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 would never put Sac and SF/Oakland/SJ into one giant CSA, though it's worth pointing out that the continuous development is probably along the lines of the continuous development between DC and Baltimore.
Houston's feels very cohesive, and *much* larger than Atlanta's (there is not a true 300,000 person difference between Houston and Atlanta...Houston "feels" like it's 1-2 million more people, and it's GDP is certainly about that percentage greater).
DC and Baltimore to me feel like two totally separate cities (feels like 2 MSAs, not 1 CSA). I don't put that dynamic in the same category as Raleigh-Durham, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco-San Jose, etc etc.
Dallas + Forth Worth CSA feels roughly similar to me to the Bay Area CSA, in terms of size.
The Bay Area CSA doesn't feel quite like 8.5 million people, unless you are in the city of SF. Then you realize that people come from Sac, Stockton, Santa Cruz, etc etc to party and shop on the weekends, even work during the week. But the suburbs don't feel like they are part of a 8.5 million person area. Maybe the area is generally comparable to Chicago in that regard, since Chicagoland is sooo massive and the only time you feel like you are actually surrounded by nearly 10 million people is in the city of Chicago or around the lake.
Having driven to Tahoe a bunch recently, one thing is abundantly clear: there is no break in general development between the Bay Area and Sacramento. The highway remains wide with HOV lanes, and aside from sparse breaks immediately along the Hwy sides, it is clear there is suburban development all the way there through the city and into the foothills of the Sierras. In that sense, it kind of feels like driving through IE into and across LA - endless sprawl for hours of driving. I would never put Sac and SF/Oakland/SJ into one giant CSA, though it's worth pointing out that the continuous development is probably along the lines of the continuous development between DC and Baltimore.
Atlanta feels more like a Seattle size to me than a Houston size. It's uniformly at low density, so aside from massive massive highways and an occasional suburban high-rise, that metro doesn't feel large and intense like others of its size (like Houston and DFW feel quite large and intense, despite their "lower" density and sprawl).
Miami to FTL to WPB up through St. Lucie and Vero Beach is near continuous FL sprawl. SoFla in general is *very* large and intense feeling. Driving in and through, it feels like a fast-paced city, despite being a tropical vacation/retirement haven.
I always said Atlanta feels like a 4-5 million metro...around 4.5 million...I don't see how Atlanta's metro is even 5.5 million. Dallas is way bigger than Atlanta anyway when it comes to metro size...isn't it like 7 million? It's 1.5 million more.
I'm not a fan of CSA's either but the OP hails from Oakland and it's wrong to exclude Oakland and San Jose when considering metro SF, and since the OP put the data together for us....his rules. I have no problem with that, we can work with the data.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,782 posts, read 23,946,283 times
Reputation: 14714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus
I'm not a fan of CSA's either but the OP hails from Oakland and it's wrong to exclude Oakland and San Jose when considering metro SF, and since the OP put the data together for us....his rules. I have no problem with that, we can work with the data.
CSA's and MSA's have a lot of grey areas within their definitions. Combining SF with Oakland and San Jose is appropriate as they all form a cohesive loop around the Bay. In other MSA's Denver and Boulder are divided as are Seattle and Tacoma but I view them as one unit within an MSA (ie: Sea-Tac airport). Then there are CSA's like Washington/Baltimore and Providence/Boston though they have similar separation in distance as the previously mentioned cites I feel these metros are more easily divided and less co-dependent. It could be state lines and Baltimore being a primary city of its own state and likewise with Providence that create more psychological boundaries.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 04-02-2014 at 07:40 AM..
Houston's feels very cohesive, and *much* larger than Atlanta's (there is not a true 300,000 person difference between Houston and Atlanta...Houston "feels" like it's 1-2 million more people, and it's GDP is certainly about that percentage greater).
DC and Baltimore to me feel like two totally separate cities (feels like 2 MSAs, not 1 CSA). I don't put that dynamic in the same category as Raleigh-Durham, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco-San Jose, etc etc.
Dallas + Forth Worth CSA feels roughly similar to me to the Bay Area CSA, in terms of size.
The Bay Area CSA doesn't feel quite like 8.5 million people, unless you are in the city of SF. Then you realize that people come from Sac, Stockton, Santa Cruz, etc etc to party and shop on the weekends, even work during the week. But the suburbs don't feel like they are part of a 8.5 million person area. Maybe the area is generally comparable to Chicago in that regard, since Chicagoland is sooo massive and the only time you feel like you are actually surrounded by nearly 10 million people is in the city of Chicago or around the lake.
