mjmooney Posted September 6, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2011 Levi may like this one: (BTW, what's wrong with Idaho?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 A map of my mouse movements over 5 hours. You can track yours too with http://iographica.com/ I was staring at that for 5 minutes with crossed eyes trying to see the 3d picture. Then I gave up and read what you put underneath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 6, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 6, 2011 Thats great Darren, is it printable? As I'd hang one on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted September 6, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2011 Harpoon is overrated (and mostly not brewed in Massachusetts, either). That is all. Berkshire Brewing Company kicks their ass. With Idaho, you've got a fairly heavily Mormon population and you're right next door to Oregon and Washington, two states that brew an amazing amount of good beer. Probably a tough state to brew in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 6, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2011 Harpoon is overrated. That is all. Berkshire Brewing Company kicks their ass. With Idaho, you've got a fairly heavily Mormon population and you're right next door to Oregon and Washington, two states that brew an amazing amount of good beer.Out of interest, how many of that lot have you sampled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted September 8, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 8, 2011 Intercontinental Ballistic Microfinance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 27, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 27, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 6, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 6, 2011 Smartphone platforms in the US correlated with various demographic info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 What cities other then London and Birmingham have more then 1 million people in the UK? There are like 4 or 5 dots there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 It's the age of definition of what is actually a city. Is it what the council control, or the urban area? My presumption are that the five dots are London, Birmingham, (Greater) Manchester, Leeds/Bradford and Glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 What cities other than Birmingham have more then 1 million people in the UK? There are like 4 or 5 dots there. Fixed that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Now that is a can of worms if there ever was one, but it does prove the point that is is almost impossible to strictly define what a city is these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 It's not really that hard, a city is a city, there's a defined list of where exactly has City status, and what the borders of each city is. Just we now have massive metropolitan areas that people think are cities, that aren't (usually by people who want to manipulate population figures to make their city look more important than it is (Manchester I'm looking at you!)) "Greater London" is just a ton of boroughs and two cities, the city of London (population circa 12,000) and the city of westminister (population circa 250,000). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 9, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 9, 2011 If Boston is on there (and it is), it's not based on local government boundaries... There's only nine cities (based on incorporation boundaries) in the USA with over a million people: New York City: 8.2m Los Angeles: 3.8m Chicago: 2.7m Houston: 2.1m Philadelphia: 1.5m Phoenix: 1.4m San Antonio: 1.3m San Diego: 1.3m Dallas: 1.2m Trivia question: what is the largest city in Florida (and indeed, the largest city that is both south of Philadelphia and east of Houston)?* On the other hand, when you consider the definition of urban area the US Census Bureau used for the most recent (2000) list (the 2010 definition has been published and a list of urban areas proposed, but the official list has not been finalized): New York City(-Newark): 17.8m Los Angeles(-Long Beach-Santa Ana): 11.8m Chicago: 8.3m Philadelphia: 5.1m Miami: 4.9m Dallas(-Fort Worth-Arlington): 4.1m Boston: 4.0m Washington: 3.9m Detroit: 3.9m Houston: 3.8m Atlanta: 3.5m San Francisco(-Oakland): 3.2m Phoenix(-Mesa): 2.9m Seattle: 2.7m San Diego: 2.7m Minneapolis-St. Paul: 2.4m St. Louis: 2.1m Baltimore: 2.1m Tampa-St. Petersburg: 2.1m Denver(-Aurora): 2.0m Cleveland: 2.3m Pittsburgh: 1.8m Portland: 1.6m San Jose: 1.5m Riverside-San Bernardino: 1.5m Cincinnati: 1.5m Virginia Beach: 1.4m Sacramento: 1.4m Kansas City: 1.4m San Antonio: 1.3m Las Vegas: 1.3m (in the case of Las Vegas, note that the Strip isn't actually in Las Vegas: it's in unincorporated areas of Clark County) Milwaukee: 1.3m Indianapolis: 1.2m Providence: 1.2m Orlando: 1.2m Columbus: 1.1m New Orleans: 1.0m (pre-Katrina...) (with Buffalo and Memphis between 950k and 1m) One of the very interesting oddities is that Los Angeles, consistently held up by "Smart Growth" advocates as the example of sprawl, is actually one of the most densely populated urban area in the US: because the metro area includes a lot of land that is completely unsettled, that drags the metro density down. In the UK, the ONS definition of an urban area (as of 1981) is an area of at least 20 hectares with 1,500 census residents and irreversible urban development (which means what, exactly?), with areas less than 200m apart joined. By that definition, the following are urban areas with at least a million people: Greater London: 8.3m West Midlands: 2.3m Greater Manchester: 2.2m West Yorkshire: 1.5m Greater Glasgow: 1.2m The UN publishes a list of urban areas, but leaves the definition up to individual countries. Some define it based on civil division boundaries, others use some sort of low-level statistical tract of a minimum density and connect those tracts without regard to civil division boundaries, and others basically use the Potter Stewart definition. If this post has insufficient mappitude, then I give this visualization of the 10 largest cities in the US for each census, from 1790 to 2010... the 1790 list is: New York City: 33k Philadelphia: 30k Boston: 18k Charleston, South Carolina: 16k Baltimore: 13k Northern Liberties, Pennsylvania: 10k (consolidated into Philadelphia in 1854) Salem, Massachusetts: 8k Newport, Rhode Island: 7k Providence: 6k Marblehead, Massachusetts: 6k Circa 1790, apart from New York being the temporary capital city, Philadelphia (counting surrounding suburbs, the second largest city in the English-speaking world), Boston, and Baltimore were all more important than New York. Which may go a long way to explaining why the one thing that Bostonians, Philadelphians, and Baltimoreans agree on is a strong dislike for New York. *: Brumerican and ME are barred from answering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Wot Levi rather eloquently said. It's difficult to define the population of a place these days, especially in a democracy where councils will move borders of places to suit them in the next election. Chelmsley Wood got shunted into Solihull when it is clearly a part of Birmingham just so Labour could have a few more voters in a Tory stronghold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 But those lists aren't trying to claim they're lists of the biggest cities, they use terms like "urban area" instead. It's easy to define a population of a City, the question though is is it relevant to use it? Or are you better off using larger urban areas which take into account urban sprawl outside of a cities boundaries. The councils only move the political ward boundaries, the geographical ones stay where they are. As for Levi's question, I'd go with Jacksonville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 9, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 9, 2011 It's easy to define the population of a City in the UK based on incorporation boundaries. It's impossible to do so in the context of a global list (because not everywhere even has the concept of incorporation boundaries). Hell, it's borderline useless in the context of the US, due to different structures of local government (as evidenced by Jacksonville) The real thing is that even under the closest to a uniform standard for determining city size, Manchester is still smaller than Birmingham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 9, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 9, 2011 The real thing is that even under the closest to a uniform standard for determining city size, Manchester is still smaller than Birmingham!Good. **** 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 well Minneapolis-St. Paul are two different cities so whats the split? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Wot Levi rather eloquently said. It's difficult to define the population of a place these days, especially in a democracy where councils will move borders of places to suit them in the next election. Chelmsley Wood got shunted into Solihull when it is clearly a part of Birmingham just so Labour could have a few more voters in a Tory stronghold. Just as the Tories took away Sutton Coldfields Independence as a town and made most of it it part of Birmingham with a few bits given over to Walsall, obviously for the inclusion of a majority of Tory councllors in Labour controlled Areas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts