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.
CSAs looking increasingly inflated. Boston at 8m+? Bigger than DFW? DC at almost 10m? Bay Area hitting close to 9m? These numbers are misleading.
While I don't know if this is the case with any or all of the aforementioned metros but MSAs and CSAs are physically defined by county boundaries that may extend far beyond a small part of the county that is tied to the core city's/cities' urban areas. If the part of those counties are significant enough to trigger inclusion into a CSA, the entire population of the county is also included. It's not an exact science.
While I don't know if this is the case with any or all of the aforementioned metros but MSAs and CSAs are physically defined by county boundaries that may extend far beyond a small part of the county that is tied to the core city's/cities' urban areas. If the part of those counties are significant enough to trigger inclusion into a CSA, the entire population of the county is also included. It's not an exact science.
Plus there are a few other municipalities that are contiguous to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area so 7.5 million is certainly not high balling it at all..
The Golden Horseshoe while not a contiguous urbanized area is certainly a pretty interconnected region and is probably the closest thing to a U.S style CSA as you can get in Canada and the area it covers is pretty equivalent to most large U.S cities' CSA's. As of the 2016 census that is 9.3 million up from 8.6 million in the 2011 census.
CSAs looking increasingly inflated. Boston at 8m+? Bigger than DFW? DC at almost 10m? Bay Area hitting close to 9m? These numbers are misleading.
Boston is potentially the sprawliest CSA in America. If you look at its geographic footprint, it has more shot up holes in it than Swiss Cheese. All of which are attributable to, at least to some extent, as to why Boston feels like a small city despite on paper having "8 million people or more" in its general surrounding metropolitan region. There are a number of CSAs that have holes with regard to development in them, so Boston isn't alone in that, but Boston takes the cake on that easily and also worthwhile to keep in mind, Boston's suburban fringes are possibly among the lowest density ones in America.
Greater Boston CSA:
Nothing wrong with Boston, given that sprawl is something everywhere in America is a "worst offender" at, but just pointing out an it is what it is type of condition. It is the combination of having holes, physically sprawling to vast lengths, and having super low density that does it for Greater Boston CSA IMO. Though it isn't all Boston's fault, New England seems to have some of the most stringent park space preservation guidelines in America, which also contribute, at least in part, to its super low density fringes as well.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-04-2017 at 12:23 PM..
The major difference I would say between The Golden Horseshoe and Greater DC Baltimore CSA is that in terms of anchor cities and urban area - Toronto's urban area is more populous and dense so it 'feels' much more substantial an urban area.
Naturally yes.
Toronto is more of a centralized area in the vein of a New York or Los Angeles. Like New York and Los Angeles the centralization is stemmed from one extremely dominant city that presides over nearly all aspects of functionality in the metropolitan region, however, there are other cities in each region that are still substantial and would be considered as such if they were allowed to anchor their own singular metropolitan area. Examples are Long Beach, CA; Jersey City, NJ; Newark, NJ; Bridgeport, CT; New Haven, CT; Hamilton, ON; Oshawa, ON, among others.
Toronto is very centralized, but centralized more in the vein of a New York and Los Angeles, although it is likely debatable whether or not Los Angeles is a centralized area, I say yes because the city proper is far too dominant in every aspect. Then there is another type of centralization, the type that applies to areas like Chicago or Houston, both of which are hardliners that own their metropolitan regions and everything in it. You see, outside of these two cities, their metropolitan areas don't really have another city that is an actual city, let alone a place that drives economic means or cultivates culture and/or social attributes. The second largest city in Greater Houston is Pearland or Pasadena, one of the two, and it is nothing more than a suburb bedroom community with no means to stand on its own feet with regard to anything. If you took either city and placed them in the middle of Montana and tried to imagine them being the focal points of a metropolis, you just couldn't do that because they're just mere suburbs, nothing more than it. Chicagoland is the same way. The next largest city after Chicago is Aurora, which like the Houston area examples I mentioned above, is nothing more than a suburb, a bedroom community of Chicago's. Basically they serve as testaments to how unilaterally centralized places like Chicago and Houston are. It is different than the type of centralized metropolises that are Los Angeles, Toronto, or New York because Long Beach, Riverside, Jersey City, Newark, Bridgeport, New Haven, Hamilton, Oshawa and the like are most definitely their own cities and not suburbs, thus satellite cities. However these places just don't compare to their metropolises focal city. No checks and balances, per se.
The Greater Washington DC-Baltimore region is what is known as a polycentric metropolis. Not quite as polycentric as the San Francisco Bay Area, Rhine-Ruhr, or Randstad, both of which rely off of 3 principle sister cities but rather two principle key cities, basically dual core polycentric metropolises. The Washington DC-Baltimore are is probably more in line with the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, two distinct and separate metropolitan areas that eventually grew into one another and became a broader area together. The intensity of the Greater Washington DC-Baltimore region is never predicated through a singular city but through dual cities, which would in essense distinguish its style as a metropolis versus centralized regions such as Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, and even the more significantly centralized Chicago or Houston. I also think Atlanta follows in the footsteps of the Chicago and Houston model, Atlanta's always come across, to me, as a city that owns its metropolitan region with an iron fist. Miami/Fort Lauderdale and the South Florida Metropolis, in contrast, would be far more akin to the polycentric model.
Very interesting and fascinating read and you are absolutely right about Hamilton and Oshawa being their own cities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. They may be contiguously urbanized with the GTA but the two bookend cities are certainly more urban than many other parts of the GTA. Hamilton more so than Oshawa but certainly you notice a difference crossing Burlington to Hamilton or Whitby into Oshawa. Burlington and Whitby (Which strongly fall into Toronto's sphere of influence) are simply much more suburban in feel and have less of a unique character to them than either Hamilton or Oshawa. Hamilton may actually be one of the most underrated cities in Canada and if not in Toronto's shadows would probably be much more important and well known. It also has over a hundred waterfalls which is an interesting juxtaposition with the rather gritty industrial heart of the city.
Exactly. Toronto is a perfect example of a city with an urban area population not much more than Philadelpia, Dallas, Houston etc but within a much more compact and dense footprint. Our SFH development is typically much more compact and has smaller and more compressed lot spacing and there are almost 2500 highrises in the Greater Toronto area - outside NYC this is practically unheard of for a Canada/American city and that is because Canadians are far more likely to live in a highrise apartment or condo than Americans.
By global standards outside Canada the U.S/Australia/NZ - Toronto isn't even all that dense but within Canada/U.S/Australia/NZ its urban area density is very high.
Do you ever tire of posting the same whiny self-praise in every thread? We get it. Toronto is dense. It's the second coming of Coruscant. Whatever you say. Why do you keep bantering about trivialities?
Fun fact:
Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois fit 6,167,584 in 1,272 square miles
Toronto's CMA fits 6,417,516 in 2,752 square miles, more than 2x the land area(!)
Toronto is neither dense nor impressive. And it's certainly not special enough for you to be plastering "Toronto is super duper dense" on every page.
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.
