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.
Absolutely, some people on this board think it is impossible that they are part of the same metro, that they are too far away to even be remotely related/similar.
It's odd people can't come to grips with that. In terms of geographical area, he Bay Area CSA is considerably smaller than the MSAs of Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.
It's odd people can't come to grips with that. In terms of geographical area, he Bay Area CSA is considerably smaller than the MSAs of Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.
Honestly, until this discussion took place I thought it was somewhat of a given that San Jose is in the same metro... And Ive never been, though I almost went to school there.
Everyone that knows anything knows the bay area is one of the most important metros in the world.
I can easily say that Bostonians probably hold the bay area in higher regard than any other metro, in terms of liveability that is. When Bostonians consider where they would move if they had to, San Fran is usually the top.
Im sure its partly because the cities are similar in many ways, also that it seems like a great place.
Honestly, until this discussion took place I thought it was somewhat of a given that San Jose is in the same metro... And Ive never been, though I almost went to school there.
Everyone that knows anything knows the bay area is one of the most important metros in the world.
I can easily say that Bostonians probably hold the bay area in higher regard than any other metro, in terms of liveability that is. When Bostonians consider where they would move if they had to, San Fran is usually the top.
Im sure its partly because the cities are similar in many ways, also that it seems like a great place.
Stick around more, you'll be surprised of how many people vehemently argue that San Jose is NOT part of the Bay Area, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, in real life, people don't really make that distinction.
Here's the nice metro border, separating SF/East Bay from San Jose. You could literally be in one side of an apartment complex and be in San Jose Metro, and the other side will be San Francisco metro.
That's exactly the difference. One is a reverse commute because it's out of the norm, while the other is really bidirectional since it's a polycentric metropolitan area that really runs the gamut and shares its commuters as one entire unit. The Bay Area split between San Jose's MSA and SF/East Bay's MSA is really silly (which was what I was originally responding to).
This is my point about regional connections. The strength of any city is due in large/most part to its location to other cities. I mean Boston's population literally more than doubles every day to almost 1.5 million people. Simply because the city is too small/expensive to house the every singe person who work there (notwithstanding the city's unemployment is about 4%). What is still interesting Boston's population grew from 575000 in 1990 to 630,000 today. For a northern city that isn't New York, that is astonishing, I believe Philly lost about 100,000 people in the same time. Worcester has grown by 10,000 since the last count a few years ago.
People for the first time are rediscovering older Northeastern cities. Growth here is based on very different factors than southern/western cities.
The northeast is blessed to be the densest place in the country. For example New York City yes is very powerful, but when cities like New Haven, Trenton, Stamford and Newark are in the fold-those cities serve to support the main city, and in return they get to 'exploit' that city's resources. No one would contend the fact that New Haven is part of metro New York.
Boston is working to the same end. Yes of course Providence/Worcester/Manchester/Fall River/New Bedford/Portland/Springfield lay either within Boston's CSA or near enough by to be drawn to the 'flame.'
The best example I can give is that Manchester's airport is called "Manchester-Boston Regional" or the proposed rail line from Boston to New York via Springfield/New Haven.
As was attested by the posters from Providence-Boston, greater regional ties means that Boston can begin to assume a vastly larger role than even today. Again it becomes the center of a region on scale with that of nearby New York or even Los Angeles, which was my initial point...I really didn't mean to bring up a discussion about SF/SJ.
This is my point about regional connections. The strength of any city is due in large/most part to its location to other cities. I mean Boston's population literally more than doubles every day to almost 1.5 million people. Simply because the city is too small/expensive to house the every singe person who work there (notwithstanding the city's unemployment is about 4%). What is still interesting Boston's population grew from 575000 in 1990 to 630,000 today. For a northern city that isn't New York, that is astonishing, I believe Philly lost about 100,000 people in the same time. Worcester has grown by 10,000 since the last count a few years ago.
People for the first time are rediscovering older Northeastern cities. Growth here is based on very different factors than southern/western cities.
The northeast is blessed to be the densest place in the country. For example New York City yes is very powerful, but when cities like New Haven, Trenton, Stamford and Newark are in the fold-those cities serve to support the main city, and in return they get to 'exploit' that city's resources. No one would contend the fact that New Haven is part of metro New York.
Boston is working to the same end. Yes of course Providence/Worcester/Manchester/Fall River/New Bedford/Portland/Springfield lay either within Boston's CSA or near enough by to be drawn to the 'flame.'
The best example I can give is that Manchester's airport is called "Manchester-Boston Regional" or the proposed rail line from Boston to New York via Springfield/New Haven.
As was attested by the posters from Providence-Boston, greater regional ties means that Boston can begin to assume a vastly larger role than even today. Again it becomes the center of a region on scale with that of nearby New York or even Los Angeles, which was my initial point...I really didn't mean to bring up a discussion about SF/SJ.
Scarface...can you source Boston's metro losing population? It gained 250,000 people since 2000, 100,000 since 2005. The city itself has gained 35,000 people since 2000. So what it's not millions of people. BTW Southern New England (MA, CT, RI) has half the popualtion of Texas in an area the size of Maryland. That's 12 million people in 10,000 sqaure miles!!!
So, Boston's metro area is growing from international migration and births minus deaths. It's losing people domestically (meaning, people already living in the area are moving elsewhere in the US).
So, Boston's metro area is growing from international migration and births minus deaths. It's losing people domestically (meaning, people already living in the area are moving elsewhere in the US).
So the tens of thousands of Mexicans moving to Houston and the rest of Texas aren't international...? I seriosuly doubt every person moving to Houston is from the US somewhere....I believe 1 in 10 is Mexican.
Boston is a center of WORLD finance, education and technology, people from other countries are drawn to the strength of living in Boston.
So the tens of thousands of Mexicans moving to Houston and the rest of Texas aren't international...? I seriosuly doubt every person moving to Houston is from the US somewhere....I believe 1 in 10 is Mexican.
Boston is a center of WORLD finance, education and technology, people from other countries are drawn to the strength of living in Boston.
the point was that the only reason why NYC and Boston are still growing is because of the influx of foreigners.
the point was that the only reason why NYC and Boston are still growing is because of the influx of foreigners.
yeah? so? You guys make it seem like that's a bad thing.
My ancestors immigrated to New York City and the Boston area between 75 and 150 years ago. It's the story of America!
So the tens of thousands of Mexicans moving to Houston and the rest of Texas aren't international...? I seriosuly doubt every person moving to Houston is from the US somewhere....I believe 1 in 10 is Mexican.
Boston is a center of WORLD finance, education and technology, people from other countries are drawn to the strength of living in Boston.
Houston is also a center of World oil/energy, trade, and medicine. People from other countries are drawn to Houston as well. What makes you think it is just Mexicans. It has one of the largest growing Asian populations specifically Vietnamese and Chinese populations. Because of it's number one industry, it has a large connection with Nigeria and Venezuela. It also has one of the fastest growing Colombian populations as well. Everything is not just Mexican for Houston.
BTW, getting people internationally isn't a bad thing. At least in my eyes.
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.
