Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a hard time believing that the gross metropolitan product of Chicago (broad metro population 10 million) is lower than that of Baltimore-Washington (about 8 million) or the SF Bay Area (about 8 million). That would imply that incomes are at least 25% higher in the BW and SF areas. Why are FAReastcoast's data different from those found in other sources?
The fact that you have a hard time believing it doesn't mean it is true. The Bay Area is just a far wealthier area overall. Many more rich people out and about, more millionaires 225k vs 198k with 2 million less people, more billionaires (over double) with 2 million less people, more white collar, higher concentration of F500 companies, more F100 companies, and so on. This is apparent just spending time in the area to me. Bay Area has the highest per capita incomes in the U.S., higher than NYC. Have you spent much time in SF or DC? They just have a different feel than Chicago really even in the vibes there. Chicago is a beast for sure, but it is also more balanced over multiple industry sectors, while SF and DC are geared up super white collar for the most part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast
The sources I listed in from the census. The Bay area and the DC area are far wealthier on average than Chicago. That is how they are able to have larger economies with fewer people. Chicago has behind DC for a few years now, and this is the first time, to my knowledge, that the Bay Area has surpassed Chicago.
Bay Area has been ahead about 3 years now and has a much higher per capita income, SF MSA and SJ MSA are both top 5 in the U.S. along with DC, Chicago I believe is in the 30-40 range. It was 34 just a few years back, but might be higher now.
Last edited by Garfieldian; 09-21-2011 at 12:40 PM..
I have a hard time believing that the gross metropolitan product of Chicago (broad metro population 10 million) is lower than that of Baltimore-Washington (about 8 million) or the SF Bay Area (about 8 million). That would imply that incomes are at least 25% higher in the BW and SF areas. Why are FAReastcoast's data different from those found in other sources?
Why would it be so hard to believe?
There really is no equivalent to the economically dead swaths of both the city and suburbs of Chicago area.
Obviously you have areas with poverty, ghetto in SF Bay area or Wash-Balt corridor (parts of Oakland in SF Bay, inner Baltimore in DC-Balt).
But in terms of sheer size, the west and large swaths of the south side, plus parts of the south suburbs, (Harvey, Ford Heights, plus chunks of NW Indiana, etc.). When you add it all up its really not a suprise.
Much of the growth and money in both Bal-Wash (government related activities) and the Bay area (technology) is newer. Whatever problems those areas have in this current economy, you don't have areas that are rustbelt-like the way you do in Chicagoland.
Im new to Chicago, so I am not the best judge, but I do not see much connectivity between Milw and Chi; 2 hrs isnt THAT close for commuting purposes. DC and Balt are very well connected because there is such a huge difference in Cost of Living. The Balt/Wash Parkway is literally a parking lot every morning/afternoon.
Chicago and Milwaukee seem to be more of the Philly-New York breed: two cities that happen to be close to eachother, but even then, Amtrak and New Jersey Transit can take you between the two cities quickly almost every hour. BTW, Philly-New York are 55 miles apart city limits to city limits, as the crow flies.
There isn't as much connectivity between Chicago and Milwaukee, but there is a decent amount. And FWIW, travel times are probably a bit better indicator of the ability to connect than straight mileage.
Chicago-Milwaukee comes in at 88 mi and 1:40.
Balt-DC 38 miles and 1:00
SF-San Jose 48 mi and an hr.
NYC-Phil 97 miles and 1:54
There is much better rail connectivity for commuters in the other three regions, however.
I guess the thing I took issue with is someone saying earlier in the thread that it's well known that DC and SF have passed Chicago, when that's not that case at all. DC-Balt and SF-SJ arguably, but it depends upon the geographical definition used. Have than passed Chicago as an MSA? No. CSA? Yes. The definition that that BEA uses (Core Based Statistical Area or CBSA)? No. Again, there is no doubt that Chicago-Milw aren't as well connected, but the connectivity measure is pretty subjective, even within the govt who measures such things.
While I wouldn't call Milw-Chi, particularly well connected at this point, it is interesting to note that the perception of connection from both sides is increasing. A couple years back the Trib wrote an article on Kenosha being the next Chicago suburb, while Milwaukee's alternative newsweekly featured a cover story titled something like, "Is Chicago eating Milwaukee?" with an illustration of the Hancock gnashing its teeth at the city of Milwaukee.
I can definitely see the "all in one" argument for the Bay Area though, using the "where are you from test?" If I'm in Europe and ask someone from West Allis where they're from, they're going to tell me Milwaukee. If I do the same with someone from Elkridge or Linthicum, they'll tell me Baltimore. If you do it from someone living even in San Jose proper or Sunnyvale, they're probably just going to say the Bay Area. They just don't distinguish part of the region apart from the entire region. Part of that is probably due to the fact that unlike Baltimore and Milwaukee, Silicon Valley and San Jose are relative infants without an entrenched culture. Part of it is also due to the fact that the finance and tech industries of SF blend well with what's going on in the valley.
