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.
Yea, anonelitist or Montclair will have to explain that one. Probably because they're in the same state and the fact that NorCal is relatively isolated makes it easier to identify under the same umbrella? Maybe they have higher commuting numbers? Really not sure, to be honest. Seems like a pass without a local in-depth explanation.
Honestly I think it's psychological, it has more to do with branding than anything. Baltimore is ten miles closer to D.C. than San Jose is to San Francisco. Baltimore is an old city with it's own distinct flavor and metro area that far predates the creation of the CSA, which is a more recent phenomenon. San Jose has been on the radar as a major population center for decades. Yet It still could be more easily viewed as a default suburb of San Francisco. As if it were the proxy choice of the tech companies and startups because there was no room in San Francisco itself.
Simple question, really. What metrics or stats used to argue for cities on here infuriates you the most? I'm talking density, walkability, UHNWIs, dog parks per capita, etc. This is your thread to vent.
For me, I HATE the reliance on CSAs here. In my opinion, it's just a highly inflated metric used to prop up cities to ridiculous levels. I understand metro/urban areas to a certain extent (and even these can be subjected to inflation), but CSAs just seem like a gross overreach to me.
Case in point, I currently reside in the very small city of Smyrna, Delaware, 68.8 miles from Philadelphia. Technically I'm part of Greater Philadelphia, aka the Delaware Valley, at the CSA level. So throw little old Smyrna into Philly's numbers as a global metropolis because of a few commuters, but ignore everything else concerning local identity, local economy, etc. Influenced by Philly through media, demographics, transportation, sure, but Delaware as a whole does have its own identity. Put it this way, you wouldn't mistake my block for anywhere in Philly.
So when people throw around CSAs in debates, I almost always eye roll. "Cities" nowadays are a matter of semantics, I get that. No, I'm not advocating city proper debates only.The "city" of the future is spread out, even in the developing world. Still, as the most fringe metric, I can't respect CSAs like others on here. Urban Areas and MSAs are far better in my book, and even they reach. There's an indefinable litmus test for these things, I suppose.
Us the u.n. urban area. It is a very good way to determine city size in my opinion.
The only CSA that makes sense to me is the Bay Area, since the whole entire region functions as one identity despite there being three cities in their own respectable right.
The rest, I follow the MSA. Too much grey area like Allentown being more culturally Philadelphian considering sphere of influence yet in the NYC metropolitan area, or Boston going from 4.5 MSA to 7-8 millon in the CSA, etc.
This is nonsense. If the Bay Area functioned like one metro area, they would be merged into one MSA. Metros aren't about what you feel, it's about statistics. Apparently, perception diverts from reality as the commuting patterns don't support your argument.
How does San Francisco and San Jose function more as one metro than New York and Bridgeport? Washington and Baltimore? Los Angeles and Riverside? Sure, they're all part of one regional CSA but all of these places are separated as MSAs for a reason and the same commuting formula is applied to each.
This is nonsense. If the Bay Area functioned like one area, they would be merged into one MSA. Metros aren't about what you feel, it's about statistics. Apparently, perception diverts from reality as the commuting patterns don't support your argument.
How does San Francisco and San Jose function more as one than New York and Bridgeport? Or Washington and Baltimore?
consistent development and location of job centers
County lines are mostly arbitrary and the means for MSA/CSA
SF and SJ are absolutely more cohesive than Balt/Wash in reality just commuter thresholds and commuter patterns dont meet the MSA threshold move the county borders a few miles and they would
consistent development and location of job centers
County lines are mostly arbitrary and the means for MSA/CSA
SF and SJ are absolutely more cohesive than Balt/Wash in reality just commuter thresholds and commuter patterns dont meet the MSA threshold move the county borders a few miles and they would
If that were true, the Office of Management and Budget would have merged them into the same metro area. But they haven't so your perception differs real reality.
Almost doesn't count. These metros are all separate for a reason. They are the experts and do the commuting tabulations for us.
If that were true, the Office of Management and Budget would have merged them into the same metro area. But they haven't so your perception differs real reality.
Almost doesn't count. These metros are all separate for a reason. They are the experts and do the commuting tabulations for us.
When you look at the Bay Area from space all you see is one continuous glob of development. You cannot differentiate between San Fran and San Jose unless you are an expert on the area.
All the OMB does is look at commuting patterns between counties. If one county has at least 25% of it's workforce commuting into the larger county, then they count that county as part of the larger counties MSA. Then they figure out what the most populated city in the "core" county is, and declare it as the "City X Metropolitan Statistical Area".
The small city of Holland Michigan is in the Grand Rapids-Wyoming MSA. However the civic boundaries for Holland are spread into two separate counties. If you cross 32nd st in Holland you are statistically no longer in the Grand Rapids MSA, you have entered the "Holland Michigan Micropolitan area". Do not tell me these methods used by these "experts" don't have gray area when you can be in a separate statistical area without even leaving a cities borders.
Places like the Inland Empire, and Fairfield county Connecticut have turned into counties that no longer have a certain percentage of their commuters exiting the county. You're kidding yourself if you think they exist in their current forms without the larger behemoth metro's they are divided from.
Inland Empire is absolutely part of LA.
Durham is absolutely part of Raleigh.
Stamford/Bridgeport is absolutely part of NYC.
San Jose is absolutely part of SF.
Baltimore is not part of DC. Development around DC is far more intense going into Virginia or MD suburbs stretching west. Not as much stretching towards Baltimore. Baltimore suburbs seem to trend to stretch north. Two sets of sports teams, two sets of news/radio stations, no sharing of economies, seems to be sort of a cultural divide though I could be wrong...
SF/SJ share sports teams, transit systems (even BART is going to SJ now), news stations, economies, cultures, same regional issues with housing and affordability, etc etc. When in the Bay Area, there is SF, North Bay (Marin into wine country), South Bay, East Bay (Oakland, Walnut Creek), and the Peninsula. There is no "bubble" or dividing line, per se like there likely is between DC and Baltimore.
For what it's worth, all of the examples above used to be MSAs, not CSAs. Also, MSA has 3 qualifying characteristics, one of which is commuting pattern. One of which, though, is discretion by local jurisdictions to be included with OMB as one MSA. So when we all talk about why one area is an MSA and another is not, we are making assumptions about what's really happening there.
Breaking up SF and SJ into two separate metros is about as arbitrary as keeping Dallas and Fort Worth the same metro. That's how I see it, and I think most would agree.
The fact that a huge chunk of posters spend a lot of time compiling data, yet people still ignore it because it doesn't fit their narrative.
This bugs me as well when it happens, which is frequent. On the flip side, some posters continue to post and repost the exact same data and it starts to sound like a broken record.
I say its an insecurity issue....yeah...because in the real world, San Jose has nothing to do with the rest of the Bay Area.
Sometimes, there's really no conspiracy behind anything. Sometimes things are the way they are. Either you accept it, or you don't. Until the OMB or Census doesn't consider "CSA" as a valid measure, then it exists. It's that simple.
On the same token, when people explicitly want to limit themselves to MSA or city-boundaries, that's really on them.
Realize this: not every place can be looked at the same. That's a huge problem on City-Data generally.
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.
