Super-SIZED suburbs of the USA and Canada by land area


The following is a list of the largest suburbs in the USA and Canada as measured by land area (square miles). The minimum population for inclusion in the list is 10,000 residents. Three former suburbs that have become a core city were not included – Virginia Beach and Hampton, Virginia, as well as Port St. Lucie, Florida.

  1. Suffolk, Virginia = 429 square miles
  2. Buckeye, Arizona = 392 square miles
  3. Chesapeake, Virginia = 351 square miles
  4. California City, California = 204 square miles
  5. Levis, Quebec = 192 square miles
  6. Norman, Oklahoma = 189 square miles
  7. Texas City, Texas = 186 square miles
  8. Scottsdale, Arizona = 184 square miles
  9. Peoria, Arizona = 178 square miles
  10. Canyon Lake, Texas = 157 square miles
  11. Aurora, Colorado = 154 square miles
  12. Gatineau, Quebec = 147 square miles
  13. Caledon, Ontario = 146 square miles
  14. Abbotsford, British Columbia = 145 square miles
  15. Milton, Ontario = 142 square miles
  16. Mesa, Arizona = 125 square miles
  17. Langley, British Columbia = 122 square miles
  18. Surrey, British Columbia = 122 square miles
  19. Cape Coral, Florida = 120 square miles
  20. Goodyear, Arizona = 117 square miles
  21. Mississauga, Ontario = 113 square miles
  22. Henderson, Nevada = 108 square miles
  23. Halton Hills, Ontario = 107 square miles
  24. Laval, Quebec = 107 square miles
  25. Palmdale, California = 106 square miles
  26. Surprise, Arizona = 106 square miles
  27. Vaughn, Ontario = 106 square miles
  28. Brampton, Ontario = 103 square miles
  29. Maple Ridge, British Columbia = 103 square miles
  30. Chilliwack, British Columbia = 101 square miles
  31. North Las Vegas, Nevada = 101 square miles
  32. Arlington, Texas = 100 square miles
  33. Lehigh Acres, Florida = 96 square miles
  34. Palm Springs, California = 95 square miles
  35. Pickering, Ontario = 89 square miles
  36. Fremont, California = 88 square miles
  37. Mission, British Columbia = 87 square miles
  38. Markham, Ontario = 82 square miles
  39. Grand Prairie, Texas = 81 square miles
  40. Niagara Falls, Ontario = 81 square miles
  41. El Reno, Oklahoma = 80, square miles
  42. Independence, Missouri = 78 square miles
  43. North Charleston, South Carolina = 77 square miles
  44. North Port, Florida = 76 square miles
  45. Overland Park, Kansas = 75 square miles

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Canada, cities, demographics, geography, infrastructure, land use, Maps, North America, planning, spatial design, States, Statistics, urban planning and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Super-SIZED suburbs of the USA and Canada by land area

  1. Motorvilleboy says:

    How about a post on cities completely surrounded by other cities? There are tons of examples around the US.

    Like

  2. Rick says:

    Sounds like a good idea.

    Like

  3. walkstx says:

    I have to call this list into question. I’m a geographer at Northwest Vista College in San Antonio, TX near #10 in the list, Canyon Lake. Canyon Lake itself (the body of water) and the area immediately surrounding it and to the north and east is mostly rural. However, the Canyon Lake Census Designated Place (CDP)(pop. of only 22,000 if we are to rely on Wikipedia) extends to what I would characterize as north San Antonio, TX…the suburban/exurban sprawl creeping out from north Bexar County (San Antonio (SA) proper is in Bexar County).

    So, really what we’re looking at with #10 is the extension of San Antonio’s suburbs continuing to “super size.” And, the way this list is figured it is misleading, the Canyon Lake CDP (CL CDP) is 159 sq. miles, yet with only 22,000 people (138 people/sq. mile pop. density arithmetically). However, this population is actually concentrated along State Hwy. 281 coming out of SA and just north of the Bulverde CDP. It’s not distributed evenly across the CL CDP. I think it’s the 159 sq. mile area that gives us the impression that it’s some monstrous suburban area, but it’s not.

    Which others of these are similarly misleading?

    Like

    • problogic says:

      Your question and concern are appreciated. The purpose of the post was to identify those suburbs that occupy significant land area. A minimum population of 10,000 was utilized. Sure, there are a few sparsely populated cities in the list – Canyon Lake and California City come to mind, though they are the exception rather than the rule. It was also decided to include census designated places, as several of the large Las Vegas suburbs are not incorporated cities.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s