HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 1:29 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
so far this location seems to be the winner:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/An...!4d-118.608704

it's half way between Plush, OR and Dickshooter, ID.
I'm surprised I've never heard of Dickshooter, ID before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickshooter,_Idaho

No streetview, sadly.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 4:06 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is online now
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,261
I'm now more interested than I should be in Southern Idaho thanks to a town named "Dickshooter"

I have the mentality of a 12 year old.

Still, "Knockemstiff, Ohio" is a personal favorite. Probably bias ony part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 4:15 AM
xzmattzx's Avatar
xzmattzx xzmattzx is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 6,341
Wilmington, DE: 9,009,381
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 4:52 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 View Post
I'm now more interested than I should be in Southern Idaho thanks to a town named "Dickshooter"

I have the mentality of a 12 year old.

Still, "Knockemstiff, Ohio" is a personal favorite. Probably bias ony part.
You can buy a hat, apparently.
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/lo...7-7327052e031c
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.

Last edited by SIGSEGV; Oct 23, 2020 at 5:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 5:43 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Probably the data is older....this is true for other metro results, although some cities have undoubtedly grown faster than others.

That, or maybe because the 100km radius leaves out the ridiculously distant so-called commuter towns
It's surely the former as neither CMA include commuter towns anywhere close to 100km out. Within 100km, Calgary is 1.6-1.7 million; Edmonton, 1.5-1.6 million.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 10:29 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
It's surely the former as neither CMA include commuter towns anywhere close to 100km out. Within 100km, Calgary is 1.6-1.7 million; Edmonton, 1.5-1.6 million.
Those population radius tools out there are relying on census figures as they probably need to go way down to census tracts. Those numbers probably come from 2010/2011 census.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 10:36 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
If you count the entire Cleveland-Pittsburgh region, Cleveland-Akron-Canton CSA is 3.5m, Youngstown is 565k and Pittsburgh CSA is 2.6m = 6.7 million total. That's a lot of rust.
Which is roughly the same population they had 50 years ago, when the US had 200 million people.

Ages ago, I posted a thread showing how many inhabitants US metro areas would have today if they kept their share of population they had between 1940-1970. Just kept growing at the national average.

We’d be talking about a 6 million Pittsburgh or a 9 million Detroit (or more, as it would might capture Toledo into its CSA).
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 10:42 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
There are 14,423,440 inhabitants around Manchester, UK.

100 km radius around a city is not a good measurement, in many case it just shows that a region is more densely populated.
England, Holland, Flanders, Northwest Germany, you get usually large figures for cities in those area because cities are close to each other.

More a city is located in a sparsely populated region, more its metropolitan area will cover a large surface because it's easier to move in an empty corner (less traffic, less stop needed for trains) and because there are fewer other towns around that are likely to attract people.
When we’re talking about megacities (above 10 million people), the 100 km radius makes sense almost everywhere. A city this size has a massive gravitational pull over 100 km or had urbanized most of the circle.

In the US, for example, the big 3 has more people on their official metro areas than in the 100 km radius.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 12:40 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Which is roughly the same population they had 50 years ago, when the US had 200 million people.

Ages ago, I posted a thread showing how many inhabitants US metro areas would have today if they kept their share of population they had between 1940-1970. Just kept growing at the national average.

We’d be talking about a 6 million Pittsburgh or a 9 million Detroit (or more, as it would might capture Toledo into its CSA).
Yeah an interesting thought exercise. Always wondered what the population of say Philly or Detroit or even Chicago would of been in 2020 if say folks didn't flee to the suburbs or they never witnessed population decline after the 60's or 70's.

Granted the people for the most part that did flee are counted in the CSA (unless they really moved else wear), so the loss is not as noticeable on paper if we account for the CSA or even MSA, but the core cities, would of been massive without the pop losses that occurred.

If American cities or even regions did not sprawl as much, if we built our grid and infrastructure like say some Asian or European regions, density wise, folks not spread apart, our cities today would be massive.

Places like Chicago were 3 million at one point. I just wonder what would of happened or what a Chicago of 4 million would of looked like if it was centralized to the core and not spread out. From an urban infrastructure angle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 12:48 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
When we’re talking about megacities (above 10 million people), the 100 km radius makes sense almost everywhere. A city this size has a massive gravitational pull over 100 km or had urbanized most of the circle.

