Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One
I just did Denver and it is near identical to Vancouver. 3.36 million. Compared to Vancouver’s 3.2 or 3.39 (not including the US area) numbers.
Same situation, Mountains.
Portland, Oregon is 2.6.
Salt Lake City is 2.02.
If any of these cities were plopped down in the Midwest, without changing their actual metropolitan populations, I am sure they would all increase.
|
LA and SF both have mountains and land that is either protected or inhospitable to development around them, so I don't buy this argument at all. Hong Kong is in a very challenging geographical area...wonder why it didn't see its growth capped at 3 million?
Not sure if you've ever been to Denver, but there are only mountains on one side of the city, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about in regard to sprawl ability or lack thereof. Denver could sprawl east all the way to Kansas City if it wanted. It, SLC, and Portland aren't smaller cities because of geography- at least not in current times. They might have grown slower back in the day due to challenges of geography, but that is certainly not an issue today.
BTW, 50 miles out from Cincinnati is basically just capturing the Cincinnati metro area (~2.2M) and Dayton (~1M). It's not picking up a bunch of satelite towns that make the numbers look larger, and even if it did, the rural areas around there are pretty sparsely populated, so it would not be a major contributor to the population of that 50 mile radius. Now, if you extend the radius to say 150 miles, you would pick up Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville, and Lexington. Go up to 300 miles (or roughly a 4.5 hour drive) and you'd add Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Knoxville, etc. t's a pretty urbanized part of the country.