U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: The metric that best represents how things are in reality?
City Proper 4 7.14%
United States' Urban Area 11 19.64%
United Nations' Urban Area 10 17.86%
Global Agglomeration 2 3.57%
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 24 42.86%
Combined Statistical Area (CSA) 5 8.93%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2016, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Lebanon, OH
5,915 posts, read 6,342,554 times
Reputation: 12622

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointer212 View Post
I just have to post this CSA map that shows how overinflated the CSA metric really is. I think some people will vote CSA is best just because it might show the highest population for their area. All the other metrics have positives but CSA is useless when trying to compare population.

Not to mention that it includes counties where cows outnumber people, but to some bureaucrat at the census department it means something.

I don't count small towns surrounded by corn and soybean fields as part of a "metro" that is laughable to say the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2016, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,634 posts, read 8,342,389 times
Reputation: 7594
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
The UN and Demographia urban areas are distinctly different.
Okay, I stand corrected.

Instead of United Nations' Urban Area, it is instead the Global Urban Area.

For what it is worth: The United States' Urban Area only updates every 10 years (during the decennial census) and by 2020 it will most definitely reflect Miami, Dallas, and Houston in any particular order as 4th, 5th, and 6th (I'm interested in seeing which one edges out the other two). With both Atlanta and Washington D.C. reflecting strong gains, well into the 5 millions. Things will be interesting.

I will say this though, San Francisco/Oakland are severely shortchanged by the United States' Urban Area. The place is in the 3 millions...

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-07-2016 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 07:07 PM
 
63 posts, read 45,306 times
Reputation: 61
For me it was between the USA Urban area, UN Urban area and MSA. San Francisco isnt even in the top 10 for USA Urban area or MSA. It definitely should be. I went with UN Urban area for now.

I would love to hear the reasons why people are voting for CSA though.

Last edited by pointer212; 09-07-2016 at 08:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,634 posts, read 8,342,389 times
Reputation: 7594
1. Global Urban Area
2. Combined Statistical Area
3. Metropolitan Statistical Area



99999999999999999999999999. City Proper
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 07:19 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,226 posts, read 17,984,770 times
Reputation: 14678
Quote:
Originally Posted by pointer212 View Post
I just have to post this CSA map that shows how overinflated the CSA metric really is. I think some people will vote CSA is best just because it might show the highest population for their area. CSA is useless when trying to compare population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woxyroxme View Post
Not to mention that it includes counties where cows outnumber people, but to some bureaucrat at the census department it means something.

I don't count small towns surrounded by corn and soybean fields as part of a "metro" that is laughable to say the least.
I tell you, if you want the quintessential Atlanta experience, and all the hustle and bustle that comes with it, you should visit Watson Mill Bridge State Park in Oglethorpe County, GA.

Wait a minute...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 07:33 PM
 
6,984 posts, read 14,115,236 times
Reputation: 4581
The UN list seems to be the best representation. Best part about it is that it's universal. Sometimes when looking at data for other cities/metros across the world, it's hard to understand actually how large they are. I think it would benefit the world to have all cities ranked the same way.

That reminds me...what are we going to do with this whole Imperial System. Nvm...won't start that discussion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 07:34 PM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,203,483 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
1. Global Urban Area
2. Combined Statistical Area
3. Metropolitan Statistical Area



99999999999999999999999999. City Proper
Need to look at the global urban area but at a glance makes sense in size and scale for the top ones and how close or not close they are

I personally struggle with the CSA as it is just to vast. How places like harve de grace and Leesburg are the same area or even the bay seems over stated yet MSA is in accurate for the bay

Cities are generally useless measures as suggesting a place like Austin or San Antonio is larger than Boston or DC is just crazy. Or even a Houston 40 percent larger then Philly or Jax being larger then SF etc


I do think UA in the US is decent for sort of continuous urbanized development though the Bay is really an anomaly and should really be the 5.5 million in the inner Bay and not two separate UAs that don't connect. Even Philly gets some cut off with constant development at Trenton etc so none are perfect

I do like the numbers at least on the Global urban as to me that makes sense more on the susinct metro then either MSA or CSA


Another you left out is DMA which capture local TV markets and isn't bad either as it doesn't break at County lines but is based on viewer habits to local markets or in a sense what the populace relates to


So if I had to rank with limited Global Urban Area knowledge I would go

1 UA as the best and the core urban area
2 Global Urban Area as the best expanded metro not all cohesive urban development
3 MSA despite its flaws still a decent metro measure
4 DMA influenced relationships closely aligns to sports routing interests (see common census Web site for sports routing interest as a defining metric)
5 Global Agglomeration makes way more sense in the numbers then does CSA which to me is almost as useless as the city proper
6 CSA as it way over states places. DC is not a city of 8 million etc but not as bad as city proper

Then city as the size of the borders make it nearly impossible to compare
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 08:23 PM
 
6,984 posts, read 14,115,236 times
Reputation: 4581
I think the outlier huge outlier when MSA is considered over CSA is the Bay Area. The problem is that the MSA is too small and the CSA is too big. People might be commuting from the Central Valley to jobs in the Bay and they may be part of the media markets and the same sports fans, but I don't like the definition of commuting patterns for that. People may be commuting from Stockton, but Stockton is so different from the Bay Area in almost every single way that I can't view it as Bay Area territory.

