U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-28-2009, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
If you want to go with the CMSA route.
Actually the Bay Area CMSA surpassed the Philadelphia CMSA in population way back in 1990. Now the lead has grown to about 1 Million.

If I went by the State of California's population estimate, the Bay Area CSA actually has 7.702 Million people. That would come out to 1.5 Million more than Philadelphia.

 
Old 11-28-2009, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,498,556 times
Reputation: 2627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Actually the Bay Area CMSA surpassed the Philadelphia CMSA in population way back in 1990. Now the lead has grown to about 1 Million.

If I went by the State of California's population estimate, the Bay Area CSA actually has 7.702 Million people. That would come out to 1.5 Million more than Philadelphia.
And If you are measuring by TV Market Catchment Area then Philadelphia has about 1.5 M more people than Bay Area.


The census ridiculously says the family from Trenton(15 mi away) or Lehigh Valley isnt part of Philadlephia eventhough these families get 5 channels of local Philadelphia TV and radio programming. Plus all 4 major sports on their radios and Tvs
 
Old 11-28-2009, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Fresno
254 posts, read 617,067 times
Reputation: 164
Home values declined throughout the country, not just in the Bay Area. What is interesting however for the Bay Area is that in the last 4 years or so, the population has been booming. All of the people that had moved out to the metros surrounding the Bay Area, are in effect moving back and closer to their jobs.

In fact in the past few years, the Bay Area has been averaging 100,000+ population increase per year. It doesn't sound like an area to me that is "suffering" too bad because of the economic mess imo...
 
Old 11-28-2009, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,880 posts, read 6,155,979 times
Reputation: 1225
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Perhaps a better question is What makes you think Philadelphia should not be in Tier 2 assuming SF and Boston are Tier 3 cities ?

Philadelphia the first planned city in the USA, was either the first or second most populated city for 70% of this countrys life span. Downtown Philadlephia has 7 Fortune 500 companies compared to SF 7 Boston 2.

Census data MSA metropolitan estimates as of July 1 2008.

5.Philadlephia- 5,839,471

10. Boston- 4,522,858

13.SF-Oak-Fremont 4,274,531




Claritas- 2007 Regional Household Income worth $1,000,000 to $1,999,999

NYC- 189,669
LA- 127,556
Chicago- 87,440
Philadelphia- 76,561
SF- 72,631
Washington-72,463
Boston-64,090
Dallas- 51,832
Atlanta-50,834
Detroit-50,164


List of US urban Areas by population
1 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT UA 17,799,861
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA UA 11,789,487
3 Chicago, IL-IN UA 8,307,904
4 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD UA 5,149,079
5 Miami, FL UA 4,919,036
6 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX UA 4,145,659
7 Boston, MA-NH-RI UA 4,032,484
8 Washington, DC-VA-MD UA 3,933,920
9 Detroit, MI UA 3,903,377
10 Houston, TX UA 3,822,509
11 Atlanta, GA UA 3,499,840
12 San Francisco-Oakland, CA UA 3,228,605
13 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ UA 2,907,049
I didn't even notice Boston there so I agree it's not in a tier higher than Philly. Boston, Philly, Atlanta, DFW, and Houston are all roughly equivalent imo. But you can't seriously think that Philadelphia is on the same level or higher than San Francisco?

As much as you hate to admit it, the Bay area has to be taken as a cohesive unit. It's not our fault Philly is so close to NYC and Baltimore so it doesn't have a larger CSA. I see you're quick to point out the UA statistics and that can be expected because Philly proper is much larger in relation to its metro.

So let's see 7 mil vs 5 mil San Fran wins. The Bay area has many more Fortune 500 companies than greater Philadelphia does. And let's take a look at the importance and revenue power of these Bay companies vs the Philly ones. They are absolutely dominant in the high tech sector hosting Apple, Google, HP, Intel, etc. Additionally, they have impressive financial institutions like Wells Fargo. Philly has some import companies as well such as Comcast but with the exception of it and Sunoco, every Philly area fortune 500 has revenues less than $20 Billion for 2008. The Bay area on the other hand has 4 over $50 Billion and a total of 8 over $20 Bill.
Economically it isn't even close.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,498,556 times
Reputation: 2627
Quote:
Originally Posted by frsno1 View Post
Home values declined throughout the country, not just in the Bay Area.
BUT

Metro Philadelphia Home values are down 8% from their peak.

Metro San Francisco Home values are down 42% from their peak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frsno1
What is interesting however for the Bay Area is that in the last 4 years or so, the population has been booming. All of the people that had moved out to the metros surrounding the Bay Area, are in effect moving back.

