Jump to content

10 largest U.S. cities in square miles

KimberlySayWhat

Recommended Posts

KimberlySayWhat

KimberlySayWhat

Posted
Posted

From Ken Hoffman's column:

1. Sitka, Alaska (2,874)

2. Juneau, Alaska (2716.7)

3. Anchorage, Alaska (1697.2)

4. Jacksonville, Fla. (757.7)

5. Anaconda, Mont. (737)

6. Butte-Silver Bow, Mont. (716.1)

7. Willow, Alaska (684.8)

8. Healy, Alaska (669)

9. Oklahoma City (607.0)

10. Houston (579.4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark F. Barnes

Mark F. Barnes

Posted
Posted

This site says the largest US city in area is Juneau, Alaska, which covers 3,108 square miles.

Geo trivia

Juneau

City (pop., 2000: 30,711), capital of Alaska, U.S. Located in southeastern Alaska, it was settled in 1880 when Joe Juneau and Richard Harris discovered gold nearby. Mining was important until the Alaska-Juneau gold mine closed in 1944. Juneau was made the state capital in 1959. Fishing, forestry, and government activities are important, as is tourism. In 1970 Juneau merged with Douglas, on an island across the channel, to form the largest U.S. city in area (3,108 sq mi [8,050 sq km]).

And here too

Geography and climate

Juneau is located at 58

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheNiche

TheNiche

Posted
Posted
not sure what this means, but it is on the city's website"

The Houston CMSA covers 8,778 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Massachusetts but larger than New Jersey.

see complete post here

The CMSA stands for "Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area" and is now comprised of ten counties including Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller, Austin, Montgomery, San Jacinto, Liberty, and Chambers.

Wow, a list about how bad our sprawl is! :lol:

DFW's sprawl is more expansive than ours, yet the political boundaries of either Dallas or Fort Worth are very small compared to Houston's. That we have such a large population and expansive political boundaries is only an indication of how effectively we were able to annex until the moratrium was passed by the state.

Sprawl is regional, not municipal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VicMan

VicMan

Posted
Posted
a google search on 'houston square miles' reveals sites stating anywhere from 550 - 620 ... there is room for error i suppose.

Well, both numbers are correct - See, part of the overall land measurement is water - The small value is land only!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ V Lawrence

DJ V Lawrence

Posted
Posted
so sprawl is good?

I say it's great in terms of how Houston is as a big city. We're the only top 5 populated city on the top ten largest in area list. So to me, that would mean that even though we're in a highly populated area, we're getting more land and home-size for our money, and I like that. I went to my good friend's crib recently who's home is 3,500 sq. ft. and he bought it for $180,000. He also has a backyard that could fit his house with room to spare. Now, imagine how much that much space would have cost in NYC. Backyard not included.

I would say that Alaska is a pretty unreasonable sprawl haven. Living in a city like Sitka, how far would you have to travel to go from point A to point B? And how big are the homes there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
houstonmacbro

houstonmacbro

Posted
Posted
I say it's great in terms of how Houston is as a big city. We're the only top 5 populated city on the top ten largest in area list. So to me, that would mean that even though we're in a highly populated area, we're getting more land and home-size for our money, and I like that. I went to my good friend's crib recently who's home is 3,500 sq. ft. and he bought it for $180,000. He also has a backyard that could fit his house with room to spare. Now, imagine how much that much space would have cost in NYC. Backyard not included.

I would say that Alaska is a pretty unreasonable sprawl haven. Living in a city like Sitka, how far would you have to travel to go from point A to point B? And how big are the homes there?

yeah, and not just that, but what kinds of jobs pull people to those areas. houston has a relatively strong job market which is also a magnet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
ssullivan

ssullivan

Posted
Posted

While it's technically correct to count those Alaska cities, the reason they are so large is that Alaska doesn't have the concept of counties in the same way we do here. Alaska uses a combined city/borough form of government, where a mayor and assembly govern both the city, and the larger surrounding region (borough), which in most cases is pretty sparsely populated. Alaska has 16 of these boroughs in the more populated areas of the state. The rest of the state has essentially no organized local government, but is divided into 11 census areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blkmex

blkmex

Posted
Posted
The CMSA stands for "Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area" and is now comprised of ten counties including Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller, Austin, Montgomery, San Jacinto, Liberty, and Chambers.
Don't Stop there Houston, lets take Brazos County next there not that far away then Bryan-College Station can add about 160,000 people to Harris County but no... no.... continue until we take TEXAS!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WesternGulf

WesternGulf

Posted
Posted

Does large city limits necessarily mean bad sprawl? I get a laugh when I hear people talk about how this city is too spread out based on the sole fact that the city is around 600 square miles. I would hear things like, "Houston is too large of a city for me to live in. It's 600 square miles for crying out loud." So what? Like someone cannot be confined to say 100 square miles of Houston if they wanted to just like someone can live their life confined to Atlanta's entire 130 square miles. Just because of piece of land 25 miles away from the CBD has Houston branded to it, should not mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krix

krix

Posted
Posted
Does large city limits necessarily mean bad sprawl? I get a laugh when I hear people talk about how this city is too spread out based on the sole fact that the city is around 600 square miles. I would hear things like, "Houston is too large of a city for me to live in. It's 600 square miles for crying out loud." So what? Like someone cannot be confined to say 100 square miles of Houston if they wanted to just like someone can live their life confined to Atlanta's entire 130 square miles. Just because of piece of land 25 miles away from the CBD has Houston branded to it, should not mean anything.

But that's not necessarily true. I mean if you live in one city, you're likely to have to go places all over town, even if not constantly. But there are certain things that are centralized (in my case, I resent the fact that there is only one Japanese grocery store in Houston, and it's so damn far away from where I live). And then some of your favorite shops may be quite far away from each other, making it difficult to visit them all in one shopping trip). But that said, I like driving in this city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WesternGulf

WesternGulf

Posted
Posted

A centralized city is one thing, but when you hear statements like this from cities that are known for their edge cities and decentralization, but think they can comment because their city is smaller than Houston in land area, it gets annoying. When in Miami, it is a given to go way outside those 36 square miles for some people's basic "needs". Sometimes even in dense centralized San Francisco's 50 square miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston19514

Houston19514

Posted
Posted
But that's not necessarily true. I mean if you live in one city, you're likely to have to go places all over town, even if not constantly. But there are certain things that are centralized (in my case, I resent the fact that there is only one Japanese grocery store in Houston, and it's so damn far away from where I live). And then some of your favorite shops may be quite far away from each other, making it difficult to visit them all in one shopping trip). But that said, I like driving in this city.

And do you think that is not the case in a city such as Atlanta or Washington DC, both of which have very small central cities but mile upon mile of sprawl?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Great Hizzy!

The Great Hizzy!

Posted
Posted
Does large city limits necessarily mean bad sprawl? I get a laugh when I hear people talk about how this city is too spread out based on the sole fact that the city is around 600 square miles. I would hear things like, "Houston is too large of a city for me to live in. It's 600 square miles for crying out loud." So what? Like someone cannot be confined to say 100 square miles of Houston if they wanted to just like someone can live their life confined to Atlanta's entire 130 square miles. Just because of piece of land 25 miles away from the CBD has Houston branded to it, should not mean anything.

Very astute, WG. Of course, some people think in terms of generalities and are prone to losing perspective. Just because Greenspoint or Clear Lake is part of the COH doesn't mean that I HAVE to go there for anything on a regular basis anymore than just because lower Staten Island is part of NYC someone from Jamaica, Queens has to go there on a regular basis. If like compact urban travel, live near the core of everything, which, in Houston, means the Loop.

Problem solved. Suck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Montrose1100

Montrose1100

Posted
Posted
I do not agree. Southeast Texas includes Houston, Sugar Land, Baytown, adjacent Beaumont and Lake Charles, LA and Bryan-College Station : 6 million folks. Now, that's our metropolis. Bring on your best and we'll see where we rank. :P

I would think southeast Texas & southwest Louisiana includes more then 6 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 9 years later...
sandlapper

sandlapper

Posted
Posted

Houston is a world class city and is only "sprawling" because so many people want to live in and around it. I've never lived in Houston so I truly have an unbiased opinion and think that big doesn't mean bad. Every time that I've visited Houston I was extremely impressed with the sheer size and complexity of it.  I hope Houston continues to grow because as long as it's growing it's prospering. Look at Chicago, another great American city, but more people leave Chicago every year than move there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...