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.
No. You just don't seem to get it repeatedly. MSAs and CSAs are awkward one-size-fits-all arbitrary cut-offs used for basic planning, but unfortunately don't make sense in every single context (and neither should it since if it was used to make sense in the Bay Area's context, then it would end up making a lot of other cities not make sense). Different metropolitan areas can and are built differently. The Bay Area is extremely polycentric, but still tightly bound. Same media market, same state, same regional governing agencies, same sports teams, same self-identification, and absolutely continuous development and commuter patterns. What about this has been so hard for you?
But the Federal Government's words are final when it comes to these matters since they define it. And San Francisco/San Jose are two different metro areas. Combined Statistical Areas are NOT metro areas, otherwise they would be designated as such.
What people feel on the ground is different than what definitions are thrown out there, which is reflected in the results of this poll. However, until there is a revision of the definition, then there will be an element of people who believe that Philadelphia and New York City, with the development between them, could have the some connectivity as San Francisco-San Jose.
I don't doubt that the Bay Area is one place in the least bit, mostly because its 4x as small as the combined NYC-Philadelphia area, leaving very little room for very regional identities to be carved out, but since NYC and Philadelphia themselves are many times larger than SJ, SF, and OAK combined, they should logically have a larger sphere of influence.
Uh, what? Philadelphia is not larger than all the bay cities combined by city or metro population. It's not even larger than SF and San Jose combined, let alone adding Oakland.
Quote:
True. Fact of the matter is that along the border of SF-SJ MSA's, there really is only a combined 3.7 miles of continued development, 2.7 on one side of the Bay and a scant one mile on the other side of the Bay, while all along the border of Philadelphia and NYC MSA's (and CSA by extension) there is development all along the borders. Whether or not its dense development, which has been the crux of this thread, is pretty irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, they are connected through development.
Yeah, those damned undeveloped stunning hillsides really make the Bay's continued development falter in comparison to NYC and Philly's.
Quote:
I can live with that.
I think the comparison to DC-Baltimore (distinct identities and media markets) and Boston-Providence (again, distinct identities and media markets) holds a much more apt comparison to Philadelphia-NYC than anywhere else, which would make sense considering the whole Northeast is built out the same way.
I don't think that LA-SD or SF-Sacramento would be good comparitors either considering that there is basically more than 10+ miles of nondevelopment separating the MSA's, something that doesn't exist between Philadelphia-NYC.
This whole post of your begs the question: Did you actually think the two were equivalent or was this thread an excuse for you to rag on the Bay Area once again? Obvious agenda is obvious
But the Federal Government's words are final when it comes to these matters since they define it. And San Francisco/San Jose are two different metro areas. Combined Statistical Areas are NOT metro areas, otherwise they would be designated as such.
What people feel on the ground is different than what definitions are thrown out there, which is reflected in the results of this poll. However, until there is a revision of the definition, then there will be an element of people who believe that Philadelphia and New York City, with the development between them, could have the some connectivity as San Francisco-San Jose.
I think what it comes down to is ego personally.
The thing about this government definition though is that it sometimes gets things flat out wrong. The bay area is one area. Definitions of government terms not withstanding, it is tied together with an impressive amount of development and an even more impressive collective identity. San Francisco has a different identity than San Jose, but underneath that there is a very strong collective "Bay Area" identity.
The fact that Mercer County is in the NYC metro is wrong. Flat out. Some of the people there may identify more with NYC than Philly, but they are in the vast minority. Trenton is just right across the river, it has for hundreds of years been tied very closely to Philadelphia and the rest of the Delaware Valley.
I've been in mercer county enough times, I know enough people from there, my fiance currently works there! I mean christ all you have to do is hear people ask for a glass of wuder to know where their allegiances lie.
Regardless of what definitions they use and how they decide it, in this case they are wrong... so then how can I dismiss the bay area as a unified place just because of the rulings of systems that I know for a fact has flaws?
Whether you think the Bay area is one metro or not though is sort of besides the point, I feel like the main reason this poll was such a total landslide and why me and so many others felt this is not a good comparison has to do with the regional identity that exists in the Bay Area and absolutely does not in Philly and NYC.
No matter how much they build up the area between Philly and NYC and no matter how much the transportation infrastructure improves to make the trip shorter and shorter, this will not change. Philadelphia will be Philadelphia and NYC will be NYC. Each will have their similar styles and Northeast backgrounds but they will be distinctly different places and not only will people from each city continue to maintain a separate identity they will likely continue to boo lustily every time a sports player from the opposing city steps onto their home field.
Hopefully NYC and Philly will be able to work collectively in a better manor throughout the future to strengthen the connection between the cities in a mutually beneficial manor, but the idea that Philadelphia an NYC could ever share a collective identity and truly work as one as the Bay area does is likely a pipe dream.
To me though that's fine. I love Philadelphia and I hope our identity is never compromised by the ever strengthening bond with our neighbor to the north.
Bottom line the connection between Philly and NYC is no where near the connection between San Fran and San Jose, in terms of continuous development between cities but especially in terms of a collective identity.
At the same time though those who want to act as though the two cities are not close to each other and do not have a strong connection are being absurd too. The development may not be that consistant and there are sparse areas, but 7 plus million people live in between NYC and Philly and the only thing that separates them is a train ride that lasts barely over an hour and is just getting shorter and shorter.
The connection between Philly and NYC is not the same as the Bay Area, but it still a strong connection and one that can continue to grow stronger and stronger, providing a valuable asset to each as there's nothing quite like living a world class city and having another one a quick train ride away.
Already did give it up, as I have repeatedly stated time and time again on this thread.
