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.
It does not go as far west as Lancaster; does go to Reading which is connected by continuous development west of Philly
The DE and MD parts were always part of the UA of Philly, just sliver in the NE corner of MD below Wilminton DE; to the South in Cecil County MD the UA of DC is just a few miles starting at Harve de Grace and the susquahanna river
dude, havre de grace is the begining of the Baltimore UA.
Lol no no no these are urban areas. When it's in the northeast it's completely different.
The northeast is a double edged sword. It has some of the most densely populated cities and some of the worst sprawl rolled into one region.
This is very true - there is a lot of sprawl in the NE; as a percentage of the populace is smaller but in absolute because there is also suchj a large population the people living in sprawl is a considerable number
It was bound to happen. I guess we'll call it greater New Jersey. Tokyo, read it and weep. Nobody even comes close, especially in the US.
But this has been the case the whole time... I have argued for UA in terms of true metro area, particularly in how big and connected a place feels, but it always seems to get dismissed as people jostle for MSA or CSA... UA is also what the United Nations use...Another good metric is say density over 50 sq miles, 250 or so sq miles, 500 sq miles, etc... instead of using city/county limits.
Where 50 will give the feel/experience of the core, 250 will give the feel of the city and anything connected, and 500 will give the feel of the better connected suburbs, not exurbs.
I think these numbers are pretty awesome actually..., clearly separating NYCPhilly, LA and Chicago in properly weighted orders... It also makes for a more interesting argument between Boston/DC/SF, which I believe are the ones that actually are battling a bit more for prominence, and all within 1m of eachother. To me they also "feel" about the same in size actually being there. Whereas being in Chicago or Los Angeles feel significantly bigger, pretty much weighted accordingly with population. The others have always seemed to me clearly distinct as to have no real competitors close to them.
Well, the MSA consists of only 3 counties and, of those counties, only a tiny portion is even occupied since the rest is swampland. People who have never been to Miami can't always get their heads around that reality. We won't be able to ever-expand our MSA ala Altanta, Dallas, Houston, etc because we have hard fast limits to development. In the end, it's better for Miami to not sprawl forever.
pffft, people will be living under water in a year or two after global warming gets out of hand. Then Miami will sprawl like a city was meant to. Maybe it will even reach Cuba.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
I've got to imagine that with this new UA classification both LA and NYC are going to lose a lot in their standard density measurements.
The bay will take over as the densest Urban area in the US (not that it's stats were significantly lower than LA's before..)
In 2000 LA's UA density was higher than NY and SF, but Riverside-SB would definitely drive LA's UA down quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous Past
Those rankings are based off metro not UA's
International definitions for MSAs are not the same as US ones. New lists would probably include Philly.
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.