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 09-09-2016, 12:03 PM
 
63 posts, read 45,349 times
Reputation: 61

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
This is where the Urban areas flaws start to show. Where in this chart you have Washington with basically the same (slightly more) urban population as Atlanta in half the land mass and still has twice the density. Yet the OP shows Atlanta having a slightly higher "urban area". Something is not adding up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
The Urban Area metric posted above is from the US Census' 2010 numbers, as opposed to the UN Urban Area 2016 numbers also posted in the OP. So two different measuring agencies, and one of those measures is already very outdated.

What the OP posted is not from the UN. It is from the link below.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

If you look through that link the rankings for population density are the same as the one i posted. The only difference is what i posted is from the actual US Census Bureau.


The numbers i posted are from the 2010 US Census, the last official census to be done. The rankings for population density for these areas haven't changed much. Populations density rankings for the largest urbans areas take a long time to change, especially in the U.S. If anyone has another source for population density please post it and i'm sure it will show pretty much the same.

Last edited by pointer212; 09-09-2016 at 12:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2016, 12:35 PM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
3,998 posts, read 3,478,607 times
Reputation: 2473
Quote:
Originally Posted by pointer212 View Post
What the OP posted is not from the UN. It is from the link below.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

If you look through that link the rankings for population density are the same as the one i posted. The only difference is what i posted is from the actual US Census Bureau.


The numbers i posted are from the 2010 US Census, the last official census to be done. The rankings for population density for these areas haven't changed much. If anyone has another source for population density please post it and i'm sure it will show pretty much the same.

I stand corrected, ok so where are the land sq milage and ppsm density rankings for an UA from the 2010 Census? That would be a much clearer picture. I venture to say the will look quite similar to the UN's numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2016, 12:39 PM
 
63 posts, read 45,349 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
I stand corrected, ok so where are the land sq milage and ppsm density rankings for an UA from the 2010 Census? That would be a much clearer picture. I venture to say the will look quite similar to the UN's numbers.
That's what the list is below, from the 2010 US Census. They are very similar, especially the rankings of the population density of the areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas


----------------------- Population -------- Land Area -------- Density
--------------- ---(2010 US Census)------ (sq. mi.) --- (Population / sq. mi.)

1 New York -------- 18,351,295 ---------- 3,450.2 ---------- 5,318.9
2 Los Angeles ------ 12,150,996 ---------- 1,736.0 --------- 6,999.3
3 Chicago ----------- 8,608,208 ---------- 2,442.8 ---------- 3,524.0
4 Miami ------------- 5,502,379 ---------- 1,238.6 ---------- 4,442.4
5 Philadelphia ------- 5,441,567 ---------- 1,981.4 ---------- 2,746.4
6 Dallas ------------- 5,121,892 ---------- 1,779.1 ---------- 2,878.9
7 Houston ----------- 4,944,332 ---------- 1,660.0 ---------- 2,978.5
8 Washington ------- 4,586,770 ---------- 1,321.7 ---------- 3,470.3
9 Atlanta ------------ 4,515,419 ---------- 2,645.4 ---------- 1,706.9
10 Boston ----------- 4,181,019 ---------- 1,873.5 ---------- 2,231.7
11 Detroit ----------- 3,734,090 ---------- 1,337.2 ---------- 2,792.5
12 Phoenix ---------- 3,629,114 ---------- 1,146.6 ---------- 3,165.2
13 San Francisco --- 3,281,212 ---------- 523.6 ------------- 6,266.4
14 Seattle ----------- 3,059,393 ---------- 1,010.3 ---------- 3,028.2
15 San Diego -------- 2,956,746 ---------- 732.4 ------------ 4,037.0
16 Minneapolis ------ 2,650,890 ---------- 1,021.8 ---------- 2,594.3
17 Tampa ------------ 2,441,770 ---------- 957.0 ------------ 2,551.5
18 Denver ----------- 2,374,203 ---------- 668.0 ------------ 3,554.4
19 Baltimore -------- 2,203,663 ---------- 717.0 ------------ 3,073.3
20 St. Louis --------- 2,150,706 ---------- 923.6 ------------ 2,328.5

In this day and age of technology its hard to know which metrics to go by since there are so many. On one hand you have an official source from the US Census Bureau from 2010 and on the other hand you have an unofficial source from 2016. I personally like using the most current source but only if i know it is credible. When talking about things like population density in which the rankings of areas don't change very often in the U.S., i believe its better to use official sources. If you don't then some people might not take the source credible. Find any source on population density and the rankings of the areas will be the same unless they use a metric like CSA which includes huge areas of low density and emptiness. The UA Urban Area metric shows the dense unbroken development of an area.


If you look at these two maps the first one is the areas at night from space which shows the unbroken development. The other map is the actual UA Urban Areas. They shows almost the same exact areas.