All that needs to be done is admitting that Philadelphia and NYC are becoming increasingly connected and then this thread can die. As opposed to being prolonged needlessly as to not affront the egos of one or two posters.
You're from DFW, and I still consider DFW more interconnected via development than the Bay Area. Why are you pushing this?
And not to beat a dead bush, San Jose and San Francisco are, and looks like forever will be, considered two metro areas by the US Government, which knows better than all of us combined.
DFW is considered one metro
South Florida is considered one metro
San Francisco-San Jose are two metros, like Philadelphia-NYC and DC-Baltimore
Not correct. SF/San Jose is easily as connected as DFW. No question.
South Florida is not one metro either. Theres continuous development from Homestead to Jupiter. Thats a csa not msa. Its more connected than NY/Phi too
But the Federal Government's words are final when it comes to these matters since they define it. And San Francisco/San Jose are two different metro areas. Combined Statistical Areas are NOT metro areas, otherwise they would be designated as such.
What people feel on the ground is different than what definitions are thrown out there, which is reflected in the results of this poll. However, until there is a revision of the definition, then there will be an element of people who believe that Philadelphia and New York City, with the development between them, could have the some connectivity as San Francisco-San Jose.
I think what it comes down to is ego personally.
No one said the federal government didn't put them as two MSAs or as a single CSA.
The federal government is not going to make a special exception that would be inclusive of every predicament for every single metro area in the US. As such, some things aren't going to be classified perfectly. There is direct commuter rail from one side to the other. It's simple to commute from one to another, the employment centers are in the counties that neighbor each other and draw from both sides. The sports teams are the same. The media/channels/newspapers are the same. The people themselves refer to themselves as coming from the Bay Area. And while the urban development between them is a little bit narrow, it's a matter of topography making the flatlands bordering the bay itself the best for development (hence why those narrow bands are as dense and continuous as they are) and much of that forgets the numerous bridge, tunnel, and ferry crossings linking the eastern and western shores of the bay.
How is it that you continue to argue this when so many local residents and visitors (have you actually lived in the Bay Area before?) have told you exactly otherwise? How much ego do you have to have to disregard people who likely know the areas so much better than you?
No one said the federal government didn't put them as two MSAs or as a single CSA.
The federal government is not going to make a special exception that would be inclusive of every predicament for every single metro area in the US. As such, some things aren't going to be classified perfectly.
How is it that you continue to argue this when so many local residents and visitors (have you actually lived in the Bay Area before?) have told you exactly otherwise? How much ego do you have to have to disregard people who likely know the areas so much better than you?
I already admitted I was wrong, repeatedly throughout the thread. I have already stated I wanted this thread to die already.
The only reason I keep replying is because of the misinformation about NYC-Philadelphia is pointed out in this thread.
This is my final post in this thread. I simply don't care anymore. I'm wrong.
Im not the one making claims so these strange attempts to turn the tables on me makes no sense cause Im not upset over UA rankings---and why should I be when San Francisco and San Jose are combined into a single Combined Statistical Area.
Actually compared to SF-SJ, the area in between NY-Philadelphia is far less densely populated and developed overall:
Most of the route between SF and SJ AND Oakland and SJ is 5,000+ persons per square mile. On the other hand, huge swaths of land along the route between NY and Philadelphia are actually under 1,000 persons or just around 1,000 per square mile
Aside from the fact that I never claimed otherwise, the density in small San Mateo county still has far greater average density along the corridor between SF and SJ than what we find in between NY and Philadelphia.
There is a line of higher density; in the space between NYC and Philly is less consistent; though the NE and CA in general are developed differently
617 ppsm is about 20-25% the density of the UA of either NYC, Trenton or Philly.
It is lower density than all these counties that lie between NYC and Philly:
Camden County NJ 2,309 ppsm
Bucks County PA 1,030 ppsm
Mercer County NJ 1,624 ppsm
Somerset County NJ 1,059 ppsm
Ocean County NJ 906 ppsm
Middlesex County NJ 2,612 ppsm
Monmouth County NJ 1,336 ppsm
Union County NJ 5,058 ppsm
Essex County NJ 6,228 ppsm
Hudson County NJ 13,495 ppsm
But higher than this county in between:
Burlington County NJ 557 ppsm
Now this is purely an accademic excercise but true though many of these aggregates miss the actual developemnt in either place
There is a line of higher density; in the space between NYC and Philly is less consistent; though the NE and CA in general are developed differently
617 ppsm is about 20-25% the density of the UA of either NYC, Trenton or Philly.
It is lower density than all these counties that lie between NYC and Philly:
Camden County NJ 2,309 ppsm
Bucks County PA 1,030 ppsm
Mercer County NJ 1,624 ppsm
Somerset County NJ 1,059 ppsm
Ocean County NJ 906 ppsm
Middlesex County NJ 2,612 ppsm
Monmouth County NJ 1,336 ppsm
Union County NJ 5,058 ppsm
Essex County NJ 6,228 ppsm
Hudson County NJ 13,495 ppsm
But higher than this county in between:
Burlington County NJ 557 ppsm
Now this is purely an accademic excercise but true though many of these aggregates miss the actual developemnt in either place
The difference is that the vast majority of San Mateo County - i.e. almost everything west of highway 280 - is parkland/hillside. San Mateo County's actual developed area (the flatlands and lower hills east of 280) is higher density than the majority of the counties you listed with the exceptions of Hudson and Essex Counties.
Daly City, East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks are all 10,000+ ppsm, and most of the neighborhoods bordering 101 (the flatlands) in all peninsula cities are either 10,000+ or in the 8,000-10,000 range. Once you start going into the hills the density gradually drops, but the flatlands of San Mateo County are one of the densest suburban areas in the Bay Area.
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.
