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.
I was referencing the 2000 census Data you posted.
well there is no way the UA density went from 4800 to 8000 in a decade, most places actually have gone down, and those up are only like 100 ppsm from 2000
Also I am pretty sure Seattle has less than 400K people living in greater than 8K tracts based on the 2010 census data so the number of 8000ppsm doesnt make sense
well there is no way the UA density went from 4800 to 8000 in a decade, most places actually have gone down, and those up are only like 100 ppsm from 2000
Also I am pretty sure Seattle has less than 400K people living in greater than 8K tracts based on the 2010 census data so the number of 8000ppsm doesnt make sense
Like I said I may have mixed up my Data. But the Seattle Area actually is one of few area in the country that has boundaries on it's urban area. So as more people move here the Density will go up. While other Urban areas could expand from year to year. But like I said the 8000 is wrong. I was thinking of something else.
MSAs and CSAs rely on commuting patterns, a much better image of the city's influence in the region. Urbanized Areas can be subject to all kinds of problems like geographical barriers or gaps in development; it can be a real problem with mountain cities out West. So I guess perhaps UA if you are looking at continuous development and think that more land area built up is important, but MSA or CSA if you want to gauge the actual power and influence of a region.
MSAs and CSAs rely on commuting patterns, a much better image of the city's influence in the region. Urbanized Areas can be subject to all kinds of problems like geographical barriers or gaps in development; it can be a real problem with mountain cities out West. So I guess perhaps UA if you are looking at continuous development and think that more land area built up is important, but MSA or CSA if you want to gauge the actual power and influence of a region.
Even there you could get misleading data. The Eastern edges of Riverside and San Bernardino county are more MSA-like, culturally and in commuting patterns. It's the western fringes of the ginormous counties, where the other half lives, that push IE to CSA status.
I think demographia comes the closest to nailing the true size of Los Angeles--15 million people, 6200 ppsm. That includes the Eastern edges of the Inland Empire for sure.
Even there you could get misleading data. The Eastern edges of Riverside and San Bernardino county are more MSA-like, culturally and in commuting patterns. It's the western fringes of the ginormous counties, where the other half lives, that push IE to CSA status.
I think demographia comes the closest to nailing the true size of Los Angeles--15 million people, 6200 ppsm. That includes the Eastern edges of the Inland Empire for sure.
This may actually eventually break the whole IE off from the CSA if more people are moving further out and not commuting back in makeing a lkessor % cross the borders for work
Mercer county NJ went from a MSA Phildelphia county in 1990 to a CSA county (well it actually went to the NYC CSA though it qualified for both the Philly and NYC CSAs) in 2000 to having enough commuters to meet the MSA attachement to NYC today. People moved into areas further from Trenton and a large job center drew more and more people just accross its northern county border increasing the commuter rates to the NYC MSA just a few miles away - that coupled with the closure of employer on the PA side of Mercer that went from 9,000 employees in 1990 to 0 in 2000 significantly reducing the people flowing into the Philly MSA. Another factor was the movement of the Merrill Lynch facility with 4K employyes that located 2 miles accross the NJ border in Mercer that was orginally slated for 1 mile on the PA side in Yardley/Newtown. It is interesting to look at impacts on a micro that shift places on census designations. With all that the area really didnt change one bit culturally but in tigh commuter areas this can loom large. It happens with SF and SJ as well - it just doesnt send enough cross county commuters to achive the percentage of the denominator yet the areas genrrally have a ton of real world connectivity.
I would argue that the IE even at the fring is pretty far removed from LA core job centers.
I believe very few as percentage make their way to DT LA or the west side job centers
While developed in continuity its not the core relationship - to me it seems similar to someone from Say Bucks or Burlington county here commuting to Somerset or Essex counties for work - yes they do it but it not like many commute to the core NYC job centers but the peripheral ones.