Which brings me to a question: what do Baltimore and DC really have in common apart from geography? Their economies are entirely different. The people, local cultures, and customs are different. On that count, Milwaukee and Chicago are probably more connected/similar: similar cultures, accents, immigration patterns, industries. Their local swill beers (Old Style and Miller) are Chicago's de facto local swill beers. The biggest companies in Milwaukee (Johnson Controls, Harley, Kohl's, Rockwell Automation, Northwestern Mutual) play in the same or related industries sharing the same people as many of Chicago's bigs (Sears, Allstate, ITW, Navistar).
The Bay Area CSA is SMALLER than Chicago's MSA already. So, using that route isn't going to help you much.
It's a denser and richer metro anyway you cut it.
San Jose is an older city than Chicago and was the capital of California before Sacramento.
Your analysis of the Bay Area is really off by the way. Sure it has a late rise to prominence, but it is a much higher caliber city than Milwaukee ever was or ever will be.
I am not sure what the argument is though? I've lived in both cities. Bay Area is easily more connected than Chi-Milwaukee, in fact saying it is "connected" is a poor choice of words as there are no gaps of connection, it is a completely integrated whole.
Courtesy PG&E
This looks nothing like Chicago and Milwaukee...
Last edited by Garfieldian; 09-21-2011 at 09:06 PM..
The Bay Area CSA is SMALLER than Chicago's MSA already. So, using that route isn't going to help you much.
It's a denser and richer metro anyway you cut it.
San Jose is an older city than Chicago and was the capital of California before Sacramento.
Your analysis of the Bay Area is really off by the way. Sure it has a late rise to prominence, but it is a much higher caliber city than Milwaukee ever was or ever will be.
I am not sure what the argument is though? I've lived in both cities. Bay Area is easily more connected than Chi-Milwaukee, in fact saying it is "connected" is a poor choice of words as there are no gaps of connection, it is a completely integrated whole.
I'm not arguing that Chicago is as well connected regionally as the Bay Area or Baltimore-DC, because it isn't, and I've said as much (and more) already.
My argument is with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian
The generally accepted notion is that Chicago's GDP is 5th in the U.S. currently. Most people will tell you to go with the CSA in terms of the U.S. picture. Up until about 4-5 years ago, Chicago was consistently in the 3rd spot. However both DC and the Bay Area are now stronger, and for obvious reasons.
a-it's not a generally accepted notion, because
1-most people won't tell you to go with CSA or anything, because the people making those distinctions aren't even telling you what to go with
2-by 3 of 4 metrics (BEA's notion of economic areas, the MSA definition, or Urban Area), Chicago is #3. Only in the one metric you've cherry picked (CSA) is the outcome different. As a matter of fact, if pressed to pick one metric to deterimine regional economic size, it probably makes sense to go with the BEA's definition, since they're the ones actually charged with measuring regional economic output, regional employment, etc.
If only one of four measurements are telling you something, an unbiased person wouldn't exactly call that a "generally accepted notion".
I realize San Jose is an older city than Chicago. For most of its history, it's been nothing more than a blip on the radar. As late as 1950, it wasn't even one of the 100 largest cities in the US. Milwaukee, Chicago, DC, and Baltimore all rose to a greater degree of national prominence than 1950 San Jose no later than 100 years prior. By 1870, all 4 would have been among the 16 largest urban or metropolitan areas in the country (if such a definition existed at the time). My only point here being that apart from geography and physical connections, it makes sense that San Jose is more psychologically connected to the rest of the Bay Area...its history as a major player only dates back 1/3 as far as the other areas. There aren't as many 4th, 5th, 6th generation families that tend to think more provincially in SJ as you would find in other cities fairly close to larger ones in places like Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philly, Providence, Toledo, etc. Its shorter history probably has a lot to do with those physical connections and migration/settlement patterns up the bay today. SJ's historical growth is more a function of San Francisco's presence than Baltimore's is related to DC's or Milwaukee to Chicago's, so I see the "connectedness" in the Bay Area better.
I'm not arguing that Chicago is as well connected regionally as the Bay Area or Baltimore-DC, because it isn't, and I've said as much (and more) already.
My argument is with this:
a-it's not a generally accepted notion, because
1-most people won't tell you to go with CSA or anything, because the people making those distinctions aren't even telling you what to go with
2-by 3 of 4 metrics (BEA's notion of economic areas, the MSA definition, or Urban Area), Chicago is #3. Only in the one metric you've cherry picked (CSA) is the outcome different. As a matter of fact, if pressed to pick one metric to deterimine regional economic size, it probably makes sense to go with the BEA's definition, since they're the ones actually charged with measuring regional economic output, regional employment, etc.
Sure it is, where isn't the Bay Area or DC/Baltimore's CSA divisions accepted as a metro area? You are the first I have seen on this board to "question it's validity". Go post that in City vs City or on SSC and see how many people agree with you. Again, Bay Area CSA is SMALLER than Chicago's MSA by a few thousand square miles already. DC/Baltimore CSA is also SMALLER than Chicago MSA. CSA is NOT a cherry pick, that's reality. There is nothing else in the immediate Chicago CSA, it only adds a few 100k people b/c it's fairly rural in comparison. The BEA creates the CSA also. If you want to be fair without a doubt you need to use the SF/SJ CSA as well as the DC/Baltimore CSA...the cities are both right there and interconnected and there are plenty of jobs/commuting exchanges.
