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.
Yeah, I think I would be more interested in MSA growth than CSA growth. Though I do find these threads interesting and don't get why people are so anti-CSA. Yeah that stats are more influenced by sprawl than an MSA stat, but every city has sprawl so I don't see what the big deal is.
CSAs have a purpose and that's why they exist. It makes sense to have a way to look at the DC and Baltimore area as one area in "some" cases.
But for the most part, they are two very self sustaining cities and even metros despite sharing some suburban commuters and even a few city to city commuters.
CSAs are worthless when using those numbers to compare metro areas. urbanized area (of an MSA) is the best and MSA is the second best way to compare cities. CSA and city limits are a total complete waist of time in 99% of scenarios and are only used by people that want to have inflated numbers to make their city look good.
City limits don't make sense because there is more to StL than the 300k in the city and Jacksonville is not really three times the size of St Louis. Is Wichita bigger than St Louis or Pittsburgh??? It is when only comparing city limits.
Jax, Indy or San Antonios huge city limits means nothing when most of the suburbs are in the city and StL City limits means nothing when it has a million people in suburbs in a denser area than Indy does in the city.
These crazy combined CSA stats also make comparing cities impossible. Charlotte has an urbanized population of less than 1.3 million, but all of the sudden it gains a 1.2 million people in it's CSA? That's fine if looking at market size or tv market, but not when trying to compare Charlotte to some other city. Charlotte feels like a city of about 1.5 million (its urbanized population) despite having a pretty impressive downtown. It does NOT feel like a St Louis or Denver which both have well over 2 million people in their MSA.
Why can't we just stick with MSA's when comparing metro areas? It just makes sense to me.
Yeah, I think I would be more interested in MSA growth than CSA growth. Though I do find these threads interesting and don't get why people are so anti-CSA. Yeah that stats are more influenced by sprawl than an MSA stat, but every city has sprawl so I don't see what the big deal is.
You should know by now that everyone on this site has an agenda:
The pro-CSA crowd (usually spearheaded by the Bay Area posters) feels that their area is more accurately represented by the CSA than their MSA, so thus they use it.
The anti-CSA crowd dislikes the fact that a CSA in THEIR area usually either includes too much, includes the wrong things, or doesn't include enough, so it becomes useless in their eyes.
What both sides seem to miss is that different areas have different patterns, but government statistics usually boil things down into easy to digest, one-size-fits-all model.
I'm sure most of you guys pay taxes. Ask me how easy it is for the Federal Government to take YOUR personal story in account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
CSAs are worthless when using those numbers to compare metro areas. urbanized area (of an MSA) is the best and MSA is the second best way to compare cities. CSA and city limits are a total complete waist of time in 99% of scenarios and are only used by people that want to have inflated numbers to make their city look good. (Indy or San Antonios huge city limits when comparing city limits only or these crazy combined CSA stats that make comparing cities impossible). Why can't we just stick with MSA's when comparing metro areas? It just makes sense to me.
Because in the real world, there are people who see their area in terms of what the CSA encompasses. That's just a reality. The assumption is that the MSA designation is a more exact and more perfect designation than the CSA, when in fact, it isn't.
All of these things are based on county lines drawn decades ago. If for some reason, the county recorder was drunk and decided to draw a squiggly line right over your house, well then your life and area experiences are going to get a whole lot more interesting with government statistics.
You should know by now that everyone on this site has an agenda:
The pro-CSA crowd (usually spearheaded by the Bay Area posters) feels that their area is more accurately represented by the CSA than their MSA, so thus they use it.
The anti-CSA crowd dislikes the fact that a CSA in THEIR area usually either includes too much, includes the wrong things, or doesn't include enough, so it becomes useless in their eyes.
I guess what I am not understanding is why would anyone care if metro A is more populated than metro B? what does that prove? Stats do not translate into reality.
You should know by now that everyone on this site has an agenda:
The pro-CSA crowd (usually spearheaded by the Bay Area posters) feels that their area is more accurately represented by the CSA than their MSA, so thus they use it.
The bay area makes sense. I think their CSA should be an MSA. But most other CSA's are so broad that you can really use them to compare to other cities. I guess that's my only point.
You should know by now that everyone on this site has an agenda:
The pro-CSA crowd (usually spearheaded by the Bay Area posters) feels that their area is more accurately represented by the CSA than their MSA, so thus they use it.
The anti-CSA crowd dislikes the fact that a CSA in THEIR area usually either includes too much, includes the wrong things, or doesn't include enough, so it becomes useless in their eyes.
