If Dallas had smaller boundaries...

[hudkina]

I thought it would be interesting to see what Dallas would look like if it hadn't expanded to 342.5 sq. mi. but instead had stayed "in the pack" with the likes of Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Philadelphia, Portland, etc. In 2000, Dallas had a population of 1,188,580 in 342.54 sq. mi. That made it one of the biggest cities in regards to municipal population as well as land area. However, Dallas' municipal boundaries are 2x to 3x larger than most of its peers.

For example,
Philadelphia - 1,517,550 - 135.09 sq. mi.
Detroit - 951,270 - 138.77 sq. mi.
San Jose - 894,943 - 174.86 sq. mi.
Denver - 554,636 - 153.35 sq. mi.
Portland - 529,121 - 134.32 sq. mi.
Atlanta - 416,474 - 131.75 sq. mi.

So, how "big" would Dallas be if it were more comparable to the other cities? Using Census Tracts and sticking with those that are currently within the city limits, Dallas had a population of 616,690 in 140.30 sq. mi.

Here's a map showing the imaginary boundaries:


It should be interesting to see how much the population has risen since 2000 within these particular boundaries.

[M II A II R II K]

In real life does it really make any difference? Urbanity exists where it does and ends where it tapers off.

[bnk]

City limits are meaningless. It is the size and power of the Metro that matters.

See MSP, DFW, ATL,... as just a few examples of this.


I thought that this was already understood amongst us.

[mhays]

By "2x to 3x larger" I take it you mean 2x to 3x as large. Not 3x to 4x as large.

Interesting numbers. They certainly support you Detoit arguments.

[Thundertubs]

Sure, city boundaries and such are ultimately meaningless, but population numbers do affect the way we think about places. The boundaries in this thread are more in line with what I would consider the "city part" of Dallas.

[Steely Dan]

it'd be interesting to see the same done for LA, Chicago, phoenix, & Houston for comparisons' sake.

[Evergrey]

I'd like to see Detroit's boundaries inflated to the size of Dallas.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I'd like to see Detroit's boundaries inflated to the size of Dallas.

If you were to allow Detroit to annex all of Wayne county, it would have just over 1.9 million as of 2009 (more than Detroit city had at its 1950 peak of 1.85 million) in about 614 square miles. This would make it comparable to Houston.

[KevinFromTexas]

So going by that, Dallas is a little more than twice as dense in that area as Corpus Christi is. Corpus Christi is around 280,000 in 135 square miles. That seems off, though. Dallas feels much more dense than Corpus Christi.

[Lagasje]

But what happens to Fort Worth?!

[texcolo]

Originally Posted by Lagasje

But what happens to Fort Worth?!

Dallas should annex Fort Worth.

[hudkina]

The population density would be 4,395.5 ppsm.

[Yankee]

What would Dallas' density be if those were the boundaries?

[Rail Claimore]

Dallas city limits do not feel very big to me, and I have a pretty good idea of where they are when I'm driving around the place. It's a pretty regularly-shaped municipality despite being 300+ square miles, which is probably why it doesn't seem very big to me. Granted, it's bigger in area than NYC or Chicago, but those cities feel much bigger in area than they really are because it takes so long to get from one end to the other. Chicago is only 5 miles wide at its narrowest point from east to west, but it goes damn near 30 miles from north to south, and it's almost entirely developed along that path.

The only city in Texas that to me feels true to its size in terms of just its city limits is Houston. And the funny thing is that Houston gives me the opposite feeling of Dallas. Its city limits are actually smaller than what I think they are. Much of the northern part of the urban area between The Woodlands and about 5 miles north of Downtown is not actually in Houston, but in unincorporated Harris County. Nevertheless, I subconsciously think that I'm in the city as soon as I cross Beltway 8 coming from the North.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

The only city in Texas that to me feels true to its size in terms of just its city limits is Houston. And the funny thing is that Houston gives me the opposite feeling of Dallas. Its city limits are actually smaller than what I think they are. Much of the northern part of the urban area between The Woodlands and about 5 miles north of Downtown is not actually in Houston, but in unincorporated Harris County. Nevertheless, I subconsciously think that I'm in the city as soon as I cross Beltway 8 coming from the North.

well, that land South of the Woodlands technically can belong to Houston and will at some point in the coming decade(s). That particular land has the same designation as Kingwood, which was gobbled up by Houston some 7-8 years ago. The Woodlands, TX also belonged within Houston's grasp, but I do believe they relieved themselves of this possibility (or will soon be relieved of it) through an agreement.

