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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,985,810 times
Reputation: 7328
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
either you are making up stuff or can't read. it says clearly on the top of page 17 the old numbers and the new ones. it shows Dallas at number 10 in the first table and Dallas with Fort worth as number 5 in the second.
They didn't get rid of metropolitan divisions, that is something that is new, it was not used before
Ok, Htownlove. Thank you for FINALLY citing what exactly your source was. The reason for all of the confusion is that 1.) You didn't specifically cite what you were talking about in the first post with a link. 2.) Even after you provided the citation, you still didn't state on what page to find the referenced (and long) material.
NOW it makes more sense what you are trying to say. And a few things.
1.) The PMSA structure was extremely ineffectual at determining the immediate metro area. For instance, The New York City PMSA consisted solely of:
The five boroughs
Kings County (Brooklyn)
Queens County (Queens)
New York County (Manhattan)
Bronx County (The Bronx)
Richmond County (Staten Island)
And three suburban counties:
Putnam County
Rockland County
Westchester County
Now I am sure most people would say that if you think that's all there is to the immediate New York City area then, now or even 100 years ago then you don't know NYC. At the very minimum not only are Northern New Jersey counties like Hudson County excluded (well, I bet K.O.N.Y. would agree to that... peace bruh ), but Suffolk and Nassau counties on Long Island were not even included in the New York City PMSA. That's the same Long Island you can literally walk to New York City by crossing a crack in a sidewalk.
2. The Los Angeles PMSA was "ahead" of the New York City PMSA under the old method because it consisted solely of Los Angeles County....which is 4061 square miles. I would hope a county that big would have a whole lot more people than the area counted for New York City's PMSA which was probably no more than 800 square miles if not much less (wild eyed guess).
It's no new news that Los Angeles county has more people than any single county in New York state, or any other state for that matter, having nearly 5 million more people than the second largest Cook County, IL (Chicago).
To state that "The Los Angeles metro was bigger than New York City metro according to their PMSAs" is incorrect since PMSAs were never meant to be used that way and ignored major components of not only New York City, but Los Angeles too. The current MSA definitions do a much better at that for everyone for the most part.
3. Trying to figure out anything about metropolitan areas today using the old PMSA method could be interesting, but it is irrelevant. Most of the cities on the PMSA list have added several hundred thousand people since that time and several have added millions. That type of population growth invariable will consume new land for development i.e. sprawl.
Long story short, to avoid feeling like you are being picked on, you need only remember three words:
Citations, citations, citations. Developing context is just as important as proposing an idea for consideration.
In other news, 6 weeks until data from the 2010 Census is released...and we can end all of these "what if" population threads...maybe.
Heck, at least NY wasnt demoted within its own Metro like SF was when the city was demoted to a 2nd place billing in the name of the new regional entity(CSA).
We went from being San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA to San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA.
They said the new rules were that it would be the top 3 cities by population in descending order-and of course, San Jose proper has more people than SF.
It was quite the mini-controversy in the Bay Area...
A great city forced to eat crow / Census Bureau decides we now live in the San Jose metro area (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/18/NAMECHANGE.TMP - broken link)
Heck, at least NY wasnt demoted within its own Metro like SF was when the city was demoted to a 2nd place billing in the name of the new regional entity(CSA).
We went from being San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA to San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA.
They said the new rules were that it would be the top 3 cities by population in descending order-and of course, San Jose proper has more people than SF.
It was quite the mini-controversy in the Bay Area...
A great city forced to eat crow / Census Bureau decides we now live in the San Jose metro area (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/18/NAMECHANGE.TMP - broken link)
Snobs everywhere in SF were up in arms! LOL
The commentary went into a lot of detail about naming, but was mainly focusing on smaller towns unincorporated areas.
They talked about economic impact in combination with population when it comes to naming, so i don't know why they would not extend that to larger towns and compare the economic draw of the various cities.
In the Houston metro, Sugar Land and Baytown are not the 2nd and 3rd largest cities by a long shot, but they are listed in the metro name because they act like the 2nd and 3rd biggest cities in terms of economy and pull on commuters rather than huge suberbs. Pasadena would be the second biggest city, but it acts more like a suberb than Sugarland and Baytown.
Wow, come back one day later and have to spend 45 mins sifting through this mess.
One thing I always advocate is San Jose/SF/Oakland being one metro. Similar to the old pmsa's being slightly deceiving, SF's metro is very deceiving, the most blatant in the US.
The only other thing I have to say is to Ghost: Go LA, former #1 metro in the US!!, lay off the Mexicans, and NYC was #2!!! NYC was #2......
Wow, come back one day later and have to spend 45 mins sifting through this mess.
One thing I always advocate is San Jose/SF/Oakland being one metro. Similar to the old pmsa's being slightly deceiving, SF's metro is very deceiving, the most blatant in the US.
yeah, the commentary did give a lot of incite into how the Board operates, but it didn't really zoom in on particular cities. States were mentioned a lot but not cities. Evidently there are representatives from different states and they send in recommendations for changes. The board looks at the changes, rejects most, accept some and sends it back to the representatives, who then look at what is accepted and argue over how far it should be taken.
