadelphia that you're seeing a lot of examples where homes inside the city line (in spite of some ongoing issues with schools, etc) are selling at a premium to homes just outside the city.

I'm thinking mostly of Lansdowne, East Lansdowne, and Yeadon in Delaware County. They're on public transit (trolley) into West Philadelphia and look and feel like West Philadelphia. They're in a struggling, high tax school system and would arguably fare better if they were in the PSD, in terms of resources.

Most of the other suburbs that directly abut Philadelphia, at least in Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware Counties are thriving and benefit from their proximity to the city. They have transit (regional rail), good schools, reasonable taxes, etc and would never in a million years be annexed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:21 AM
TowerSpotter's Avatar
TowerSpotter TowerSpotter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Houston / El Salvador
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
I can't speak to which cities are large strictly due to annexation; or whether that is particularly excessive; but I can link to a list of U.S. cities by area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cities_by_area

The largest are in Alaska, then Jacksonville, then 2 in Montana.

Thereafter, in addition to those cities named above, you would find San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, San Diego and Indianapolis among those larger than NYC in land area.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 2:02 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 29,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerSpotter View Post
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 extends as far north as Kingwood (where I live) and that was the last annexed area back in 1996.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2020, 12:25 PM
Razor Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
The largest city (in area) in the Province of Ontario, Canada, or anywhere outside the Province of Quebec, in Canada is Sudbury.

• City (single-tier) 3,228.35 km2 (1,246.47 sq mi)

But Quebec has some a wee bit bigger.

La Tuque, Quebec

• City 28,098.60 km2 (10,848.93 sq mi)

Senneterre

• Total 16,323.70 km2 (6,302.62 sq mi)
In the case of resource towns, they expanded their municipal boundaries to widen their tax base by encompassing mining and forestry operations..Timmins ON is another example. I imagine it's the same all over the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 1:44 PM
Kenneth's Avatar
Kenneth Kenneth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 259
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.
__________________
No one place is better han the next
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 1:55 PM
BigDipper 80 BigDipper 80 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 60
Good luck convincing Livonia and the Grosse Pointes to that marriage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 2:05 PM
Kenneth's Avatar
Kenneth Kenneth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDipper 80 View Post
Good luck convincing Livonia and the Grosse Pointes to that marriage.
🤣 it definitely wont happen in the next 75-100 yrs
__________________
No one place is better han the next
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:23 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDipper 80 View Post
Good luck convincing Livonia and the Grosse Pointes to that marriage.
Or even Hamtramck lol. Highland Park would probably merge, but it's Detroit that would be opposed in that scenario.

If I were living in Detroit right now though, I'd be pushing for the city to split from Wayne County after that election certification nonsense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 6:17 PM
IluvATX IluvATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Anchorage-Austin-Anchorage-Austin and so forth...
Posts: 503
Anchorage, Alaska 1,961 square miles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 11:31 PM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 12:26 AM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
America's Hometown
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lionville, PA
Posts: 11,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown View Post
Philadelphia can't annex anything else (and hasn't in 100+ years) because its boundaries are co-terminal with its county line, but there are struggling suburban towns in Eastern Delaware County (over West Philadelphia's border) that I personally think would benefit from annexation in today's climate.

Gentrification has moved so far west in West Philadelphia that you're seeing a lot of examples where homes inside the city line (in spite of some ongoing issues with schools, etc) are selling at a premium to homes just outside the city.

I'm thinking mostly of Lansdowne, East Lansdowne, and Yeadon in Delaware County. They're on public transit (trolley) into West Philadelphia and look and feel like West Philadelphia. They're in a struggling, high tax school system and would arguably fare better if they were in the PSD, in terms of resources.

Most of the other suburbs that directly abut Philadelphia, at least in Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware Counties are thriving and benefit from their proximity to the city. They have transit (regional rail), good schools, reasonable taxes, etc and would never in a million years be annexed.
Out of the 10 largest cities by population, Philadelphia is the smallest land wise for the city proper. If Philadelphia was the same size as Houston eating up land in the western suburbs, the city population would be close to 3 million people.

...and yes....there will never be an annexation in Philadelphia's future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 5:32 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 2,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Cook County as one City of Chicago? That's an enormous area for one level of government.

Not being a Chicago resident I can't speak to the utility or political viability of this; but I'd be inclined to fold the 2 Stickney bits, along with Oak Park, Cicero and Berwyn and maybe Norwood Park, along with Worth and Calumet into Chicago proper.

That to me is a manageable, logical boundary.

After that, I'd be inclined to create a single, large municipality on each of Chicago's borders.

One to the north, Evanston, Niles, Northfield and Maine

One to the west, Leydon, River Forest, Proviso, Riverside, Lyons and Palos

One to the south, Thornton, Bremen, Orland

I'd be a bit more aggressive putting together all of the more urban inner-ring suburbs.
Very vaguely, that means Chicago would be enclosed by 294 and Golf Rd, with a few areas outside of that added (O'Hare, plus Hickory Hills/Palos Hills/Worth that are stuck between the Forest Preserve and 294.)

This would a good deal of areas of various wealth levels as well as a good number of universities and other institutions while keeping it basically urban (or at least, small lot sizes with sidewalks everywhere...) and compact.

The rest of Cook County should be made into a reduced set of cities as you suggested.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 6:13 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,982
at the very least cuyahoga county should be cleveland.

actually i think greater cleveland, as the fuller metro is known around there, should be -- don't get me started!

the ridiculous wasteful repetition for all these piddly burbs.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 10:14 PM
CaliNative CaliNative is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
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.
Maybe annex ALL of San Mateo County. SF would almost double it's population and more than double it's land area. Who wouldn't want the cachet of a San Francisco address? In L.A., Beverly Hills should annex ALL of Los Angeles city. Property values would double.

Last edited by CaliNative; Nov 28, 2020 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 12:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.