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 11-18-2009, 06:22 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,270,232 times
Reputation: 2782

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
Do you know how metro areas are determined? It's by commuting patterns. In the majority of cases, it's simple; counties surrounding the core county/counties are included in the metro if at least 25% of the workforce commutes to the core/counties for employment. It isn't an arbitrary determination like you're implying.
...and who at the Census Bureau would gain from exaggerating a metro area? I could see questioning the boundaries if they were decided by each city government. But since they aren't, there really isn't any reason to question it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the universe
2,161 posts, read 3,988,531 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06
Do you know how metro areas are determined? It's by commuting patterns. In the majority of cases, it's simple; counties surrounding the core county/counties are included in the metro if at least 25% of the workforce commutes to the core/counties for employment. It isn't an arbitrary determination like you're implying.
Okay your right and that's cool. I just think that when we compare metros, its sort of strange. You have two cities with completely different lifestyles. Does a suburban, spread out city really compare well with a more urbanized one? Sometimes metros aren't really all the same to me.

But, I mean, I do keep in mind that every city has its suburban qualities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Mequon, WI
7,836 posts, read 19,570,106 times
Reputation: 4430
I do think it's fair to say that without the city the suburbs would be nothing. I'm mean let's face it more people like to live in suburbs than cities. However cities don't have the room to grow like a suburb or a new suburb so I guess that's the counter argument.

I love the fact that I live in the city rather than the suburbs, however I am still amazed on much animosity there is to each other. People in suburbs look down on city people and over exaggerate city problems and people in the city hate people in the suburbs as reclusive breed and boring and cookie cutter.

To each his own, suburbs need a city core and cities need suburbs. I am sick of people in Milwaukee and around the nation calling it a "big small town" just look at the numbers and you will see we are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:29 PM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,190 posts, read 12,327,947 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
...and who at the Census Bureau would gain from exaggerating a metro area? I could see questioning the boundaries if they were decided by each city government. But since they aren't, there really isn't any reason to question it.
Right. The only exceptions are in the cases on multinodal metro areas, like the Bay Area and the NC Triangle. But even then, there's no reason to assume some sinister motive is behind it all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely95 View Post
Okay your right and that's cool. I just think that when we compare metros, its sort of strange. You have two cities with completely different lifestyles. Does a suburban, spread out city really compare well with a more urbanized one? Sometimes metros aren't really all the same to me.

But, I mean, I do keep in mind that every city has its suburban qualities.
There are other metrics that account for that, like density. No one metric can give a complete picture, and that's why we have so many (city, MSA, CSA, county, urbanized area, etc.).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the universe
2,161 posts, read 3,988,531 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
Right. The only exceptions are in the cases on multinodal metro areas, like the Bay Area and the NC Triangle. But even then, there's no reason to assume some sinister motive is behind it all.



There are other metrics that account for that, like density. No one metric can give a complete picture, and that's why we have so many (city, MSA, CSA, county, urbanized area, etc.).
Does I seem like I think this is evil or something? Don't I have a right to think that the metros are a bit exaggerated? I just don't think any one city is the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:39 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,270,232 times
Reputation: 2782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely95 View Post
Okay your right and that's cool. I just think that when we compare metros, its sort of strange. You have two cities with completely different lifestyles. Does a suburban, spread out city really compare well with a more urbanized one? Sometimes metros aren't really all the same to me.

But, I mean, I do keep in mind that every city has its suburban qualities.
Doesn't practically every U.S. metro have expansive suburban areas? I can't think of one that doesn't.

The problem is that when you compare city limits, some cities have annexed their suburbs and they are included in the city limits populations. Other cities can't do that and only include the core city, like Boston, Atlanta, Washington D.C., etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:40 PM
 
326 posts, read 1,042,352 times
Reputation: 162
thanks deacon you do the math that quick? i was also thinking about jacksonville might be the smallest margin between city pop and metro?

I think the metro should be determined by the urban development when you stop seeing buildings and theirs a gap where theirs no development. Nowadays you got so many people taking commuter rail from hours away from the urban sprawl of the metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:40 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,270,232 times
Reputation: 2782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely95 View Post
Does I seem like I think this is evil or something? Don't I have a right to think that the metros are a bit exaggerated? I just don't think any one city is the same.
So who do you think is exaggerating the metros? The Census Bureau decides the boundaries and they are based on commuter patterns. You are welcome to your opinion, but it's just not accurate - unless you think there is a conspiracy against certain cities by the Census Bureau.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:43 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,270,232 times
Reputation: 2782
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofykid View Post
thanks deacon you do the math that quick? i was also thinking about jacksonville might be the smallest margin between city pop and metro?

I think the metro should be determined by the urban development when you stop seeing buildings and theirs a gap where theirs no development. Nowadays you got so many people taking commuter rail from hours away from the urban sprawl of the metro.
I'm gifted. Jacksonville probably has the smallest gap, with 808K in the city and 1.3 in the metro. San Antonio is another one, with 1.4 million in the city and 2.8 million in the metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:44 PM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,190 posts, read 12,327,947 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely95 View Post
Does I seem like I think this is evil or something? Don't I have a right to think that the metros are a bit exaggerated? I just don't think any one city is the same.
I didn't say that's what you thought, and I understand that no two cities are the same. That still doesn't mean we can't compare them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goofykid View Post
I think the metro should be determined by the urban development when you stop seeing buildings and theirs a gap where theirs no development. Nowadays you got so many people taking commuter rail from hours away from the urban sprawl of the metro.
That's what the urbanized area metric is for. It calculates population at a certain density across jurisdictional boundaries. Personally, I think that's the best metric for determining the true size of a city, but being that there are no concrete units (e.g., counties) that figure into that, the metro area population figures are the next best thing.
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