Last edited by pointer212; 09-09-2016 at 01:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2016, 02:04 PM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
3,998 posts, read 3,478,607 times
Reputation: 2473
Those maps don't show an urbanity gap between DC-Baltimore for example, however, the chart separates the two. Which is why I said somewhere between Urban Agglomeration and MSA you find the true story in some sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2016, 02:24 PM
 
Location: The City
22,343 posts, read 32,221,120 times
Reputation: 7749
Some interesting work from the Census - many metros already combine (DC and Balt and NYC and Philly) - this was a potential they decided to keep the UAs separate for reporting - was a whole thread on this with the link below to the CD thread. The census link is interesting and pretty informative on UA


Table 2—Potential Urban Agglomerations Back to Top Potential urban agglomerationCensus 2000 UAs contained within the potential agglomeration2006-2008 ACS 3-year estimated population


New York-Philadelphia-ConnecticutNew York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT; Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD; Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ; Lancaster, PA; Pottstown, PA; Reading, PA; Trenton, NJ; Hightstown, NJ; Vineland, NJ; Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY; Bridgeport-Stamford, CT; Danbury, CT-NY; Hartford, CT; New Haven, CT; Norwich-New London, CT; Waterbury, CT; Springfield, MA-CT
29,028,337


Los Angeles-Riverside-San BernardinoLos Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; Riverside-San Bernardino, CA; Camarillo, CA; Hemet, CA; Oxnard, CA; Santa Barbara, CA; Santa Clarita, CA; Simi Valley, CA; Temecula-Murrieta, CA; Thousand Oaks, CA
15,492,749


Chicago-Kenosha-Racine-Round Lake BeachChicago, IL-IN; Kenosha, WI; Round Lake Beach-McHenry-Grayslake, IL-WI; Racine, WI
8,944,789


Boston-Providence-WorcesterBoston, MA; Providence, RI-MA; Worcester, MA-CT; Barnstable Town, MA; Leominster-Fitchburg, MA; New Bedford, MA; Dover-Rochester, NH; Manchester, NH; Nashua, NH; Portsmouth, NH
6,692,295


Baltimore-WashingtonAberdeen, MD; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC-VA-MD; St. Charles, MD
6,585,315


San Francisco-Oakland-San JoseSan Francisco-Oakland, CA; San Jose, CA; Antioch, CA; Concord, CA; Livermore, CA; Vallejo, CA
5,870,212


Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX; Denton-Lewisville, TX; McKinney, TX
5,006,527


Houston-Texas CityHouston, TX; Texas City, TX; Galveston, TX; The Woodlands, TX
4,599,176


Detroit-Ann Arbor-Port HuronDetroit, MI; Ann Arbor, MI; Port Huron, MI; South Lyon-Howell-Brighton, MI
4,326,040


Atlanta-GainesvilleAtlanta, GA; Gainesville, GA
4,196,670


https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...10-census#p-52




and the CD link to the thread


Glimpse of What the New Urban Area's (UA) will look like in 2010: New York approaching 30 Million
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2016, 02:37 PM
 
Location: The City
22,343 posts, read 32,221,120 times
Reputation: 7749
Splitting Large Urban Agglomerations

Similar to the delineation process used for the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau will use the same automated urban area delineation methodology for determining urban and rural areas in the 2010 Census. Use of this approach will result in some exceptionally large urban agglomerations of continuously developed territory. Although such areas do reflect the reality of urbanization at one scale, the areas may be cumbersome and less satisfactory for more localized applications. For example, an area of virtually continuous urbanization exists from northeastern Maryland through the Philadelphia area, central New Jersey, the New York City area, and central Connecticut to beyond Springfield, MA. This area of near-continuous urbanization encompasses nine UAs defined for Census 2000. Another area of continuous urbanization exists in the San Francisco Bay area, including the San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose, and several smaller areas.




one other from the census link above on connected UAs - this is sort of a version of a census agglomeration
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2016, 04:31 PM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
3,998 posts, read 3,478,607 times
Reputation: 2473
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Splitting Large Urban Agglomerations

Similar to the delineation process used for the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau will use the same automated urban area delineation methodology for determining urban and rural areas in the 2010 Census. Use of this approach will result in some exceptionally large urban agglomerations of continuously developed territory. Although such areas do reflect the reality of urbanization at one scale, the areas may be cumbersome and less satisfactory for more localized applications. For example, an area of virtually continuous urbanization exists from northeastern Maryland through the Philadelphia area, central New Jersey, the New York City area, and central Connecticut to beyond Springfield, MA. This area of near-continuous urbanization encompasses nine UAs defined for Census 2000. Another area of continuous urbanization exists in the San Francisco Bay area, including the San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose, and several smaller areas.




one other from the census link above on connected UAs - this is sort of a version of a census agglomeration

Ok, this makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 10:02 AM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
7,266 posts, read 4,529,581 times
Reputation: 5636
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.

Great post, love the map.

As Mr Wonderful Kevin O'Leary would say, "CSA's are just bad."

MSA's for the win Alex.
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