In fact in the past few years, the Bay Area has been averaging 100,000+ population increase per year. It doesn't sound like an area to me that is "suffering" too bad because of the economic mess imo...
U.S. Population Growth 2000-2007

Hold on now frsno1. According to the census data. Metro Philadlephia has grown 2.9% from 2000-2007 and SF/SJ has grown 2.4%.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
BUT

Metro Philadelphia Home values are down 8% from their peak.

Metro San Francisco Home values are down 42% from their peak.
A peak of nearly $900,000 Median Home Price for the entire bay region.

I quite frankly am glad its come down to only around $600,000


Quote:
U.S. Population Growth 2000-2007

Hold on now frsno1. According to the census data. Metro Philadlephia has grown 2.9% from 2000-2007 and SF/SJ has grown 2.4%.
Well, the State of California which also puts out interim estimates and is always found to be correct come Census time estimates the Bay Area has 7.702 Million people in 2009. That's about 10 percent since 2000.

I guess we'll wait for the census bureau to confirm that next year.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,498,556 times
Reputation: 2627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
A peak of nearly $900,000 Median Home Price for the entire bay region.

I quite frankly am glad its come down to only around $600,000
Keep going. How about $402,000 1st qrt 2009.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Montclair
Well, the State of California which also puts out interim estimates and is always found to be correct come Census time estimates the Bay Area has 7.702 Million people in 2009. That's about 10 percent since 2000.

I guess we'll wait for the census bureau to confirm that next year.
Doesnt sound like a healthy mix with that altudinous unemployment rate going on out there.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Keep going. How about $402,000 1st qrt 2009.
October 2009 Median Home Price
SF Bay $551,090

October sales and price report (http://www.car.org/newsstand/newsreleases/oct09salesandprice/ - broken link)

Quote:
Doesnt sound like a healthy mix with that altudinous unemployment rate going on out there.
The Bay Area's 10.7% Unemployment rate isnt really far worse than Metro Philly's 8.8% rate or NYs 9.3% rate.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...zjlTyYR8Z-BVww

Last edited by 18Montclair; 11-28-2009 at 07:14 PM..
 
Old 11-28-2009, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Fresno
254 posts, read 617,067 times
Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
BUT

Metro Philadelphia Home values are down 8% from their peak.

Metro San Francisco Home values are down 42% from their peak.




U.S. Population Growth 2000-2007

Hold on now frsno1. According to the census data. Metro Philadlephia has grown 2.9% from 2000-2007 and SF/SJ has grown 2.4%.
When the dot com boom imploded, the Bay Area was the hardest region no doubt in the country. The Bay Area did indeed lose population during the first part of the decade, but an estimated 90% of those people left to the surrounding metros.

But whether you agree or not, the Bay Area did indeed bounce back and has shown time again how strong and resilient of a metro area it is. Sure home prices dropped, but what area hasn't. Besides, I mentioned the past few years, the area has bucked the trend and has boomed. The jobs have always been here, it is just that the people who were working at them have decided to return home so to speak.

I also find it interesting that the "core" counties that comprise the Bay Area CSA have almost the same population as the entire Philadelphia CSA, but in a smaller area. The core counties include SF, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara. The 2009 population was approx 6.1 million in an area of approx 3,256 square miles.
 
Old 11-29-2009, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,403 posts, read 21,121,575 times
Reputation: 10277
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post

List of US urban Areas by population
1 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT UA 17,799,861
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA UA 11,789,487
3 Chicago, IL-IN UA 8,307,904
4 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD UA 5,149,079
5 Miami, FL UA 4,919,036
6 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX UA 4,145,659
7 Boston, MA-NH-RI UA 4,032,484
8 Washington, DC-VA-MD UA 3,933,920
9 Detroit, MI UA 3,903,377
10 Houston, TX UA 3,822,509
11 Atlanta, GA UA 3,499,840
12 San Francisco-Oakland, CA UA 3,228,605
13 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ UA 2,907,049
These are for 2000. How about we look at 2009 instead:

New York City: 21,295,000
Los Angeles: 14,940,000
Chicago: 9,430,000
San Francisco/San Jose: 5,780,000
Miami: 5,625,000
Philadelphia: 5,550,000
Boston: 5,210,000
Dallas/Fort Worth: 5,185,000
Houston: 4,595,000
Atlanta: 4,520,000
Washington DC: 4,380,000
Detroit: 4,150,000
Phoenix: 3,570,000
Seattle: 3,100,000
San Diego: 2,950,000
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 2,645,000
Tampa: 2,340,000
Denver: 2,335,000
Baltimore: 2,280,000
St. Louis: 2,230,000

If we want to gate which cities are becoming more urban, just look at the difference between the 2000 numbers you posted and the 2009 numbers here.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top