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.
Metro numbers may mean more when ranking an area for certain things, but ask city mayors if the size of the city means nothing? ask them what the population of the city means to funding, ask them what it means in terms of taxes, ask them what it means in terms of services.
Okay, touche. For the administration of a city the population numbers of that city is obviously important. Ultimately this matters more than anything being discussed here. A city uses it's population to gage their growth and what choices the city should make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
City data folks are a trip.
City Size means a lot people, it is just not important to you because all you care about is the bragging rights aspect of things
Not sure if this is directed solely at me, but I will take it to be since it since you quoted my post. If so, I absolutely do not only care about the "bragging rights aspect of things" and don't think I have ever behaved in a way to make you say that. However, this forum is for the purpose of comparing cities*. So, allow me to restate: City proper #s mean nothing when comparing the practical size of cities.
Okay, touche. For the administration of a city the population numbers of that city is obviously important. Ultimately this matters more than anything being discussed here. A city uses it's population to gage their growth and what choices the city should make.
Not sure if this is directed solely at me, but I will take it to be since it since you quoted my post. If so, I absolutely do not only care about the "bragging rights aspect of things" and don't think I have ever behaved in a way to make you say that. However, this forum is for the purpose of comparing cities*. So, allow me to restate: City proper #s mean nothing when comparing the practical size of cities.
Not that you didn't know what I meant.
*this should be in city vs city
that second part was not meant solely for you. most of my posts are like that. I disagree with the quoted poster then I lecture the city data public for being too narrow focused while making blanket statements.
anyway, I now agree with your statement. yes city size means nothing when comparing the practical size of cities. I could not, however, let the blanket statement "City limits mean absolutely nothing" pass.
I think MSA is likely more relevant and UA even more relevant
in what way?
I was think that too, then I thought UA arbitrarily cuts off many people dependent on an economic center simply because they live in an area that does not meet the density requirement. The metro doesn't so it gives a better measure of the people dependent on that center
in what way?
I was think that too, then I thought UA arbitrarily cuts off many people dependent on an economic center simply because they live in an area that does not meet the density requirement. The metro doesn't so it gives a better measure of the people dependent on that center
Metro uses an arbitray county border which is disimlar from metro to metro
UA uses continuity of much smaller census blocks and defines the actual developed area with continuity
If you want to look at dependance or probably better stated influence than CSA to me is likely the better proxy as it shows linked rates. But all theses CSA and MSA are based on commuters. In single modal areas this measure works well enough in multi modal commuter areas this measure has many shortfalls
I think UA may best define the size of an urban place and CSA the size of the influenced area or regional pull so to speak - none are perfect but these are probably less imperfect than city size (which has rediculously varying sizes) and MSA which if gauging influence cut the commuter to low though both have the same large and varied geographic border issue for comparisons
Metro uses an arbitray county border which is disimlar from metro to metro
UA uses continuity of much smaller census blocks and defines the actual developed area with continuity
If you want to look at dependance or probably better stated influence than CSA to me is likely the better proxy as it shows linked rates. But all theses CSA and MSA are based on commuters. In single modal areas this measure works well enough in multi modal commuter areas this measure has many shortfalls
I think UA may best define the size of an urban place and CSA the size of the influenced area or regional pull so to speak - none are perfect but these are probably less imperfect than city size (which has rediculously varying sizes) and MSA which if gauging influence cut the commuter to low though both have the same large and varied geographic border issue for comparisons
I understand your issue with uniformity, but does UA hold more relevance in gauging the strength of an area than MSA?? You said that UA was more relevant.
UA really blows when gauging the importance of areas such as the Bay, Boston, DC and makes places like Phoenix and Miami look better than they really are
I understand your issue with uniformity, but does UA hold more relevance in gauging the strength of an area than MSA?? You said that UA was more relevant.
UA really blows when gauging the importance of areas such as the Bay, Boston, DC and makes places like Phoenix and Miami look better than they really are
Fair points - UA for understanding the urban size probably CSA for importance and influence
For UA, I always imagine it as if I'm flying over said city and I want to know almost exactly how many people live in the developed glob of houses and buildings I see below, but nothing more. So basically, how many people live in the "city" (attached suburbs included). However if I want to know about how many people live in the immediate area of said urban conglomeration, I turn to MSA. I only use CSA when talking about a region's population or prominence. Of course there are certain exceptions to the rules such as I always use city pop for NYC, because there is such a distinction between the "city" and "the burbs," however normally, city boundaries are way to arbitrary to matter. At the very least, metro pop includes the UA of said city, and the further flung suburbs that only exist because of core city.
Last edited by OrlFlaUsa; 07-14-2011 at 11:44 AM..
Reason: fix
For UA, I always imagine it as if I'm flying over said city and I want to know almost exactly how many people live in the developed glob of houses and buildings I see below, but nothing more. So basically, how many people live in the "city" (attached suburbs included). However if I want to know about how many people live in the immediate area of said urban conglomeration, I turn to MSA. I only use CSA when talking about a region's population or prominence. Of course there are certain exceptions to the rules such as I always use city pop for NYC, because there is such a distinction between the "city" and "the burbs," however normally, city boundaries are way to arbitrary to matter. At the very least, metro pop includes the UA of said city, and the further flung suburbs that only exist because of core city.
This is actually not always true. Some metros are cut within maintained UA where the cities are close and the development overlaps (NYC/Philly, DC/Balt, SF/SJ etc.)
I really think the Census needs to move away from county borders and to sustained census blocks for their allocation. This could still be done by commuters and could help better allocate counties with split influences ect. and be a level below the UA criteria in population density
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.