[greywallsareboring]

"The only city in Texas that to me feels true to its size in terms of just its city limits is Houston." I completely disagree with this, as does my family in Houston. I've always felt encompassed in about the same area if I'm in Houston or DFW. Having lived in both places I personally don't see a big difference. I always felt like I was in the Metroplex once I got to Denton coming from the north, but some people, like the NYT columnist who wrote a article about the music scene there, talk about Denton like you are going to BFE. I think it depends on what highway you are driving on. If I'm coming into Dallas from Houston on I-45 I feel like I'm going to Waco, If I'm driving in from the north on I-75 I feel like I'm going someplace bigger than Houston or Dallas. If I come into Houston on 59 from Splendora then I feel like I'm driving into Shreveport and so on...

[vjhe]

Originally Posted by alex1

well, that land South of the Woodlands technically can belong to Houston and will at some point in the coming decade(s). That particular land has the same designation as Kingwood, which was gobbled up by Houston some 7-8 years ago. The Woodlands, TX also belonged within Houston's grasp, but I do believe they relieved themselves of this possibility (or will soon be relieved of it) through an agreement.

First of all Houston annexed Kingwood (14,00 acres and 40,000 residents at the time) close to 15 years ago.

You ARE correct alex1 in that Houston and The Woodlands reached a agreement where The Woodlands cannot be annexed, however they do have to contribute financially to metro area infrastucture projects as part of that agreement.

Lastly, at least once a year I like to mention that despite perceptions on this site, Houston is NOT in a perpetual state of annexation, "gobbling" up enormous amounts of populations and lands. If you look at the history of annexation in Houston, you will find, yes there were significant land grabs in the 70 like Clear lake but from that point they have been relatively small. MOST of the annexation in the 80's and 90's consisted of small pieces of land that consisted of many water districts, electrical power plants, small airports, and lucrative tax cows like malls and popular shopping centers. Houston even annexed a wildlife preserve. Most of the those annexations consisted of acres or 2.5 square miles and the like.

A look into Houston's annexation history and WHAT the city annexed would change the perception the city is constantly annexing giant populations of surrounding small cities on a consistent basis.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by alex1

well, that land South of the Woodlands technically can belong to Houston and will at some point in the coming decade(s). That particular land has the same designation as Kingwood, which was gobbled up by Houston some 7-8 years ago. The Woodlands, TX also belonged within Houston's grasp, but I do believe they relieved themselves of this possibility (or will soon be relieved of it) through an agreement.

I could be wrong, probably am, but I am fairly sure that the last time Houston expanded was in the mid to early 90's. I'm fairly certain it has been at 579 sq miles since then.

[MNMike]

Yeah, "city limits" really screw up perceptions and per capita numbers. Minneapolis is really small in area only, 54 square miles(only less than half the area of the ones you posted as "small" examples), and around 385,000 people. St. Paul is around the same square milage and 290k...there are just tons of burbs that would be included in the count in a lot of cities. These random political boundaries make it pretty hard to compare a lot of cities, I think. Metro area populations are easier to compare, but of course those vary in size as well. Then there are all of those lists that only count the "40 biggest cities" and go by city proper. I'm sorry, i don't care what the numbers say, but Minneapolis is clearly a bigger city than El Paso. Same goes for the whole Philly Phoenix thing.

If we were to ignore all of the suburbs, and expand Minneapolis(or St. Paul's for that matter) boundaries to say, around 135 square miles(the size of a lot of the examples above), just redrawing the boundaries over the existing urban area, the population would easily be 800k+. Even though in reality the city would still be the same size...I bet it would be perceived as a much bigger city. What do you think?

[SouthmoreAve]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Yeah, "city limits" really screw up perceptions and per capita numbers. Minneapolis is really small in area only, 54 square miles(only less than half the area of the ones you posted as "small" examples), and around 385,000 people. St. Paul is around the same square milage and 290k...there are just tons of burbs that would be included in the count in a lot of cities. These random political boundaries make it pretty hard to compare a lot of cities, I think. Metro area populations are easier to compare, but of course those vary in size as well. Then there are all of those lists that only count the "40 biggest cities" and go by city proper. I'm sorry, i don't care what the numbers say, but Minneapolis is clearly a bigger city than El Paso. Same goes for the whole Philly Phoenix thing.

If we were to ignore all of the suburbs, and expand Minneapolis(or St. Paul's for that matter) boundaries to say, around 135 square miles(the size of a lot of the examples above), just redrawing the boundaries over the existing urban area, the population would easily be 800k+. Even though in reality the city would still be the same size...I bet it would be perceived as a much bigger city. What do you think?

I don't know about others, but I consider MSP to be a major metro and economic power, despite its small city population.

Its about 2-3 tiers down, in terms of importance, relative to other more important metros, but its small city population really doesn't take away from its metro importance.

If Minneapolis were an 800K+ , I doubt it would do more for the metro, it would be slightly more recognized, but ask Louisville if having a relatively large municipal population(approx. 725 K) has helped the metro in terms of recognition or importance.