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.
Not to derail the thread, but Tampa Bay is defined as being a broader region by just about every group or organization besides the US Census. As @redjohn already pointed out, I'll add Enterprise Florida, Tampa Bay Partnership and the Tampa Bay media market to the list of government or sanctioned organizations that define Tampa Bay as a larger region. Generally, from what I can see, Tampa Bay includes the Tampa, Sarasota and Lakeland metro areas. I am interested in how natives of Tampa-St.Pete define Tampa Bay region, but my question to you would be, why is Tampa Bay, as classified by many organizations besides the Census as having a population of 4.438 million as of 2014, why is the "conflated" definition of Tampa Bay any more laughable than the "conflated" definition of California's Bay Area, which touches 8 million? That region comprises at four different metropolitan areas, and Oakland used to be a metropolitan area itself...
I guess my thing is, metropolitan area is not synonymous with "region" or "sphere of influence". A city can represent a sphere of influence across an area larger than its documented "metro". A region can also have multiple metros. So, I have no problem with Tampa or SF Bay Areas larger definitions, and I think it's a bit weird to be acceptable of one and not the other...and for the record, I think it would be stupid to combine Orlando and Tampa into one metro. They are too far away from each other to exist as one, and Orlando is inland and represents a different vibe, while Tampa is coastal. They are two large metros that happen to abut AND stream one into the other, but they shouldn't be combined...
As for the thread, Tampa Bay won't beat hardly any of these other cities/regions to 6. The metro(s) isn't growing at the hyper level it would need to beat Detroit-Windsor, certainly...
Eh, at least with the bay area, there is consistent development between each of the areas: SF, Oakland, and San Jose. There's several rail lines connecting the areas and there's significant commute patterns among the bay. With Orlando and Tampa, the only thing really connecting them is I-4 (although there is a rail being built now) and there definitely isn't consistent development along I-4. San Jose is also closer to Oakland and SF than Tampa and Orlando are to each other. I can agree with the Tampa Bay area including down to Sarasota and east to Lakeland and even north to Spring Hill, but not all the way to Orlando.
Phoenix will reach it first. And with CA's water woes, I dont see how it could possibly sustain more people than it already has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
Not to derail the thread, but Tampa Bay is defined as being a broader region by just about every group or organization besides the US Census. As @redjohn already pointed out, I'll add Enterprise Florida, Tampa Bay Partnership and the Tampa Bay media market to the list of government or sanctioned organizations that define Tampa Bay as a larger region. Generally, from what I can see, Tampa Bay includes the Tampa, Sarasota and Lakeland metro areas. I am interested in how natives of Tampa-St.Pete define Tampa Bay region, but my question to you would be, why is Tampa Bay, as classified by many organizations besides the Census as having a population of 4.438 million as of 2014, why is the "conflated" definition of Tampa Bay any more laughable than the "conflated" definition of California's Bay Area?
Don't get me started on this one. I've been arguing for years that Savannah's MSA (and even CSA) population was not a fair or accurate reflection of the greater Savannah region because of the immediately adjacent (i.e. -- DIRECTLY ACROSS THE RIVER!) presence of the Hilton Head-Beaufort MSA. Together, they have about 750,000 *right now* and will by most accounts have 800,000 plus by the 2020 Census (and 1 million-plus by 2030).
For proof of this, you need only look at the rankings of top 100 TV markets: Savannah is 92, smack between El Paso (MSA 836,000) and Baton Rouge (MSA 820,000). AND YES: I know that TV markets are based on number of DMA TV households and not population, but the numbers are still close enough to prove my point: To dismiss Savannah as a "small city of 145,000 with an MSA of JUST 375,000" only tells HALF of the story and is very misleading. Yet people do it all the time.
Uh ... well if you knew all that already, why did you create this thread?
Well like I outlined in the OP, I made the thread with the intention of people being able to vote for multiple cities as I believe that I wouldn't be the only person thinking more than one area will cross the 6 million threshold.
However when making the poll, I must have screwed up somehow as people can only vote for one choice on the poll. Which led me to thinking, if you're only given one choice (by accident by the way -- it was supposed to be multiple choices), I figured the one closest to the finished line would garner the most interest under those circumstances. Apparently not.
The San Diego/Tijuana region is now just 900,000 off from 6 million, the second closest of the pack after Detroit/Windsor but is annually adding about 64,000 people.
I personally think the two Mexican cities of Guadalajara and Monterrey will grow to be the biggest of the pack but that San Diego/Tijuana will cross it first and then the two Mexican cities, as well as Phoenix and Seattle.
Well like I outlined in the OP, I made the thread with the intention of people being able to vote for multiple cities as I believe that I wouldn't be the only person thinking more than one area will cross the 6 million threshold.
However when making the poll, I must have screwed up somehow as people can only vote for one choice on the poll. Which led me to thinking, if you're only given one choice (by accident by the way -- it was supposed to be multiple choices), I figured the one closest to the finished line would garner the most interest under those circumstances. Apparently not.
The San Diego/Tijuana region is now just 900,000 off from 6 million, the second closest of the pack after Detroit/Windsor but is annually adding about 64,000 people.