Having driven to Tahoe a bunch recently, one thing is abundantly clear: there is no break in general development between the Bay Area and Sacramento. The highway remains wide with HOV lanes, and aside from sparse breaks immediately along the Hwy sides, it is clear there is suburban development all the way there through the city and into the foothills of the Sierras. In that sense, it kind of feels like driving through IE into and across LA - endless sprawl for hours of driving. I would never put Sac and SF/Oakland/SJ into one giant CSA, though it's worth pointing out that the continuous development is probably along the lines of the continuous development between DC and Baltimore.
Atlanta feels more like a Seattle size to me than a Houston size. It's uniformly at low density, so aside from massive massive highways and an occasional suburban high-rise, that metro doesn't feel large and intense like others of its size (like Houston and DFW feel quite large and intense, despite their "lower" density and sprawl).
Miami to FTL to WPB up through St. Lucie and Vero Beach is near continuous FL sprawl. SoFla in general is *very* large and intense feeling. Driving in and through, it feels like a fast-paced city, despite being a tropical vacation/retirement haven.
I have always stated that Houston feels larger than Dallas or Atlanta. It's easy to believe because Houston IS bigger than the other two. However, 1 million people larger is absurd and 2 million makes me believe you've never been to Atlanta.
The Bay Area absolutely crushes Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta in terms of urbanity and cohesiveness. San Fransicsco feels like a true "big city" in a literal sense and while not my cup of tea, has to be respected for what it is... a larger region that any other Sunbelt metro (save LA).
Seattle does feel bigger than it is; the hustle and bustle of Cobb or Gwinnett County on their busiest days can (and does) match Seattle on any given day of the week. You throw in everything ITP and Seattle doesn't stand a chance.
You have zero credibility at this point in my eyes.
I always said Atlanta feels like a 4-5 million metro...around 4.5 million...I don't see how Atlanta's metro is even 5.5 million. Dallas is way bigger than Atlanta anyway when it comes to metro size...isn't it like 7 million? It's 1.5 million more.
The metro area is right around 7 million. Dallas feels larger because it shares another fast, growing city which is Fort Worth. If one were to divide the 2 cities separate, Dallas (excluding FW) would only be about 4.6 million. Fort Worth would have a population of around 2.3 million.
As far as California,
It's amazing to me that the Bay Area is now the fastest growing region in California despite being the most expensive and is on pace to add just over 1 million people this decade. Yikes.
Also, it doesnt look like any upstart regions like Dallas or Houston have the momentum to really match LAs blockbuster growth in decades past, like adding 3 Million in one decade which is what LA did in the 1980s.
No one knows the future but the trends we are able to glean are interesting.
As far as California,
It's amazing to me that the Bay Area is now the fastest growing region in California despite being the most expensive and is on pace to add just over 1 million people this decade. Yikes.
Also, it doesnt look like any upstart regions like Dallas or Houston have the momentum to really match LAs blockbuster growth in decades past, like adding 3 Million in one decade which is what LA did in the 1980s.
No one knows the future but the trends we are able to glean are interesting.
But doesn't the "Bay Area" technically include lower-cost areas like Sacramento now? That might help explain the change in rank.
^^^No, as we were saying Sacramento is a completely different MSA/CSA that just happens to be within an hour of San Francisco, and much closer (minutes really) within reaches of the "Bay Area" official CSA limits. Stockton, however, is part of the Bay Area CSA, and Stockton is east of Contra Costa County/Oakland and south of Sacramento. If it were me, I wouldn't include that either. The Bay Area feels a little more like Dallas + Fort Worth with much greater density and much bigger anchor cities (by feel, obviously Dallas is much larger than SF and FW much larger than Oakland or SJ).
Also, "low cost" is relative. We joke here even in suburban parts of the Bay Area that you can find a decent 3-4BR home in Sacramento for "only" $400K. That would still make it insanely expensive for most of the country, however, yes, it's the cheap part of CA and a huge reason for its appeal.
Just to give you guys an idea of how much land this is covering...the NYC CSA has a land area larger than New Jersey & Connecticut combined and, while much of it is desert, Los Angeles' CSA is almost the size of Maine.
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.
in one decade which is what LA did in the 1980s.