U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [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 04-10-2012, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Blue Ridge Mtns of NC
5,661 posts, read 24,647,355 times
Reputation: 3807

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithhtt View Post
I've looked at those. They show mountains from above but I am looking for side views that give me a better idea of the rise and or fall of the landscape. Even topos that give me the actual elevation don't really give the the effect of what an area looks like since I don't have a good frame of reference. But thanks for your 'helpful?' suggestion anyway.
The "Birds-Eye" feature on Bing maps isn't bad if you zoom in close enough.

Bing Maps - Driving Directions, Traffic and Road Conditions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2012, 03:22 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,758,278 times
Reputation: 11128
Comparing the state's two largest urban areas (Charlotte and Raleigh) shows some similarities and differences.

In 2000, Charlotte's urban area was 758,927. Today it's 1,249,442 for a growth rate of 64.6%
In 2000, Raleigh's urban area was 541,527. Today it's 884,891 for a growth rate of 63.4%

Charlotte's ppl/sm was 1745 in 2000. In 2010, its density decreased to 1685 ppl/sm
Raleigh's ppl/sm was 1695 in 2000. In 2010, its density increased to 1708 ppl/sm

Some thoughts:
1. Raleigh's urbanized area is significantly larger today than Charlotte's was in 2000.
2. While Raleigh's urbanized area very slightly increased its density by 13 ppl/sm and Charlotte's urban area decreased its density by 60 ppl/sm, both areas have a LONG way to go in creating a more densely populated metro that can be served better by anything other than a car.
3. Durham's urbanized area, while significantly smaller, is actually more densely populated than both Charlotte's and Raleigh's urbanized areas. This is probably attributed to the fact that both Charlotte and Raleigh are surrounded by significantly more "new suburban" development/towns at their edges. By city limits alone, Durham is significantly less densely populated than either Raleigh or Charlotte.
4. Both Charlotte and Raleigh are going to have to reign in the land grab expansion of their urban areas if they are going to appeal to the coming generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2012, 10:06 PM
 
3,106 posts, read 4,133,749 times
Reputation: 2552
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
Where's the problem?
Someone else from another forum:

Quote:
But the point is that an urban area isn't defined by the central city. If that were true then why is West Palm Beach in the same urban area as Miami? Why is Tacoma in the same urban area as Seattle? Why is Wilmington in the same urban area as Philadelphia? Hell why is Trenton not good enough for the Philadelphia UA, but Wilmington is? why are Mooreville and Statesville good to go for the Charlotte UA but Concord and Salisbury are not? Hell the Charlotte case is probably the craziest yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2012, 10:39 PM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,903 posts, read 27,184,852 times
Reputation: 8966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarheelhombre View Post
Someone else from another forum:

Quote:
But the point is that an urban area isn't defined by the central city. If that were true then why is West Palm Beach in the same urban area as Miami? Why is Tacoma in the same urban area as Seattle? Why is Wilmington in the same urban area as Philadelphia? Hell why is Trenton not good enough for the Philadelphia UA, but Wilmington is? why are Mooreville and Statesville good to go for the Charlotte UA but Concord and Salisbury are not? Hell the Charlotte case is probably the craziest yet.
Concord, Gastonia, & Rock Hill all belong to Charlotte. They have their own spheres of influence, based on their size (over 50K) It's like solar systems within a galaxy.

The same sphere of influence thing is going in with the Philly metro, but you have to understand the situation with municipalitites in Delaware re: Wilmington. Camden rules the South Jersey suburbs, but, really, the locals ignore it. There are very good reasons why Trenton is not included.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2012, 10:43 PM
 
3,106 posts, read 4,133,749 times
Reputation: 2552
The Naked City Blog: A chaotic map hints at many meanings of 'urban region'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2012, 11:20 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,758,278 times
Reputation: 11128
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
Concord, Gastonia, & Rock Hill all belong to Charlotte. They have their own spheres of influence, based on their size (over 50K) It's like solar systems within a galaxy.

The same sphere of influence thing is going in with the Philly metro, but you have to understand the situation with municipalitites in Delaware re: Wilmington. Camden rules the South Jersey suburbs, but, really, the locals ignore it. There are very good reasons why Trenton is not included.
It's the same in the Triad and Triangle. Neither is considered one urban area although adjacent urbanized areas touch each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 06:37 AM
 
2,643 posts, read 6,071,795 times
Reputation: 3403
Quote:
Originally Posted by keithhtt View Post
I've looked at those. They show mountains from above but I am looking for side views that give me a better idea of the rise and or fall of the landscape. Even topos that give me the actual elevation don't really give the the effect of what an area looks like since I don't have a good frame of reference. But thanks for your 'helpful?' suggestion anyway.
Don't mean to derail the thread, but here you go:

North Carolina Raised Relief Maps Plastic Bumpy Vinyl 3D maps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 05:43 PM
 
3,318 posts, read 5,169,921 times
Reputation: 2344
Another example of how screwy the MSA's are, look at the Greenville Metropolitan Statistical Area. It includes only two counties: Pitt (which includes Greenville) and Greene, an adjacent county to the southwest.

According to the wiki page, a MSA should have relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area.

How can you have the Greenville MSA without Martin County, Beaufort County etc.

There should be a Greenville CSA that includes:
*Greenville MSA
*Rocky Mount MSA
*New Bern μSA
*Wilson μSA
*Kinston μSA
*Washington μSA
*Martin County

Greenville's sphere of influence is in every adjacent county. So instead of a rightful CSA population of 651,824, we have a MSA population of 179,715.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,758,278 times
Reputation: 11128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBojangles View Post
Another example of how screwy the MSA's are, look at the Greenville Metropolitan Statistical Area. It includes only two counties: Pitt (which includes Greenville) and Greene, an adjacent county to the southwest.

According to the wiki page, a MSA should have relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area.

How can you have the Greenville MSA without Martin County, Beaufort County etc.

There should be a Greenville CSA that includes:
*Greenville MSA
*Rocky Mount MSA
*New Bern μSA
*Wilson μSA
*Kinston μSA
*Washington μSA
*Martin County

Greenville's sphere of influence is in every adjacent county. So instead of a rightful CSA population of 651,824, we have a MSA population of 179,715.
...and Raleigh's MSA is only 3 counties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
1,658 posts, read 1,855,381 times
Reputation: 1478
I think the reason none of those cities are included in a CSA with Greenville is that they were all pretty much the same size like 20yrs ago and currently most of the growth in the area is confined to Greenville-Pitt County and very little of it has spilled into Wilson, Kinston, or any of the surrounding counties. Also it's probably because the areas between all of those cities is still extremely rural.

Notice that in CSAs like Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham, the core cities have massive influence on the region as a whole. People in the outlying counties drive great distances to work in the core cities.

The CSA/MSA thing is mostly based on commuting. I know there are some people who commute from the other counties to work in Pitt County, but it's probably not significant enough yet to add them to a Greenville MSA or CSA. The counties still function mostly on their own.
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 > North Carolina
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22 AM.

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