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.
Well, what are the chances that Riverside and/or San Bernadino will merge into the LA metro? Commuter rail expansions are already underway and with more projected. Light rail extension to the far western reaches of San Bernardino are underway. The far western part of both Riverside and San Bernardino where the vast majority of people live are more connected to LA's urban areas than the communities than the further flung communities within LA county.
Well, what are the chances that Riverside and/or San Bernadino will merge into the LA metro? Commuter rail expansions are already underway and with more projected. Light rail extension to the far western reaches of San Bernardino are underway. The far western part of both Riverside and San Bernardino where the vast majority of people live are more connected to LA's urban areas than the communities than the further flung communities within LA county.
That's pretty much the point. In 2003 the OMB redefined how they aligned metros and did wacky things like split the counties that make up Detroit's urban area in half to make two separate metros (Which has since been corrected). Out of that creative logic a handful of older traditional contiguous urban areas were split up like the Bay Area. This also gave us Riverside/San Bernadino as a "major" 4million person metro area separate from LA.
In reality the Inland Empire would be less significant than Fresno without the proximity to LA. If the 80's/90's didn't drive up land values in LA County, big job providers never would have concentrated to the cheaper inland areas, and commuting patterns wouldn't have shifted enough to put the cross county commuting numbers under the threshold to be included in the core metro. The Inland Empire is a fake metro, it should not be included in rankings with other 4million+ areas. It doesn't exist on it's own. The same can be said for Fairfield County CT but it's not relevant in this discussion.
That's pretty much the point. In 2003 the OMB redefined how they aligned metros and did wacky things like split the counties that make up Detroit's urban area in half to make two separate metros (Which has since been corrected). Out of that creative logic a handful of older traditional contiguous urban areas were split up like the Bay Area. This also gave us Riverside/San Bernadino as a "major" 4million person metro area separate from LA.
In reality the Inland Empire would be less significant than Fresno without the proximity to LA. If the 80's/90's didn't drive up land values in LA County, big job providers never would have concentrated to the cheaper inland areas, and commuting patterns wouldn't have shifted enough to put the cross county commuting numbers under the threshold to be included in the core metro. The Inland Empire is a fake metro, it should not be included in rankings with other 4million+ areas. It doesn't exist on it's own. The same can be said for Fairfield County CT but it's not relevant in this discussion.
I totally agree with this. To me, (and I could be wrong), a metro area that shares major media with a larger metro (as Riverside/SB does), is still a part of the larger MSA. Yes, the Inland Empire has its own radio stations and newspapers, (both dying industries), but they are small compared to the major LA media outlets. When it comes to sports, same deal. Most in this outlying area are LA fans. And most probably would consider themselves as residents of SoCal, not the Inland Empire, unless asked for specifics.
Boston is going tall everywhere. Out of land in 5 years (sort of). They'll still build many more +200~390' midrises), but Boston is badly zoned. galactically land strapped. Skyscrapers are gonna be few and far between for a good while +5 years out. Boston already is the 2nd densest city inside it's limit after New York (27,000/sq mi), at just slightly below 18,000/sq mi. no one will challenge that number anytime soon. In the next few years, expect Boston to get a bit denser - and America's other biggest cities top out at about 14,500/sq mi.
Boston keeping it's spot as the nation's 10th largest metro is unlikely. it will slip a couple of notches. But that won't necessarily be a bad thing. The city's size, density, urban experience, and suburbs will continue to make it one of the most desirable places to live anywhere.
Boston is going tall everywhere. Out of land in 5 years (sort of). They'll still build many more +200~390' midrises), but Boston is badly zoned. galactically land strapped. Skyscrapers are gonna be few and far between for a good while +5 years out. Boston already is the 2nd densest city inside it's limit after New York (27,000/sq mi), at just slightly below 18,000/sq mi. no one will challenge that number anytime soon (America's other biggest cities top at about 14,500/sq mi. Boston keeping it's spot as the nation's 10th largest metro is unlikely. it will slip a couple of notches. But that won't necessarily be a bad thing. The city's size, density, urban experience, etc will make it one of the finest places to live anywhere.
Boston keeping it's spot as the nation's 10th largest metro is unlikely. it will slip a couple of notches. But that won't necessarily be a bad thing. The city's size, density, urban experience, and suburbs will continue to make it one of the most desirable places to live anywhere.
Boston's MSA keeping the 10th spot has little to do with the core cities ability to add more residents. All that needs to happen is Metro Boston needs to keep attracting residents at a rate faster than the MSA's below it. Whether or not they live in Boston itself is inconsequential.
The San Francisco/Oakland MSA will be redefined in 2023 almost assuredly, to reflect the commute patterns that have taken hold since 2003 (the last time the MSA made an addition). One of, or all, of Napa MSA, