Atlanta peak population (1970): 495,039
Philly peak population (1950): 2,071,605

For Chi:

Chicago: 2,705
Chicago's peak (1950): 3,621,000


As you can see, the actual CITIES are miles apart, and both Chicago and Philly have room to grow, while Atlanta appears to be close to its' all-time peak population currently.


I'm talking cities because "urban campus" was clearly on the Amazon RFP.

Most of the complaints I see in this post all relate to suburban areas like the Atlanta or Austin metros ("where will everyone live! It's too expensive already!" & "what about the traffic")



Edit: Also, there's the actual size of the metro areas:

Atlanta metro: 8,377 square miles
Philly metro: 4,630 square miles

Not quite half, but far less dense.

Also, where Philly's metro area ends, the NYC & Baltimore/DC metros begin. No gaps. Rail infrastructure between them (especially Philly & NYC).



Anyway, I don't think Amazon is coming to Chi or Philly, but I'm just pointing out that the problems of lack of urban space, lack of mass transit and lack of affordable housing are issues that affect smaller cities and super-sized suburbs much more than some off the bigger cities with infrastructure to handle a lot of people.

The population densities are really interesting to look at as well. Seattle is seen as crowded and expensive with a population density of 4721.6 people per square mile, while Philly feels somewhat empty at over twice that: 11,233.6 people per square mile.