[maxus]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Let's not let this get off topic.



I have to agree with this. For instance, Caldwell County is included in Austin's metro area, but it's anything but built up and/or urbanized. I'm not sure I've even set foot in Caldwell County. lol

Metro populations is a much better measure of cities. Look at Round Rock, Texas, Austin's largest suburb. Let's compare it to Galveston. As of 2005 the estimated population for Round Rock was 86,316. It has already passed Galveston's population by nearly 30,000 people. Galveston that same year had an estimated 57,466 people. Anyway, I dare anyone to say that Round Rock is as urban or built up as Galveston, let alone larger. Galveston, even though it is a tiny dot on the map, is a very urban city with buildings that are way over 100 years old. Galveston is full of beautiful old neighborhoods full of huge old houses. Round Rock likely couldn't boast either of those. Metro numbers don't lie, city population numbers are always skewed.

Also city limit sizes vary wildly. One city might be hundreds of square miles while another might be just a few square miles while they might both have the same city population. Now which one is more urban? Obviously the one with the smaller city limit size. A good example of this is Boston and Oklahoma City. Boston's city limits is 48 square miles and they have 590,763 people in the city. Oklahoma City has 621 square miles and has 541,500 people. However, Oklahoma City's metro population is only 1,266,445 people, while Boston has 4,455,217 people. Boston and metro is obviously larger than Oklahoma City.

This issue shouldn't even have to come up with you guys, we're all supposed to know about this stuff, more so than your average Joe walking down the street.

So in general terms would you say San Antonio is the 9th or 27th largest city in the U.S.

Also, in general terms lets clarify what an "urbanized" area is. Yes urban equates to density but on a map that shows urbanized area- that is an area that is built up- suburban density is included. Maps that display this will denote a color for a built up area not just the dense area. It may be fragmented, as suburban developement goes but none the less it is still urbanized to some extent. So in the real world of cities and moving through them, there is still a continuous density of most sorts. driving from, lets say for example the southern end of SA near 410 and Gillette Ave. straight up north to Evans Rd. or Stone Oak Parkway (the developed areas) that that length is about 23 miles. In Boston you can travel almost twice that many miles and still be in a continuously developed area. So maps are not truly the real world. Actually being there is. Borders are invisible as such of municipalities surrounding major cities. According to the census SA is the 9th largest city in the US but in reality it is not.