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.
Because in most cases MSAs work really well. It is the few oddballs like LA, SF, and DC where MSA starts to fall apart. It is the crazy geography of SF Bay that does it in this case. Just look at the metro on google maps with satellite view.
I know exactly why these are and I'm familiar with the Bay Area - but that really wasn't my point.
Then explain why most studies use MSA instead of CSA.
Probably because the MSA is easier for most of the public to understand, as its based on vernacular, polpular understanding. of most peoples idea. Of what is included as part of or extension of a city. But as far as how a. region truly functions CSA. is the logical option.
MSA is no easier to understand than CSA is, really. Most studies use the term "metropolitan area" so people don't get confused anyway, but when you look deeper in most studies and their data, you see that they're using MSA, not CSA.
MSA is no easier to understand than CSA is, really. Most studies use the term "metropolitan area" so people don't get confused anyway, but when you look deeper in most studies and their data, you see that they're using MSA, not CSA.
MSA is used more than CSA because usually MSA is a good proxy and because not all cities have a CSA. MSA usually does make more sense to use then. Key word: usually. In a thread of Chicago vs. SF the discussion of CSA coming up is inevitable.
Sf is a smaller city, its going to have a smaller sample size.
That's sf, a small time town. Like i said earlier, chicago is the big city.
If you don't want to tango with the big kids, go tango with Boston, seattle, dc, and all the other small time towns.
LOL Chicago is waaay closer to DC and SF then it is to LA or NYC in population, in fact the difference is only like a million with both SF and DC growing faster, Chicago is not even a megacity yet
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,139,905 times
Reputation: 3145
I personally think Chicago feels larger than SF, but SF feels more worldly and refined. It also has a more distinct identity to me. The built environment of Chicago is in another world-far superior to SF. Conversely, the natural environment in SF easily wins. Couple that with California living and near perfect weather and that's my winner.
San Francisco has horrible weather. It's cold and cloudy pretty much all year long. I hate the 4 seasons climate too, but I would rather deal with frigid and snowy Chicago winters knowing that there are months of hot real summer weather ahead to enjoy the pool and lake. You can never swim in San Francisco unless it is an indoor pool.
San Francisco has horrible weather. It's cold and cloudy pretty much all year long. I hate the 4 seasons climate too, but I would rather deal with frigid and snowy Chicago winters knowing that there are months of hot real summer weather ahead to enjoy the pool and lake. You can never swim in San Francisco unless it is an indoor pool.
What?!?!? Maybe the sunset district. The eastern half of The City is usually sunny and 70 most of the year. Perfect as far as I can tell. Summers in the Midwest are hot and humid. The only ppl who complain about SF weather are from Socal and HI.
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.