I personally think the two Mexican cities of Guadalajara and Monterrey will grow to be the biggest of the pack but that San Diego/Tijuana will cross it first and then the two Mexican cities, as well as Phoenix and Seattle.
I voted for the leader of the pack (Detroit-Windsor) because it is less than 300,000 from 6 million. That's alot closer than 900k.
Don't get me started on this one. I've been arguing for years that Savannah's MSA (and even CSA) population was not a fair or accurate reflection of the greater Savannah region because of the immediately adjacent (i.e. -- DIRECTLY ACROSS THE RIVER!) presence of the Hilton Head-Beaufort MSA. Together, they have about 750,000 *right now* and will by most accounts have 800,000 plus by the 2020 Census (and 1 million-plus by 2030).
For proof of this, you need only look at the rankings of top 100 TV markets: Savannah is 92, smack between El Paso (MSA 836,000) and Baton Rouge (MSA 820,000). AND YES: I know that TV markets are based on number of DMA TV households and not population, but the numbers are still close enough to prove my point: To dismiss Savannah as a "small city of 145,000 with an MSA of JUST 375,000" only tells HALF of the story and is very misleading. Yet people do it all the time.
Does it feel that big? Like does the city of Savannah reflect the size of 750k or 375k? I'll probably be there for SOWO next year and I've always wanted to go.
Does it feel that big? Like does the city of Savannah reflect the size of 750k or 375k? I'll probably be there for SOWO next year and I've always wanted to go.
Depending on when you go, Savannah can fool you into thinking that it has 500,000 easily. I wouldn't go so far as to say it feels as large as Baton Rouge does though. That's just IMHO though, some may feel differently.
Shocking to see San Diego/Tijuana with only one vote, goes back to my theory that people just vote for what they like rather than objectively.
San Diego/Tijuana is already 5.1 million with San Diego poised to add 340,000 people in the next 10 years and Tijuana poised to add 300,000 people in the next 10 years for a combined 640,000. So it will literally cross the 6 million line first.
You should be careful with your absolutism.
There is literally no such thing as an accurate population estimate.
Not to derail the thread, but Tampa Bay is defined as being a broader region by just about every group or organization besides the US Census. As @redjohn already pointed out, I'll add Enterprise Florida, Tampa Bay Partnership and the Tampa Bay media market to the list of government or sanctioned organizations that define Tampa Bay as a larger region. Generally, from what I can see, Tampa Bay includes the Tampa, Sarasota and Lakeland metro areas. I am interested in how natives of Tampa-St.Pete define Tampa Bay region, but my question to you would be, why is Tampa Bay, as classified by many organizations besides the Census as having a population of 4.438 million as of 2014, why is the "conflated" definition of Tampa Bay any more laughable than the "conflated" definition of California's Bay Area, which touches 8 million? That region comprises at four different metropolitan areas, and Oakland used to be a metropolitan area itself...
I guess my thing is, metropolitan area is not synonymous with "region" or "sphere of influence". A city can represent a sphere of influence across an area larger than its documented "metro". A region can also have multiple metros. So, I have no problem with Tampa or SF Bay Areas larger definitions, and I think it's a bit weird to be acceptable of one and not the other...and for the record, I think it would be stupid to combine Orlando and Tampa into one metro. They are too far away from each other to exist as one, and Orlando is inland and represents a different vibe, while Tampa is coastal. They are two large metros that happen to abut AND stream one into the other, but they shouldn't be combined...
As for the thread, Tampa Bay won't beat hardly any of these other cities/regions to 6. The metro(s) isn't growing at the hyper level it would need to beat Detroit-Windsor, certainly...
This is true; a metro area, whether MSA or CSA (or even micropolitan area), is representative of a labor market as measured by commuting patterns. Now the reason most don't have an issue with the larger Bay Area definition is because 1) it all used to be a singular MSA before previous revisions in the MSA criteria by the OMB and 2) it's still a CSA. Neither is true of the broader Tampa Bay area if I'm not mistaken, which means that the parts of the region not in the MSA/CSA (not sure if Tampa has the latter) are tied to the region in other ways, and not primarily economically.
Does it feel that big? Like does the city of Savannah reflect the size of 750k or 375k? I'll probably be there for SOWO next year and I've always wanted to go.
No; the region is multinodal with Beaufort and Hilton Head across the river being sizable cities in their own right (relatively speaking). You don't have very many commuters at all crossing the river from Beaufort and Jasper counties (SC) into Savannah because of the disproportionate retiree population on the SC side and, to a lesser extent, the military. The overall region is tied together in other ways but not really economically, which is what census-based statistical areas measure.
Since your thread says "Area" and the poll says "Area Population" I will say the Inland Empire in California It's not the poll I know that it should have been in my opinion but no worries.
Riverside - San Bernandino - Ontario
Population - 4,224,851(2010)
Most of the area's population is located in the southwest of San Bernardino County and the northwest of Riverside County.
by the year 2050 Riverside county will have a population of 4.7 million 2nd behind L.A. county
San Bernardino county by the year 2050, the population will reach 3.6 million, up from its current 2 million in population.
most of population will grow in those parts of the counties mentioned above not the whole county
Last edited by â„¢WestCoast Reppinâ„¢; 10-15-2015 at 10:21 AM..
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.
Inland Empire...