Chicago doesn't have any sister cities, or you would be positing the same thing as just as ridiculous not to include it.
Again, anyway you cut it, the reality is that currently both DC and SF metro areas are smaller, richer, denser, and more educated than Chicago Metro, that is just how it is now. Same way LA passed up Chicago in prominence, Chicago is currently getting passed up by Bay Area and DC currently in wealth, and probably in the next 10-20 years in population at least by DMV (8.9 Million now), sure it sucks, but that is what is going on. Now I don't think either of these other metros are a "better city", that isn't the case, however they are definitely passing up Chicago in terms of wealth and educational attainment.
Last edited by Garfieldian; 09-22-2011 at 08:39 AM..
Sure it is, where isn't the Bay Area or DC/Baltimore's CSA divisions accepted as a metro area? You are the first I have seen on this board to "question it's validity". Go post that in City vs City or on SSC and see how many people agree with you.
First off, CSA divisions aren't metro areas. They're consolidations of metro areas. MSAs are metro areas. So no, they're not "metro areas" in the purest sense. An example: I grew up in Indianapolis. The Indianapolis CSA includes rural Putnam, Jennings, Brown, Montgomery, and Henry counties. There is no way on God's green earth those counties are "metro Indy" anything. Secondly, I'm not questioning a CSA's validity as a designation. I'm pointing out that there are multiple definitions, all equally valid, and you just so happened to pick the only one available to support your argument.
There is a SF-SJ CSA, and by that measure the SF-SJ area is larger econcomically. There is no such thing as a SF-SJ MSA. Nor is there a SF-SJ UA. Nor is there a SF-SJ CBSA. By three different measures, Chicago is larger. I have no problems with any of them individually. All measures are equally valid. It just so happens that one the one measure you chose (out of 4) shows something the other 3 don't. It's kind of like trying to figure out who the better hitter is in baseball. I can point out that player A has more RBI, HRs, and a higher on base percentage than player B, who has a higher batting average. You can cling to one standard, while I can point to three. Personally, if three things are telling me one thing, while one thing is telling me the other, I'm going to trust that set of three things more than a single data point. I don't need to do a city v. city straw poll to figure this out, because (a) a reasonable person would assume that any of 4 measures are applicable, depending upon what you're trying to measure and (b) city v city is hardly an authority on anything.
There is no debate that the Bay Area as a whole has grown rapidly (thanks to growth around San Jose) over the last 30 years. Nor is there any debate that it is a wealthier area per head than Chicago or that it is more dense. Growth is slowing, so it is hardly a foregone conclusion that the region will "pass" Chicago, however: Bay Area Growth Slowing | Newgeography.com
Growth is still available, but as things continue to get expensive there, resources will be pushed elsewhere. Not to mention that there just isn't much land available for continued development thanks to the mountains. No one can say that these trends are permanent or will definitively happen. 40 or 50 years down the road, it is just as likely that Chicago and Milwaukee do merge to a degree where they are counted together using the CSA definition you have clung to. Their edges of their urban areas (the strictest definition) are growing closer. Kenosha is in the process of being engulfed by Chicago. Racine will be next, where it will likely meet Milwaukee by that time. It's entirely possible that down the road, Chicago will be the larger CSA (with Milwaukee), but the smaller CBSA (Milwaukee won't be added, but SJ may be added to SF by this time). The point will probably be moot by then anyway, thanks to Dallas, Houston, etc.
San Jose metro alone has more F100 companies than all of Chicagoland, something else to think about. San Jose is also the largest city out of SF SJ and Oakland. It's nothing like Indianapolis whatsoever and hardly rural. The Bay Area is a denser metro overall than Chicagoland. I'm concerned with reality. The CSA in this sense is the best in terms of reality. I don't care that it is 1 out of 4, btw nobody in their right mind would ever use UA. It could be 1 out of 100... That is the one people in the know go by in terms of getting an accurate view of the Bay Area. Go talk to anybody in the know, they will tell you the same thing.
Last edited by Garfieldian; 09-22-2011 at 12:56 PM..
San Jose metro alone has more F100 companies than all of Chicagoland, something else to think about. San Jose is also the largest city out of SF SJ and Oakland. It's nothing like Indianapolis whatsoever and hardly rural. The Bay Area is a denser metro overall than Chicagoland. I'm concerned with reality. The CSA in this sense is the best in terms of reality. I don't care that it is 1 out of 4, btw nobody in their right mind would ever use UA. It could be 1 out of 100... That is the one people in the know go by in terms of getting an accurate view of the Bay Area. Go talk to anybody in the know, they will tell you the same thing.
Garfieldian-- I'm getting a strong dementor sense about you. You're kinda trolling against Chicago, but in some cases, you bring reason... an absolute-non-dementor-trait. But I think you are a dementor alias.
Are you dementor? C'mon, come clean buddy.
If you do not reply, I'll know you are dementor because I'm on his/its/they/things perpetual-ever ignore list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
