Merge the MSA of SF and SJ? (San Jose, San Francisco: 2013, credit)

[MarketSleuth]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Also, I thought the 2-mile thing is for the Urban Areas not MSAs. The Urban Areas are split into two because of this arbitrary metric they use (where Stanford splits things up).

Where online can I find something official about this 2-mile (or 3-mile?) criterion about residential development? Is it correct that this applies for Urbanized Areas, but not for MSAs?

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by MarketSleuth

Where online can I find something official about this 2-mile (or 3-mile?) criterion about residential development? Is it correct that this applies for Urbanized Areas, but not for MSAs?

I've only seen the 2-mile of continuous development criterion being applied to Urbanized Areas.

I know that MSAs and CSAs are defined by commuting patterns (25% of residents commuting to core county for MSA, 15% for CSA), and I've never seen any mention of a continuous development requirement (although, if I'm mistaken, I'd like to know). In fact, it's even possible for very remote/rural areas to be incorporated into an MSA because all you need is for 25% of the residents to commute to the core county. This is why you sometimes see very far-flung places being included in various city's MSAs and/or CSAs.

I do wish the census published their exact commuting percentages, I'd be curious to know just how close the SF and SJ MSAs are from being merged to one based on their criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrop...atistical_area
United States urban area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Census Definitions: Metropolitan Statistical Areas Versus Urbanized Areas - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com (Not sure it this is fully accurate because they say UAs can't touch, and obviously San Jose's and SF's urban areas do touch).

I've never been able to find clear definitions of an MSA or a UA on the Census site, but you'll find a lot of discussions about the two on City-Data. Especially in the City-Vs-City subforum.

In fact, the only place I've seen the 2-mile of continuous development criterion for UAs mentioned has been on city-data. You'll see it often in posts that are discussing the SF-SJ "metro" area, and why they're split in two (it's a common topic in city-vs-city).

I know Montclair18 has posted some good pictures of where the SF metro and SJ metro are split. It's literally right through continuous development on the peninsula between Menlo Park/Palo Alto, and it looks quite hilarious.

[MarketSleuth]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Census Definitions: Metropolitan Statistical Areas Versus Urbanized Areas - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com (Not sure it this is fully accurate because they say UAs can't touch, and obviously San Jose's and SF's urban areas do touch).

Here is an official 1984 Bureau of the Census publication which I just found in Google Books.
Proceedings of the National Geographic Areas Conference: putting it together ... - United States. Bureau of the Census - Google Books
url=http://tinyurl.com/nxy5cyu (SORRY not a hotlink, but I can't figure out how to do that here.)
Table D. Contiguous Urbanized Areas in the 1980 Census, by Length of Contiguity
It states that San Jose UA has approx. 7 miles of contiguity with the San Francisco-Oakland UA.
Interestingly, it shows that the two UAs have been contiguous since the 1960 Census, but were not in 1950.
Tried search for same using 1990, 2000, and 2010, but no such luck.
Most probably they stopped compiling the table for some reason, or changed the terminology so that I did not get any hits.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

But, not a lot, in absolute or % of total workers, commute from core to core. It's expected that the edges of two major areas will be fuzzy and blended.

Here's an interesting thought experiment, though. If you took away the county borders, where are the "edges"? I certainly can't find the edges on any map.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by MarketSleuth

Where online can I find something official about this 2-mile (or 3-mile?) criterion about residential development? Is it correct that this applies for Urbanized Areas, but not for MSAs?

Here's a post by Montclair18 that talks about what I was talking about. And it's 3 miles, not 2 miles (my mistake).

http://www.city-data.com/forum/15036275-post291.html

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

yup.

The only reason SF and SJ are not combined is due to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. One of the provisions that allows for combining says that if there is 3+ miles of overlap development with constant density that 2 MSAs can combine.

And the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center at the border btwn San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties stops the development at 2.8 miles.

Taken from this thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...l#post15036275

There are many other threads around City-Data where this comes up. With some searching, I'm sure you can come across some topics that'll give more detailed information.

Montclair18 has also posted pictures in the past showing where the two MSAs (or UAs) split, but I couldn't find it.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Here's a post by Montclair18 that talks about what I was talking about. And it's 3 miles, not 2 miles (my mistake).

http://www.city-data.com/forum/15036275-post291.html



Taken from this thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...l#post15036275

There are many other threads around City-Data where this comes up. With some searching, I'm sure you can come across some topics that'll give more detailed information.

Montclair18 has also posted pictures in the past showing where the two MSAs (or UAs) split, but I couldn't find it.

edit: 18Montclair, not Montclair18...getting my screen names confused!

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Interesting history. I knew something along those lines had happened, but didn't know the whole story. They basically prevented themselves (the city of SF) from ever growing geographically...I'd imagine things would definitely be a bit different had they not split things off that way.

I would imagine the area would be a lot less balkanized than it is now, and we wouldn't have people claiming they live in "an entire different area," even though they're clearly connected seamlessly in almost every way.

I mean, are you people that say "they should be seperate metros" really going to argue that Menlo Park and Palo Alto are in different "metros"? Really?

Sure, SF and SJ are far from each other, physically...but the entire stretch between the two places is seamlessly connected both physically and economically. The same is true on the Oakland to SJ side of things. If that isn't what a "metro area" is, then I don't know what one is. Some arbitrary metric defined by the census isn't going to change that fact.

Not Palo Alto and Menlo Park - but S.F and S.J are 50 miles apart and used to be separated by truly rural land...

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by zombocom

Not Palo Alto and Menlo Park - but S.F and S.J are 50 miles apart and used to be separated by truly rural land...

Yes, but how is that relevant to today?

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Yes, but how is that relevant to today?

Fairly, I think that initial divide resulted in both areas developing independently, and thus they are still perceived that way.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Here's an interesting thought experiment, though. If you took away the county borders, where are the "edges"? I certainly can't find the edges on any map.

Depends on the map. If your map was one of where people lived and worked, and therefore showed the commute flows, there would be obvious interfaces that represented the rough border between two zones. It would a lot like where outward river flows hit the ocean to create a marshy, muddy, brown mess; on one side is clearly one zone, the river, and on the other side of that mess is the salty water of the ocean.