To me this is where functionally the job center of NYC compared to LA is different - there truly are 20 million people in good striking distance and draw to Manhattan where LA is less contcentrated and more fragmented. A collection of continuous job centers but not really a core population connection to any one place. And the IE is getting further and further removed (think that is also why it got hit so hard with unemployement) - the commute range doesnt afford the same number of jobs so to speak. Its probably easier to commute from far flung Allentown PA (now part of the NYC CSA) than far flung IE areas to DT LA or the westside job centers. And actually may be a reason why the IE may just become a stand along MSA without the CSA connection
I should look again at the county to county flow - while commuters may have even increased, I believe the denominator increased faster. (need to double check this when I get a chance)
This may actually eventually break the whole IE off from the CSA if more people are moving further out and not commuting back in makeing a lkessor % cross the borders for work
Mercer county NJ went from a MSA Phildelphia county in 1990 to a CSA county (well it actually went to the NYC CSA though it qualified for both the Philly and NYC CSAs) in 2000 to having enough commuters to meet the MSA attachement to NYC today. People moved into areas further from Trenton and a large job center drew more and more people just accross its northern county border increasing the commuter rates to the NYC MSA just a few miles away - that coupled with the closure of employer on the PA side of Mercer that went from 9,000 employees in 1990 to 0 in 2000 significantly reducing the people flowing into the Philly MSA. Another factor was the movement of the Merrill Lynch facility with 4K employyes that located 2 miles accross the NJ border in Mercer that was orginally slated for 1 mile on the PA side in Yardley/Newtown. It is interesting to look at impacts on a micro that shift places on census designations. With all that the area really didnt change one bit culturally but in tigh commuter areas this can loom large. It happens with SF and SJ as well - it just doesnt send enough cross county commuters to achive the percentage of the denominator yet the areas genrrally have a ton of real world connectivity.
I would argue that the IE even at the fring is pretty far removed from LA core job centers.
I believe very few as percentage make their way to DT LA or the west side job centers
While developed in continuity its not the core relationship - to me it seems similar to someone from Say Bucks or Burlington county here commuting to Somerset or Essex counties for work - yes they do it but it not like many commute to the core NYC job centers but the peripheral ones.
To me this is where functionally the job center of NYC compared to LA is different - there truly are 20 million people in good striking distance and draw to Manhattan where LA is less contcentrated and more fragmented. A collection of continuous job centers but not really a core population connection to any one place. And the IE is getting further and further removed (think that is also why it got hit so hard with unemployement) - the commute range doesnt afford the same number of jobs so to speak. Its probably easier to commute from far flung Allentown PA (now part of the NYC CSA) than far flung IE areas to DT LA or the westside job centers. And actually may be a reason why the IE may just become a stand along MSA without the CSA connection
I should look again at the county to county flow - while commuters may have even increased, I believe the denominator increased faster. (need to double check this when I get a chance)
It probably is, but definitely not when compared to Ontario, Rialto, etc. Just to clarify, the eastern edges of San Bernardino and Riverside County are the ones that almost certainly cross the 25% MSA commuting threshold. That's a couple of million people right there. It's the other 2 million people that drop it to CSA status. Will it happen? For the economic health of the Inland Empire (which is horribly lagging in GDP) output, it would make sense for the area to become more self-sufficient. According to Forbes, the second least gas-guzzling metro in the United States is Los Angeles. Riverside-San Bernardino however, ranks 10th among the biggest gas-guzzling metros. This tells me that Riverside-SB is still overly dependent on the L.A. metro for jobs.
Though to look at density I think weighted density is probably a better measure. This excludes non inhabited areas like parks, airports, mountians etc.
UA to me is probably the best barometer for size as it measures a form of continuity excluding exurban areas or detached areas.
None are pefect but UA is probably the best size metric
Urbanized area has a density minimum, so large swaths of uninhibited land are likely omitted. The only misleading aspect with L.A. coming first in density is that it has a smaller population than New York--12.2 million to 18.3 million.
If you cut NY down to 12.2 million, it would almost certainly have a higher density than Los Angeles.
Then again, Demographia also has Los Angeles with a higher density than New York, with a significantly larger population.
Los Angeles "Urban Area": 15 million, 6,200 ppsm
New York Urbanized Area: 18.3 million, 5,400 ppsm
If you cut New York down to 15 million, would it have a higher density than L.A.? Maybe, but not by much. These are the two largest, densest metros by a clear margin.
My main issue with weighted density is that it makes the Tri-State area look more dense than it actually is. Yeah, that sounds loaded, but hear me out. The average resident does not live at 31,000 ppsm. The city is dense, but the suburbs are not, yet this isn't reflected in Austin Contrarian's numbers. In this sense, UA density is more accurate--you want the 18 mil population? Then you have to take the lower density with it.
MSA vs. Urbanized Area - Which statistics represents the true size of a city
MSA is the most accurate.
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.
MSA vs. Urbanized Area - Which statistics represents the true size of a city
