Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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 03-04-2011, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,913,001 times
Reputation: 4047

Advertisements

Back in August the US Census was conducting their studies (and taking personal responses from American people) on their new definition for "Urban Areas" (UA's). The following screenshots, are their ideas so far taken with the 2008 estimates for all the areas, so for places that saw an "undercount" at MSA & CSA level compared to their 2008 & 2009 estimates will see an "undercount" compared to this picture below too. There is definitely going to be alterations in the numbers, but nothing more than like 200,000-400,000 at the most for any of these places.



Excerpt from their site:
Quote:
For the 2010 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely settled core of census tracts [8] and/or census blocks [9] that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to the proposed criteria mentioned above must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters. Urban areas that contain 50,000 or more people are designated as urbanized areas (UAs); urban areas that contain at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people are designated as urban clusters (UCs). The term “urban area” refers to both UAs and UCs. The term “rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.
Source: Federal Register | Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census

Any thoughts?

Enjoy.

Last edited by DANNYY; 03-04-2011 at 09:21 AM.. Reason: Tweak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,629,888 times
Reputation: 7974
Interesting this has Philly and NYC combined; it has been for a while but in this list is accounted for as such
Also the whole corrider less LA is dominant on population; not really totally surprising but these figures are interesting in that they seem to have less reliance on county borders but more on developed cohesion.

Pretty cool list

That being said the connectivity of say Wilmington DE and Bridgeport Ct is limited due to distance even if they are developed throughout the continuum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,913,001 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Interesting this has Philly and NYC combined; it has been for a while but in this list is accounted for as such
They redefined the 2010 Urban Area from what they had it in 2000, and they even put it on their site with some massively long explanation that takes several hours to read too.

Federal Register | Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census

It's a done deal, 2010 is when New York & Philadelphia join Urban Area's. They added (or extended the definition of) a new rule called the "jump rule" where you can take some (has to be a small portion) of the gap between two clusters of continuous development and just combine them either way for being significantly close by. It's their official government plan and work website too, coming straight from the US Government live in 2010.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,629,888 times
Reputation: 7974
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
They redefined the 2010 Urban Area from what they had it in 2000, and they even put it on their site with some massively long explanation that takes several hours to read too.

Federal Register | Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census

It's a done deal, 2010 is when New York & Philadelphia join Urban Area's. They added (or extended the definition of) a new rule called the "jump rule" where you can take some (has to be a small portion) of the gap between two clusters of continuous development and just combine them either way for being significantly close by.

BTW; your title should have been Philly approaches 30 Million
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:11 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,769,178 times
Reputation: 4555
Interesting. Philly and NYC joined urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,734,830 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
BTW; your title should have been Philly approaches 30 Million
So is Philly a suburb of NY Now??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
7,243 posts, read 10,468,772 times
Reputation: 8749
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Interesting. Philly and NYC joined urban areas.
Yeah, I think that's some of the biggest news of the Census so far. I mean, it's been speculated for some time that the urban areas of Philadelphia and New York would one day be officially combined, but I don't think many people expected this to occur so soon. This is by far the most populated urban area in the country now -- with the LA area in second place with about half the population. Pretty crazy.

I think this will have really interesting implications for federal funding and intergovernmental planning between states (mostly NY, PA and NJ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Glendale, CA
1,299 posts, read 2,523,977 times
Reputation: 1394
Wait, "San Diego-Mission Viejo"????

Mission Viejo is in Orange County, which is far more connected to LA than San Diego. Orange County is separated from the populated areas of San Diego by Camp Pendleton. I'm not sure why they would put South Orange County in with San Diego.

And hell, if they are combining Philly and NYC, why not combine LA and San Diego?

Or just go "all in" and call everything from DC to Boston one large "Urban Area".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:06 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,769,178 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino View Post
Yeah, I think that's some of the biggest news of the Census so far. I mean, it's been speculated for some time that the urban areas of Philadelphia and New York would one day be officially combined, but I don't think many people expected this to occur so soon. This is by far the most populated urban area in the country now -- with the LA area in second place with about half the population. Pretty crazy.

I think this will have really interesting implications for federal funding and intergovernmental planning between states (mostly NY, PA and NJ).
Soon upper CT, and MASS will join them. Well, I don't know about soon. DC might join them before it's the other way around. But don't you think it'll be rough that Philly will play second fiddle to NYC after being so dominant by it's self ruling South Jersey? Now NYC will be the BIG FISH in the Urban area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:08 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,769,178 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoLA View Post
Wait, "San Diego-Mission Viejo"????

Mission Viejo is in Orange County, which is far more connected to LA than San Diego. Orange County is separated from the populated areas of San Diego by Camp Pendleton. I'm not sure why they would put South Orange County in with San Diego.

And hell, if they are combining Philly and NYC, why not combine LA and San Diego?

Or just go "all in" and call everything from DC to Boston one large "Urban Area".
I was thinking that also. LA/San Diego seems just as logical as Philly/NJ/NYC.
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 > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top