If MSA is considered, it's completely illogical to separate SF-Oak from SJ. It's like separating White Plains and Stamford from NYC-Newark. OTOH, I actually experienced much more connectivity between SF and Sac. Not enough to make Sac part of the CSA, but there were people I knew commuting from near Sac to the city of SF. They didn't do it every day, but their main offices were in SF. I never met someone from Stockton coming to SF. That seemed to be more commuting from Stockton to the East Bay or SJ.

I also see an MSA issue with LA, though. LA MSA is only LA and OC, but everyone knows that Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino are LA in every way. Having the IE as a separate MSA has always been strange to me since it basically an entire MSA that functions as a somewhat-bedroom community for the LA MSA. The biggest problem that arises when including entire counties, though, is that including the entire San Bernardino and Riverside Counties as part of LA is completely insane since they reach to the NV/AZ border. Although they are not major cities, the communities in the eastern parts of those counties are closer to Las Vegas and Phoenix than they are to LA.

Defining an urban area makes much more sense than taking an entire county as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 08:33 PM
 
7,744 posts, read 4,590,691 times
Reputation: 8455
City proper is only irrelevant if you care about population, which I do not. There are a handful of cities in the country where you shouldn't separate city form suburbs (Boston), but in many, there is a clear difference, and city dwellers tend to live their lives entirely within city limits. I don't care that Atlanta has a smaller population than Columbus OH. I tend to discuss cities based on amenities and livability. Sometimes, using MSA or US Urban area, makes a town look more impressive than the actual ground-feel by stringing together a series of mediocre cities that happen to be in close proximity; e.g. Norfolk-VA Beach or the Research Triangle.

CSA, while a consistent metric, does not represent a city or even a cohesive metro, and as such, is my least favorite metric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 08:45 PM
 
3,968 posts, read 3,503,651 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by djesus007 View Post
Personally, when i compare cities i go by city proper, i go by jurisdictions. When it comes to population, diversity, poverty rates, etc.. i do a city v.s city basis. I only use metropolitan when it comes to regional markets/economic factors. That's just me though, I've done this for studies and i haven't heard feedback saying to compare a city you have to use the entire metropolitan area.
There are a lot of people that feel this way, I disagree. When doing a statistical comparison there has to be common criteria between the subject matter. When it comes to city proper, the ONLY common criteria, is that there are invisible boundaries set, and within those lines the "city proper" governs. There are so many different variables which make up these boundaries that a no one can intellectually look at the two city populations on paper and conclude anything of value.

San Francisco: 864,816
Jacksonville: 868,031 (2015 est.)

Factual statement: Jacksonville has more people than San Francisco.

San Francisco: 47sq mi
Jacksonville: 747 sq mi

Jacksonville has to cover almost 16x more area than San Francisco to get to an almost identical population number. With such a staggering difference in this other metric, how can anyone with intellectual honesty pull something meaningful from simply looking at these city metrics? Jacksonville's sphere of influence as a city, has more in common with Hartford CT (pop 124k), than it does with a city near identical in population.

Here is a graph of the City pop, metro pop, and CSA of Jacksonville and San Fran side by side to give a visual of stark differences. If city pop. is the best metric for comparing two cities, then all other related metrics for the two cities should also be similar(if you are to gain anything truly meaningful from it). Clearly they are not.


Unfortunately I think all metrics are flawed.

City proper is by far the most ridiculous to use in comparing.
Urban area is the best in theory, but to rigid in it's ideology. Quite a few cities can be accurately gauged by using UA. However UA fails especially in the Southern US and Mountain West where Urban areas tend to be less dense.
Metro Area has it's benefits as well. However the criteria for MSA are also too rigid as they go by County boundaries. This leaves them vulnerable to a similar variability that is seen in using city proper. However I feel that MSA is still a MUCH better comparison tool that City pop. The only difference is they can over inflate a cities size on paper, vs undervalue the way City pop does.
CSA is worthless as anything other than a government funding and statistical tool. There are very few cases where it's an acceptable measure, The Bay Area, and Raleigh-Durham being the two most obvious. Outside of that CSA is almost exclusively used as a homer tool to give a false sense of size to an area.

If it were up to me I'd create a new metric. Use satelite imaging to determine where suburban developement starts, and where it ends. Draw a boundary based on that with other scientific criteria and calculate all of the residents within that boundary. Since that will never happen we'll have to pick and choose. Every one of these metrics apply best to different cities.

Last edited by mjlo; 09-07-2016 at 08:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top