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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:24 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,905,824 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440 View Post
ajf131,

Im just simply saying that the St. Louis metro and CSA is greatly overextended. Especially if you want to compare it to other areas. You admitted yourself that the Cleveland metro and CSA may be very under-extended. I agree with that also.

Just look at these numbers, its pretty obvious:
Cleveland Metro:Land Area-2,004 sq miles: Population-2,096,471
St. Louis Metro:Land Area-8,649 sq miles: Population-2,803,707
Cleveland CSA:Land Area-2,909 sq miles: Population-2,896,968
St. Louis CSA:Land Area-9,098 sq miles: Population-2,866,517
Entire NE Ohio:Land Area-8,200 sq miles: Population-5,200,000
(The NE Ohio numbers arent exact, but pretty close)

As you can see the Cleveland metro and CSA are 3-4 times smaller in land area than the St. Louis metro and CSA, but they have close to the same amount of people, or more. This makes them overall 3-4 times denser than the St. Louis metro and CSA. Also, the entire Northeast Ohio area is smaller than both the St. Louis metro and CSA, but has nearly twice the amount of people. This means its over twice as dense as the St. Louis area. I understand how metros are formed, but I feel the population alone is very misleading, this being one of the most extreme cases. If you went by urban areas connected, Cleveland would be much larger than St. Louis. Cleveland is also surrounded by connected areas of high population, while St. Louis has virtually nothing surrounding the immediate area (which is much smaller than the current metro land area). This is all basic stuff.
Based solely on Cleveland, you want to say that St. Louis is overextended. Just because it's not as dense as Cleveland doesn't mean the metro is overextended. Lincoln County is NOT 70 miles from the city of St. Louis...try more like just over 45. I've been to the area and it is not exactly completely rural. There are a lot of suburban homes currently in development, many of which have already been built, and the people in all the aforementioned counties associate themselves with St. Louis...Warren County, which is 50 miles away from the city, is also undergoing similar development. Clinton County, Illinois is the only county I would leave out of the St. Louis metro area. Jersey County is only 25 miles north of the city proper. Macoupin County is normally not considered part of the St. Louis metro. At any rate, St. Charles County, St. Louis County, Jersey County, Calhoun County, Madison County, and St. Clair and Monroe County, Jefferson County, and Franklin County all give a population of around 2.65 to 2.7 million people by themselves alone. The metro is not greatly overextended...the CSA might be, but it doesn't really increase much of the population. I'm honestly sick of having this discussion, but St. Louis' metro is not overextended. I've lived here for 22 years and unless you've lived here numbers can be misleading. I would agree for the CSA being overextended, as Farmington is not associated with St. Louis at all. The metro area however I think should be left alone with the exception of Clinton County and Macoupin County in Illinois, and in Missouri maybe Warren County. Your thinking about Cleveland might be logical, but most St. Louisans would disagree with your thinking. Numbers can be very misleading as to how a population is exactly spread out. Population sprawl also usually does not coincide very well with county lines. Comparing two metros and arguing that one is overextended is ridiculous because no two populations sprawl the same, no two metros have identical geography, some property might be reserved for the state while other areas are primarily office space...tons of other factors are at play here. Taking away some of the counties would reduce St. Louis' population by a minimal amount. Another thing to consider is not all counties cover the same amount of land, and can vary by size and by state. There's literally no reasonable way to compare two metros and say they are overextended. Despite the size difference, St. Louis' metro population is still over 2.5 million people even in the immediately surrounding counties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2009, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,070 posts, read 10,705,408 times
Reputation: 961
I never said Lincoln County specifically was 70 miles away from St. Louis. But there are areas in counties around St. Louis metro/CSA that are over 70 miles away from St. Louis.

BTW, your sprawl argument is off. You said that it would be wrong to include areas in the Cleveland metro that are 60 miles away from it because it was on a lake. Thats actually backwards. Since Cleveland is on a lake there cant be any growth that goes North so it has to spread to other areas south. Ultimately making the growth go farther away from the city center than an area with no large natural boundaries like St. Louis area. If Cleveland and St. Louis metros/CSA are around the same size (which they are) then Clevelands should include areas that are much farther away from the city center than St. Louis metro does because of the lake. Thats a very logical argument and it proves my point that I had since the start. Clevelands metro is underextended and St. Louis metro is overextended. Of course we all know how metros are formed because of commuting patterns though. I dont fully agree with that, but thats how things are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 01:38 AM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,231,477 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Thats true. But how do they do it? Does someone who lives in FAR east SB and RV county get the same television market and news as someone who lives in LA and Orange county? just wondering.
I Don't think so I can't even get a 1 bar cell phone reception in East RV and SB Counties until i hit Veges or AZ border.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 01:43 AM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,231,477 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
And also where is the didviding line in RV and SB counties between LA metro and the straight ip desert? When do you officially leave LA metro in SB and RV counties?
For SB County i believe any city of population after Barstow or Victorville, and for Rv anything past Indio does not count to LA's metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,231,477 times
Reputation: 671
Talking Nice Try!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
No, the Census Bureau and OMB both use all of Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

There is the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside CSA which consists of several smaller divisions.

Then there is the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA which is part of the Los Angeles CSA.

But both include all of SB and Riverside Counties.

Check out one of the census bureau maps below, they are too large to insert in this post.