In the US, for example, the big 3 has more people on their official metro areas than in the 100 km radius.
I'd say it's generally effective as a "sphere of influence" of a large city. People 100km from a city centre likely aren't visiting that centre daily for their jobs, but are likely going to make occasional trips into the city for entertainment, shopping, etc.

Europe's 3 "megacities" all have populations greater than Los Angeles within 100km of their cores, for example. Which actually surprises me quite a bit. I Always figured the big 2 American metros, other than Tokyo, were far and away the largest cities in the developed world.. Moscow, Paris, and London all have well over 16,000,000 people within 100km of their cores.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 1:08 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
When we’re talking about megacities (above 10 million people), the 100 km radius makes sense almost everywhere. A city this size has a massive gravitational pull over 100 km or had urbanized most of the circle.

In the US, for example, the big 3 has more people on their official metro areas than in the 100 km radius.
I agree.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 1:20 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 yuriandrade View Post

In the US, for example, the big 3 has more people on their official metro areas than in the 100 km radius.
but official US MSAs/CSAs, with their wacky county mash-ups, tend to be ABSURDLY bloated and don't come very close to defining anything that I would recognize as a "city".

they're really just regional measures which, while interesting for what they are, fly well beyond the realm of "city".
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 4:03 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
I'd say it's generally effective as a "sphere of influence" of a large city. People 100km from a city centre likely aren't visiting that centre daily for their jobs.
Sadly this is not true in the US. Exhibit 1: 580. Exhibit 2: Antelope Valley.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 6:32 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Yeah an interesting thought exercise. Always wondered what the population of say Philly or Detroit or even Chicago would of been in 2020 if say folks didn't flee to the suburbs or they never witnessed population decline after the 60's or 70's.

Granted the people for the most part that did flee are counted in the CSA (unless they really moved else wear), so the loss is not as noticeable on paper if we account for the CSA or even MSA, but the core cities, would of been massive without the pop losses that occurred.

If American cities or even regions did not sprawl as much, if we built our grid and infrastructure like say some Asian or European regions, density wise, folks not spread apart, our cities today would be massive.

Places like Chicago were 3 million at one point. I just wonder what would of happened or what a Chicago of 4 million would of looked like if it was centralized to the core and not spread out. From an urban infrastructure angle.
Chicago was pretty close to 4 million at peak, so the built form would probably look a lot like it does today, but with more infill in the areas that lost a lot of population.

I think NYC is the best measure to project what those cities populations would look like. NYC and LA are the only two cities of the 1950s era top 10 list that are larger in population today than they were then. Every other one of those other 8 cities is still significantly below peak population. L.A. was obviously not built out like the eastern cities at that point, so it had room to grow into post-war America sprawl patterns. So that's not as applicable to the situation of the other cities, which were all fully developed by mid-century.

NYC is 1.056 times larger in 2019's estimated population than it was in 1950. If you apply that to all of the other 1950s top 10 cities, besides L.A., you'd get this:

New York - 8,336,817
Chicago - 3,823,736
Philadelphia - 2,187,615
Detroit - 1,953,144
Baltimore - 1,002,892
Cleveland - 966,037
St. Louis - 904,777
Washington - 847,100
Boston - 846,325

Adjusting the 2019 list for these hypothetical populations:

1: New York - 8,336,817
2: Los Angeles - 3,979,576
3: Chicago - 3,823,736
4: Houston - 2,320,268
5: Philadelphia - 2,187,615
6: Detroit - 1,953,144
7: Phoenix - 1,680,992
8: San Antonio - 1,547,253
9: San Diego - 1,423,851
10: Dallas - 1,343,573

...And if I did this part right...
12: Baltimore - 1,002,892
14: Cleveland - 966,037
17: St. Louis - 904,777
22: Washington - 847,100*
23: Boston - 846,325*


*Under this scenario, Boston and Washington would actually be ranked lower than they are today.

