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.
The Charlotte metropolitan area is part of a wider thirteen-county labor market region or combined statistical area that has an estimated population of 2,338,289
the 28-county Atlanta Metropolitan Area is the eighth largest such region in the United States, and the largest in the Southeastern U.S. with more than 5,376,285 residents.
It amazes me the way how you have the uncanny ability to pick the lowest number for Charlotte (then substract 200,000) and at the same time pick the highest number for Atlanta (then add 300,000). That must be "Georgia new math" because the schools in NC don't teach that mess.
Honestly dude, you should stop posting because your logic has got me rolling right now. On second thought, keep the posts coming. I needed a good laugh today!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
I picked the counties with the highest numerical growth, highest population, and the closest distance from the downtown's of both cities. My goal was to do this without going over 3,500 sq/mi (which I did go slightly over that with Atlanta, but some counties were just too important to omit from Atlanta). The reason why I chose 3,500 sq/mi is because almost everyone in such an area is less than 1 hour from the center of town (commuting distance). If you wish to accuse me of "cherry picking" the facts, that is YOUR opinion (and quite frankly, my reps to posts ratio compared to yours is....... I won't even go there today ).
Again, I chose the largest, fastest growing, and closest counties for both cities. I also kept the population between 75-80% of the CSA population's for both cities. I kept the land area near 3,500 sq/mi for both cities. I also gave US census links for each county I used.
What the hell does "reps to posts" ratio have to do with anything? We're just having a typical discussion dude. There's no need to get juvenile. I'm concerned with facts, not trying to overinflate Charlotte's status every chance I get.
The fact of the matter is that your assessment is still flawed. Because Atlanta is a much larger city, it's going to exert a much greater influence over areas farther away from downtown. And then you also have to take into account the fact that Atlanta has multiple business districts (downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, Perimeter, Cumberland) that act as multiple "downtowns." As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, Perimeter has the highest concentration of office space, and it's not even in the city limits of Atlanta. On the other hand, Uptown, our CBD, is much more central to Charlotte than the actual downtown of Atlanta is to that city.
Quote:
No offense, but there are TONS of flaws and half truths in MSA, UA, CSA, city, and county population stats. This is why I tend to ignore them all and just go with how many people live within a commutable distance of a city's business district. In the case of Atlanta, the number is almost 4.5 million as of last year. In Charlotte's case, the number is almost 2 million as of last year. Same land area for both; same distance from downtown for both.
Wow, I wonder why Obama didn't appoint you as head of the Census Bureau or OMB since you've got the magic answer?
The fact of the matter is that we have all of those metrics because each one gives us pertinent information. There is no one metric that will show the entire picture. And again, your own magic metric is flawed because Atlanta doesn't have just one business district; it has several, all of significant size, rivaling the size of the CBD in office space. Let's go ahead and lay out the stats:
Charlotte (http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Charlotte/English/Market_Report/PDFs/Q309OFF_CHR.pdf - broken link)
CBD: 18,850,750 sq ft
Airport: 12,018,201 sq ft
Ballantyne: 7,898,878 sq ft
University: 6,142,936 sq ft
South Park: 5,802,231 sq ft
Atlanta (http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Atlanta/English/Market_Report/PDFs/3Q09OfficeMarketReport.pdf - broken link)
Downtown: 23,091,846 sq ft
Midtown: 18,790,174 sq ft
Buckhead: 18,690,818 sq ft
Perimeter: 28,253,961 sq ft
Northwest (includes Cumberland): 32,313,236 sq ft
North Fulton: 24,767,974 sq ft
You might want to start recalculating.
Quote:
Now, as for the Census designation for MSA vs CSA, here are two examples of flaws that I have found.
Example number One
I know you are familiar with the CSA counties of Lincoln, Lancaster, and Iredell. Do you really believe that the three aforementioned counties are "less connected" to Charlotte than the MSA county of Anson? If you do, you do not know metro Charlotte very well my friend.