For example, the contingent from New Jersey was concerned about the number of metro's in their state so they recommended lowering the commuting threshold so that more metros would be absorbed into each other. This proposal was accepted.
Quote:
The only other thing I have to say is to Ghost: Go LA, former #1 metro in the US!!, lay off the Mexicans, and NYC was #2!!! NYC was #2......
Ok, Htownlove. Thank you for FINALLY citing what exactly your source was. The reason for all of the confusion is that 1.) You didn't specifically cite what you were talking about in the first post with a link. 2.) Even after you provided the citation, you still didn't state on what page to find the referenced (and long) material.
NOW it makes more sense what you are trying to say. And a few things.
1.) The PMSA structure was extremely ineffectual at determining the immediate metro area. For instance, The New York City PMSA consisted solely of:
The five boroughs
Kings County (Brooklyn)
Queens County (Queens)
New York County (Manhattan)
Bronx County (The Bronx)
Richmond County (Staten Island)
And three suburban counties:
Putnam County
Rockland County
Westchester County
Now I am sure most people would say that if you think that's all there is to the immediate New York City area then, now or even 100 years ago then you don't know NYC. At the very minimum not only are Northern New Jersey counties like Hudson County excluded (well, I bet K.O.N.Y. would agree to that... peace bruh ), but Suffolk and Nassau counties on Long Island were not even included in the New York City PMSA. That's the same Long Island you can literally walk to New York City by crossing a crack in a sidewalk.
2. The Los Angeles PMSA was "ahead" of the New York City PMSA under the old method because it consisted solely of Los Angeles County....which is 4061 square miles. I would hope a county that big would have a whole lot more people than the area counted for New York City's PMSA which was probably no more than 800 square miles if not much less (wild eyed guess).
It's no new news that Los Angeles county has more people than any single county in New York state, or any other state for that matter, having nearly 5 million more people than the second largest Cook County, IL (Chicago).
To state that "The Los Angeles metro was bigger than New York City metro according to their PMSAs" is incorrect since PMSAs were never meant to be used that way and ignored major components of not only New York City, but Los Angeles too. The current MSA definitions do a much better at that for everyone for the most part.
3. Trying to figure out anything about metropolitan areas today using the old PMSA method could be interesting, but it is irrelevant. Most of the cities on the PMSA list have added several hundred thousand people since that time and several have added millions. That type of population growth invariable will consume new land for development i.e. sprawl.
Long story short, to avoid feeling like you are being picked on, you need only remember three words:
Citations, citations, citations. Developing context is just as important as proposing an idea for consideration.
In other news, 6 weeks until data from the 2010 Census is released...and we can end all of these "what if" population threads...maybe.
yeah right, the very information you are posting comes from post 14, your first post was at 41. Had you simply clicked on the link it would have explained everything in the open paragraphs. But you chose to do the band wagon thing instead of widening your understanding of the subject and being one of the few who were not flat out ignorant on the subject.
Like I said, I never come out and attack people's data without researching it myself. I know this is a crazy forum but very few regular posters would make up data, and I would look foolish just dismissing data especially if it comes from census sources. I may attack someone's opinions, but when the truth is coming from a reputable source why be silly and dismiss it without looking at it?
Anyway, even after the citations were posted, and excerpts were posted and reposted, there were still people who were arguing against the facts based on what they heard, so it matters little whether the citations are posted or not, you're still gonna have yokels who think their heads are the best database and disagree with everything
yeah, the commentary did give a lot of incite into how the Board operates, but it didn't really zoom in on particular cities. States were mentioned a lot but not cities. Evidently there are representatives from different states and they send in recommendations for changes. The board looks at the changes, rejects most, accept some and sends it back to the representatives, who then look at what is accepted and argue over how far it should be taken.
For example, the contingent from New Jersey was concerned about the number of metro's in their state so they recommended lowering the commuting threshold so that more metros would be absorbed into each other. This proposal was accepted.
It is interesting, I remember when the criteria changed, Ive been a stat nerd since I was a kid reading the Almanac every year. It was a big deal when LA passed Chicago, and it was a big deal around the time you are talking about.
"...So anyway, the answer is pretty obvious. If someone doesn't exactly understand what you were posting in that other thread than yeah, it really is that hard to believe that LA is in any way bigger than NY. It's just not on the same level. And that first list isn't a good reflection of reality. It's the old metro definition I know, but it's a pretty arbitrary definition and not really representative of a city's real area of influence, unless you think NYC's influence stops at pretty much the city limits.
It's not the city of LA with 469.1 sq mi versus the city of NY with 304.8 sq mi but LA County with 4,061 sq mi versus NY plus a lil extra. All that tells me is takes LA with an inflated area of more than 10 times the size of NYC to match it in population, and even then that's all it matches in. I guess the problem is people didn't see or know what was being compared, if you know this than obviously it's not so ridiculous, and it really speaks more to NY's size if anything, not LA's.
Anyway, I agree, not many people in real life would actually care about this. People in NYC don't think much about LA as much as I'm sure people in LA don't think much about NYC either."
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.
), but Suffolk and Nassau counties on Long Island were not even included in the New York City PMSA. That's the same Long Island you can literally walk to New York City by crossing a crack in a sidewalk. 