Last edited by iheartthed; Oct 23, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 6:46 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Would be nice if we had more cities over 1 million today. More people at the core would have led to more investment and we wouldn’t be limited to just 5-6 great cities today.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 6:53 PM
Bikemike's Avatar
Bikemike Bikemike is offline
ride or die
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
but official US MSAs/CSAs, with their wacky county mash-ups, tend to be ABSURDLY bloated and don't come very close to defining anything that I would recognize as a "city".

they're really just regional measures which, while interesting for what they are, fly well beyond the realm of "city".
For the US, Canada, and other sprawly, auto-dependent countries, a more useful way to gauge the functional size of a "city" would be one which uses more fine-grained assessment of commuting patterns, looking at numbers commuting to a central city from the individual suburb and township level (rather than county-level detail that makes CSAs so bloated). If only that version existed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 7:14 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikemike View Post
For the US, Canada, and other sprawly, auto-dependent countries, a more useful way to gauge the functional size of a "city" would be one which uses more fine-grained assessment of commuting patterns, looking at numbers commuting to a central city from the individual suburb and township level (rather than county-level detail that makes CSAs so bloated). If only that version existed.
Don't know about other cities; but Toronto has those numbers.

They do a survey every 5 years that's very detailed.

The last one was 2016.

http://dmg.utoronto.ca/pdf/tts/2016/...ODmatrices.pdf

The chart on p.16 will get you started!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 12:52 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Yeah an interesting thought exercise. Always wondered what the population of say Philly or Detroit or even Chicago would of been in 2020 if say folks didn't flee to the suburbs or they never witnessed population decline after the 60's or 70's.

Granted the people for the most part that did flee are counted in the CSA (unless they really moved else wear), so the loss is not as noticeable on paper if we account for the CSA or even MSA, but the core cities, would of been massive without the pop losses that occurred.

If American cities or even regions did not sprawl as much, if we built our grid and infrastructure like say some Asian or European regions, density wise, folks not spread apart, our cities today would be massive.

Places like Chicago were 3 million at one point. I just wonder what would of happened or what a Chicago of 4 million would of looked like if it was centralized to the core and not spread out. From an urban infrastructure angle.
Found the thread: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=209362

Relatively, Pittsburgh (6.25 million), St. Louis (4.16 million), Buffalo (2.77 million) peaked in 1940, Cleveland (5.26 million) in 1960 and Detroit in 1970 (8.17 million).
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 2:52 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Chicago was pretty close to 4 million at peak, so the built form would probably look a lot like it does today, but with more infill in the areas that lost a lot of population.

I think NYC is the best measure to project what those cities populations would look like. NYC and LA are the only two cities of the 1950s era top 10 list that are larger in population today than they were then. Every other one of those other 8 cities is still significantly below peak population. L.A. was obviously not built out like the eastern cities at that point, so it had room to grow into post-war America sprawl patterns. So that's not as applicable to the situation of the other cities, which were all fully developed by mid-century.

NYC is 1.056 times larger in 2019's estimated population than it was in 1950. If you apply that to all of the other 1950s top 10 cities, besides L.A., you'd get this:

New York - 8,336,817
Chicago - 3,823,736
Philadelphia - 2,187,615
Detroit - 1,953,144
Baltimore - 1,002,892
Cleveland - 966,037
St. Louis - 904,777
Washington - 847,100
Boston - 846,325

Adjusting the 2019 list for these hypothetical populations:

1: New York - 8,336,817
2: Los Angeles - 3,979,576
3: Chicago - 3,823,736
4: Houston - 2,320,268
5: Philadelphia - 2,187,615
6: Detroit - 1,953,144
7: Phoenix - 1,680,992
8: San Antonio - 1,547,253
9: San Diego - 1,423,851
10: Dallas - 1,343,573

...And if I did this part right...
12: Baltimore - 1,002,892
14: Cleveland - 966,037
17: St. Louis - 904,777
22: Washington - 847,100*
23: Boston - 846,325*


*Under this scenario, Boston and Washington would actually be ranked lower than they are today.
Wasn't LA metro like 4 million pre 1950? How many metro areas were bigger?
People dont think of LA as a old city or anything, but it was still up there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 4:22 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Wasn't LA metro like 4 million pre 1950? How many metro areas were bigger?
People dont think of LA as a old city or anything, but it was still up there.
L.A. was the fourth largest city then, so it was obviously big, but it wasn't built out like the other big cities of the era. L.A. was only slightly larger in population than Detroit in 1950, but it had 3 times the land area.
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 8:24 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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