Lincoln, Lancaster, and Iredell counties are now micropolitan areas because they are statistically more self-sufficient economically than Anson, proportionally speaking. Anson is not, as it is largely reliant on Union County--and that makes it a secondary metro county. But all of them have a degree of significant economic reliance on Charlotte, which is why they are all included in the CSA. Again, what one metric misses, the other makes up for.
Quote:
Example number two
If Mecklenburg county had 3,500 sq/mi of land, Charlotte's MSA would have a population of nearly 2 million people. Where in the US can one find an example of this actually happening you might ask? Ever been to Vegas dude? I have!
Las Vegas has a "larger" MSA than Charlotte (1.9 million vs 1.7 million). However, Las Vegas is a one county MSA (a 7,910 sq/mi large county at that). Clark County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
What do you think Charlotte's "MSA" would be if Mecklenburg county had 7,910 sq/mi of real estate huh? Do you still think that Census defined MSAs are "the bible" when it comes to "sizing up" an area? If so, I have TONS more example, but I think you get it now (or at least you should).
I don't think MSA's are "the Bible," which is why I've said that all of the Census metrics together give a complete picture. And I'm not opposed to using populations within a certain radius of the CBD, but that's not "the Bible" either. A combination of metrics tells a complete story, not one by itself.
Well...you have to remember Atlanta's role as the primary city of the American South...a mega-region that can be seen as a separate country (worldly, internationally speaking).
Atlanta will always see growth now. Chicago and Saint Louis were the same size (as were Atlanta and Birmingham) until Chicago emerged as the primary city of the Midwest (as Atlanta has emerged in the South). Once a city reaches a status like this, it will always see growth, maintain its dominance, and remain pretty difficult to be overtaken (or closed-in upon) by other cities in the region.
All of the stagnant/declining cities in the U.S. never reached preeminent/dominant status in their region (or never maintained it for a long period of time--being dominant as the frontier was being settled/stretched doesn't count): Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Saint Louis, etc.
I actually think that it is probable that Atlanta will end up being greater than 3 to 4 times larger than Charlotte...
Well said. Amazing how simplifying the observation you make - of certain regions having the status of a quasi-country, with a capital city - is and how it clears the mumbo jumbo off the table and gets to the root of the matter. It's like a sledgehammer. I like sledgehammers.
Well said. Amazing how simplifying the observation you make - of certain regions having the status of a quasi-country, with a capital city - is and how it clears the mumbo jumbo off the table and gets to the root of the matters. It's like a sledgehammer. I like sledgehammers.
Thank you, William.
Also, I like the comment that Mgyeldell made about Sydney and Atlanta.
All of Australia's major cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane) are considered world, international cities without being overly dense and without populations that are overly huge. The fact is that they each dominate their respective region/mega-state while also having firm, significant connections internationally.
All of Australia's major cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane) are considered world, international cities without being overly dense and without populations that are overly huge. The fact is that they each dominate their respective region/mega-state while also having firm, significant connections internationally.
That's very interesting. I think I missed that. Was that in this thread?
It amazes me the way how you have the uncanny ability to pick the lowest number for Charlotte (then substract 200,000) and at the same time pick the highest number for Atlanta (then add 300,000). That must be "Georgia new math" because the schools in NC don't teach that mess.
Honestly dude, you should stop posting because your logic has got me rolling right now. On second thought, keep the posts coming. I needed a good laugh today!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
Alright, petty one...
Whatever you need to make yourself feel better.
You have to face the fact that Atlanta is the primary city of the American South...and always will be. This has nothing to do with boasting, false dreams, etc. It is has reached a status that will ensure its dominance in the American South and significance in the world. It's not the 1980's anymore where there was this gang of southern sunbelt cities with Atlanta being the "fastest." Atlanta emerged. There was a vacuum that existed that needed to be filled...every mega-region or country has the need for a primary city. For the American South, Atlanta has that role.
Well...you have to remember Atlanta's role as the primary city of the American South...a mega-region that can be seen as a separate country (worldly, internationally speaking).