.
I think the best is some place in between.
I can see the purpose of CSA's from a standpoint of the Bay Area and Baltimore/Washington. However, reading some of the earlier posts Im not sure I agree with some of the things the Bay Area guys have been saying. I definately see a need for a connection betwen San Fran, San Jose, Oakland, and Marin county. But bringing in Sacramento and Salinas seem a bit of a stretch.
By the same token some some MSA's are a little large to me. Bringing that close to home, Delta county is part of the DFW MSA. I have never even heard of any of the towns in that county and Ive been here for 4 years. Greenville and Hunt county also seems a bit of a stretch. And those are all in the MSA. By the time you throw in the CSA of DFW it really seems too large to me. To me (and I think to most DFW area residents), the core of DFW is Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, and Collin counties. In the DFW MSA, Rockwall, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, and Wise counties can fit as well. Its just those outer counties that seem a stretch.
Bringing that back to the CSA arguement, Salinas and Modesto seem the same kind of stretch to me.
I guess what I am not understanding is why would anyone care if metro A is more populated than metro B? what does that prove? Stats do not translate into reality.
Stats like population DO translate to reality because by definition, the higher the number of "population" there is, there is more likely to be more people there.
Maybe what you're trying to say is "why boost or brag about it?" I agree with you. But it is what it is. It's like bragging about having a nice skyline: well unless you own one of those buildings, it really doesn't matter. It just is what it is.
As for me, I really don't care one way or the other. There were around 150 people who rode in the one train car with me to work today. I'm pretty sure that isn't a brag worthy accomplishment.
Quote:
The bay area makes sense. I think their CSA should be an MSA. But most other CSA's are so broad that you can really use them to compare to other cities. I guess that's my only point.
Well, for CSA's out West, usually the CSA IS how people view their areas because of geographic realities. What may seem like an unreasonable distance for two places to be "connected" in any meaningful way would be out here because of all the mountains and valleys that are here.
For the case of the IE, it does include way too much, but that's also because the county borders are drawn so big (dating from the 1850s) that it includes nearly all of SE California. But also using that line of logic, the IE MSA is also way too big because again, it includes nearly all of SE California.
There's a give and take with everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02
I think the best is some place in between.
I can see the purpose of CSA's from a standpoint of the Bay Area and Baltimore/Washington. However, reading some of the earlier posts Im not sure I agree with some of the things the Bay Area guys have been saying. I definately see a need for a connection betwen San Fran, San Jose, Oakland, and Marin county. But bringing in Sacramento and Salinas seem a bit of a stretch.
By the same token some some MSA's are a little large to me. Bringing that close to home, Delta county is part of the DFW MSA. I have never even heard of any of the towns in that county and Ive been here for 4 years. Greenville and Hunt county also seems a bit of a stretch. And those are all in the MSA. By the time you throw in the CSA of DFW it really seems too large to me. To me (and I think to most DFW area residents), the core of DFW is Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, and Collin counties. In the DFW MSA, Rockwall, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, and Wise counties can fit as well. Its just those outer counties that seem a stretch.
Bringing that back to the CSA arguement, Salinas and Modesto seem the same kind of stretch to me.
I don't think any of the Bay Area boosters bring in Sacramento in because its a large enough of an entity ON ITS OWN that people there usually don't commute to the Bay Area.
Likewise, Salinas/Monterey is the same case.
Stockton/Modesto, totally different stories. There is no other reason why San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties grew by 15-25% other than cheap housing. We're not talking about Apple or Google moving their campuses to the middle of the Central Valley. These are former farm communities becoming commuter suburbs.
However, the overarching point is usually the truth is somewhere in between. But that would require taking things on a case by case basis, which most people frankly don't have the patience to do given the lack of real local knowledge of many of these places around the country.
Government statistics are just that: government statistics.
Bringing that back to the CSA arguement, Salinas and Modesto seem the same kind of stretch to me.
Not directed at you personally, but I dont understand the complaints against CSAs---if 2 MSAs meet the criteria to combine, they combine, if not they dont combine.
CSA numbers are a lame way for people to brag about their cities GDP number or population number. Like many on this site, I care mostly about city cores and densely populated areas, I couldn't care less what is happening in Timbuktu.
This is really what you have against it all bubbles.
You're a native Chicagoan, you obviously hate this thread because Chicago is towards the bottom and that it's GDP has been surpassed not just by a metro that's 1M less but by one that's 2M less too.
You can fool others but you're not fooling me. If you don't care for Timbuktu then why are you in this thread? LOL
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.