But if you zoom in, all of SB and Riverside counties included as metro.
http://ftp2.census.gov/geo/maps/metr...sa_us_1107.pdf

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States and Puerto Rico December 2007
But they didn't include the desert population in the LA metro they counted the land and not the population, your maps show the Land of LA associated in the La metro but it doesn't tell you that Far Eastern RV And SB Counties are a part of LA metro but the population doesn't go to LA Metro.Your Map shows LA Metro's Land which does include All of RV and Sb Counties but it doesn't tell you that Eastern SB and RV counties population doesn't count towards LA Metro's population.The only population that does count was the regions map i posted earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 05:01 AM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,273,490 times
Reputation: 2782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440 View Post
Cleveland is also very cheated in the land area category for the metro area. I understand very well how metros are formed, but I dont agree with the way they do it because its very misleading when comparing areas.

For example, Atlanta takes up over 4 times as much land area as Cleveland. I dont have time to look up the exact numbers now, but its correct (around 2,000 sq miles for Cleveland, and over 8,000 sq miles for Atlanta). Atlantas metro has a population of around 5.4 million. Cleveland currently only has 2.2 million. So some may think that Atlanta is so much larger than Cleveland when it really isnt. If the Cleveland metro took up as much land area as the Atlanta metro we would actually have about 5.2 million people. So in reality, Cleveland and Atlanta are actually around the same size if you look at it like that. Cleveland is cheated in that sense.
I'm curious...why would a government agency deliberately "cheat" cities like Cleveland out of land and population? I can't really think that they would...there are guidelines for determining an area's inclusion in a CSA. The same guidelines are used for both Cleveland and Atlanta, right?

The area of both cities is in the same ballpark (Atlanta 131 sq.mi.)...but I guess Atlanta draws commuters from further out so the CSA extends further from the city. I'm not even sure what else they use to determine a CSA - t.v. market maybe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2009, 03:37 PM
 
14,111 posts, read 22,762,182 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by californialove24 View Post
I Don't think so I can't even get a 1 bar cell phone reception in East RV and SB Counties until i hit Veges or AZ border.
Oh ok. It makes sense now. If they were part of LA metro that would be the LARGEST metro area probably in the world in terms of land area. People over there in those far stretches of those counties are probably influenced by Vegas and AZ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2009, 08:48 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,137 posts, read 9,909,375 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
I think this sattelite map of Philly makes a complete mockery of the CMSA.

Trenton is the pink blob on the eastern side of the Delaware River in Phillys northern most metro.You can see its immediately connected with Philadlephia.However It gets included in NYC 's metro which you can see is 70 miles to the N, with a ton of rural area in between .

Also just to the immediate NW of Philly is Reading and Allentown which are not included in Phillys metro. Again how can the CMSA justify including Trenton in NYC's metro but Reading Allentown are not included in Philadlephia which is half the distance?

Good point. Its possible that Trenton is connected to the northern New Jersey metro area (and thus indirectly connected to New York City) but thats just a guess.

I think Polo put his finger on something when he was asking about the LA metro area in Post 84. Some of the larger metro areas have multiple media outlets.

For me on Long Island while I often listen to NYC radio stations, somtimes I listen to local LI and a few Connecticut ones. When I do listen to the local stations - I have no idea what is going on in either the city (sometimes Queens is mentioned) or New Jersey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2009, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,231,477 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
No, the Census Bureau and OMB both use all of Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

There is the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside CSA which consists of several smaller divisions.

Then there is the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA which is part of the Los Angeles CSA.

But both include all of SB and Riverside Counties.

Check out one of the census bureau maps below, they are too large to insert in this post.

But if you zoom in, all of SB and Riverside counties included as metro.
http://ftp2.census.gov/geo/maps/metr...sa_us_1107.pdf

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States and Puerto Rico December 2007
So your telling me that even if they included all of RV and SB Counties were still smaller Than NY and Chicago then this is amazing.

Los Angeles CSA:4,850 sq. mi.(I Told you they didn't count Eastern SB and RV Counties to the metro b/c if they did we would be 33,954 square miles)they only count Western RV and SB Counties.

NY CSA: 6,720 sq. mi

Chicago CSA : 8,489 sq mi
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 04:55 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,905,824 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440 View Post
I never said Lincoln County specifically was 70 miles away from St. Louis. But there are areas in counties around St. Louis metro/CSA that are over 70 miles away from St. Louis.

BTW, your sprawl argument is off. You said that it would be wrong to include areas in the Cleveland metro that are 60 miles away from it because it was on a lake. Thats actually backwards. Since Cleveland is on a lake there cant be any growth that goes North so it has to spread to other areas south. Ultimately making the growth go farther away from the city center than an area with no large natural boundaries like St. Louis area. If Cleveland and St. Louis metros/CSA are around the same size (which they are) then Clevelands should include areas that are much farther away from the city center than St. Louis metro does because of the lake. Thats a very logical argument and it proves my point that I had since the start. Clevelands metro is underextended and St. Louis metro is overextended. Of course we all know how metros are formed because of commuting patterns though. I dont fully agree with that, but thats how things are.
I don't know what makes you think that Cleveland should be allowed to cover more geography than St. Louis because of the lake. There is no way to compare the sprawls of two cities to each other and justify extending one and underextending the other. You are making the most ridiculous justifications I've ever heard of. It sounds to me like you just want Cleveland to be larger than St. Louis out of sheer resentment of St. Louis. THis is a pointless argument and a waste of both our times. You have your opinion, I have mine. That's as good as it's going to get. You think you're right, I think I'm right. If you feel such a need to attack my opinion, you must not be so sure of your's. So with that, I hope you enjoy having this ridiculous argument with someone else.
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