Why more people are relocating to 'secondary' cities like Atlanta (Dallas: to live in, move)

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Who the hell you talking to? You really need to check that attitude bruh...like calm tf down.

ANYWAY, this whole "Atlanta/Atlanta metro" thing is completely off-topic and apparently I need to break it all the way down for you. Bu2 made the point that if you're talking about size, it's difficult to see how metros (MSAs) like DFW and Houston could be considered secondary and metros like DC and SF could be considered primary when the former are larger than the latter. Someone then insinuated that Atlanta's metro is defined "generously" compared to others because of how far it sprawls and how 40 miles from the city of Atlanta, it's still considered "Atlanta" and things continued to digress from there.

It was off-topic because 1) Bu2 didn't even use Atlanta as a basis of comparison for size purposes to dispute the "primary" and "secondary" labels, 2) the same standard is applied across the board when it comes to defining MSAs and metros like DC and SF sprawl miles away from their cores also, and 3) the article is about people moving from the core of more expensive markets to the core of less expensive markets and still finding enough urban amenities to satisfy them, not people moving from the core of more expensive markets to far-flung semi-rural exurbs in less expensive markets. Why would those people move across the country to live far from the city to save money when they could just do that in the metro they're already in?

Now you tell me how all of this "Atlanta/metro Atlanta/Chicago/Chicagoland" talk is on-topic. This should be good.

What the ****? Who do you think you are? Son, you can't talk to me that way--I am a w**** w****! You better bow down and show me the proper respect!

You mentioned up to 40 miles ain't Atlanta. I said it is--similar to Chicago/Chicagoland. Totally on topic. If anyone went off topic, it was you. And Mutiny--everybody knows.

[Be Proud]

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by citidata18

No one's talking about city limits.

I did, I brought it up because cities with smaller and larger cities limits have different dynamics of what they identify as "the city"

Larger city limits cities would be more distinct between the cities and suburbs. NYC is already 300 sq mi alone so why would people in Yonkers associate with the city outside being a suburb?

Atlanta on the other city limit is small just 134 sq mi, so Atlanta inner suburbs associated more as if city was 300 to 400 sq mi anyways.

My point "Yorkers" to Atlanta is not like Smyrna but maybe like Kennesaw. People out in Spaulding county aren't acting like they are deep in the Metro, it's only the inner suburban region that if Atlanta has a normal sunbelt city limits is Where the city/suburb identity blurs.

Can you please provide a source for those numbers?

It's not special source just math, Just add up metro Atlanta counties population and sq mi

Atlanta core 5 counties are 3,755,843 in 1,731 sq mi

If you added the next most populated counties Cherokee, Forsyth, Henry, Paulding, Douglas, Cowetta, and Carroll just 12 counties half metro area

You end up with 5,021,449 in 4,204 sq mi

Boston MSA is 4,732,161 in 4,500 sq mi

This mean Metro Atlanta is actually more populated than Boston MSA in less area. Again I bring this up cause people have this notion that the larger Sunbelt cities are only big because they have a large MSA sq mi. This is false. Even if you took there sprawl away their core regions of there metros are among the most populated in the country.

It may not have been the best written article, but some of you are intentionally taking it out of context for whatever reason. That context is people are moving out of huge, expensive megapolises for smaller, cheaper regions.

It get that I'm not arguing against that point. What happens y'all started defending the language of the article Not just the context. As if Atlanta MSA is misleading "generous" counties.

So I pointed out the irony even if we play along and took out half of metro Atlanta MSA "which you can't MSA sizes are for a reason" Atlanta still be would be the 9th largest metro in the country. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston aren't secondary metros to Boston, Philly, and SF there peers.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by aries4118

You mentioned up to 40 miles ain't Atlanta. I said it is--similar to Chicago/Chicagoland. Totally on topic.

This has ZERO to do with why people are relocating from more expensive markets to less expensive markets like Atlanta. ZILCH. NADA. NOTHING.

If anyone went off topic, it was you. And Mutiny--everybody knows.

Yeah ok son.

[chiatldal]

Technically if it loosely relate to anything stated in OP article it's on topic regardless if it's addressing the main point of the article. Especially with the OP influencing of the direction of the conversation.

I agree with the article overall point but not the idea that larger Sunbelt cities are secondary.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

This has ZERO to do with why people are relocating from more expensive markets to less expensive markets like Atlanta. ZILCH. NADA. NOTHING.



...

Like, I know. I don’t know why you started talking about “~40 miles out not being Atlanta” in the first place.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Technically if it loosely relate to anything stated in OP article it's on topic regardless if it's addressing the main point of the article. Especially with the OP influencing of the direction of the conversation.

...

Yessir. Amen.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Atlanta core 5 counties are 3,755,843 in 1,731 sq mi

If you added the next most populated counties Cherokee, Forsyth, Henry, Paulding, Douglas, Cowetta, and Carroll just 12 counties half metro area

You end up with 5,021,449 in 4,204 sq mi

Boston MSA is 4,732,161 in 4,500 sq mi

This mean Metro Atlanta is actually more populated than Boston MSA in less area. Again I bring this up cause people have this notion that the larger Sunbelt cities are only big because they have a large MSA sq mi. This is false. Even if you took there sprawl away their core regions of there metros are among the most populated in the country.

Why do you keep bringing up Boston? I certainly didn't.

But to bite any way, the Boston region is also sprawly and it doesn't help the argument you're trying to make against the Atlanta region not being sprawly.

It get that I'm not arguing against that point.

Then what's the point of you arguing?

It's like being obsessed over a door knob when the entire house is being renovated.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Which, in all fairness, is only one of multiple definitions not without its flaws.

Yeah, like with Raleigh and Durham which was split into 2 separate MSA’s despite the city limits touching and crossing over into each other’s respective counties.

The Triangle’s population is just over 2 million but now Raleigh is frequently listed as having only 1.3 million.

I consider San Diego to be it’s own metro area...

And Palm Springs is its own micropolitan area.

But the rest of SoCal is greater LA in my opinion, San Bernardino and the Inland Empire are part of LA. To me.

But every reference to a metro these days is mapping different extents, and Usually San Bernardino is considered its own MSA.

Same with the Bay Area which as a whole has 8-9 million people.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Like, I know. I don’t know why you started talking about “~40 miles out not being Atlanta” in the first place.

How about you stop trolling.

Do better.