Atlanta is only the most recent city to have that role. Before it was Charleston and New Orleans.
Quote:
Atlanta will always see growth now. Chicago and Saint Louis were the same size (as were Atlanta and Birmingham) until Chicago emerged as the primary city of the Midwest (as Atlanta has emerged in the South). Once a city reaches a status like this, it will always see growth, maintain its dominance, and remain pretty difficult to be overtaken (or closed-in upon) by other cities in the region.
Not necessarily. If that was the case, Charleston and New Orleans would still be the most dominant cities in the region. San Francisco wouldn't have been supplanted by Los Angeles. St. Louis would still be the dominant city of the Midwest as it was early in its history. Historically, cities reached dominant status via their expertise in modes of transportation. When the mode of transporting goods changed from steamboat to railroad to interstates and air travel, you saw dominance switch from one set of cities to others in many cases. In this day and age, a lot of other factors contribute to growth or the lack thereof as well. Who knows what the future holds in this regard.
Quote:
All of the stagnant/declining cities in the U.S. never reached preeminent/dominant status in their region (or never maintained it for a long period of time--being dominant as the frontier was being settled/stretched doesn't count): Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Saint Louis, etc.
That is incorrect. St. Louis was larger than Chicago at one point. I'm not too sure about the others though. San Francisco used to be the dominant city of the West Coast.
Quote:
I actually think that it is probable that Atlanta will end up being greater than 3 to 4 times larger than Charlotte...
I'm not too sure about that. Atlanta has a limiting growth factor, unlike many of the other cities that saw decline: water.
Atlanta is only the most recent city to have that role. Before it was Charleston and New Orleans.
Not necessarily. If that was the case, Charleston and New Orleans would still be the most dominant cities in the region. San Francisco wouldn't have been supplanted by Los Angeles. St. Louis would still be the dominant city of the Midwest as it was early in its history. Historically, cities reached dominant status via their expertise in modes of transportation. When the mode of transporting goods changed from steamboat to railroad to interstates and air travel, you saw dominance switch from one set of cities to others in many cases. In this day and age, a lot of other factors contribute to growth or the lack thereof as well. Who knows what the future holds in this regard.
That is incorrect. St. Louis was larger than Chicago at one point. I'm not too sure about the others though. San Francisco used to be the dominant city of the West Coast.
I'm not too sure about that. Atlanta has a limiting growth factor, unlike many of the other cities that saw decline: water.
All of the cities you mentioned "dominated" when regions/areas themselves were emerging and "frontiering." You missed the part where I acknowledged and mentioned this.
Yes, of course Saint Louis was once larger than Chicago...it was one of the first cities of the Midwestern frontier...along with Charleston and New Orleans in the frontier American South...Charleston was nearly 175 years old by the time Atlanta was founded and New Orleans was approaching 125 years of age.
And it's a new world, my friend--you're thinking is too much 18th and 19th century-ish in terms of city development, growth, and significance.
And it's a new world, my friend--you're thinking is too much 18th and 19th century-ish in terms of city development, growth, and significance.
Not at all. I mentioned those cities in response to your statement, "Once a city reaches a status like this, it will always see growth, maintain its dominance, and remain pretty difficult to be overtaken (or closed-in upon) by other cities in the region." History has shown otherwise.
And the fact of the matter is that this is a relatively young country, and the regions of this country haven't been established very long at all. Who knows what the next "big thing" is that will take cities to their next levels. The fact is that these days, a city doesn't have to be coastal, or on a river, or specialize in transportation to reach that next level. Couple that with upheavals in development patterns (the beginning of the end of the age of sprawl), environmental factors, and the growing scarcity of liquid gold (water), and you've got a combination that doesn't cement any city's position of dominance (except maybe NYC for obvious reasons). Shifts in domnance may not happen in our lifetime, and frankly I don't expect it to, but it can most definitely happen.
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.
I won't even go there today 
).
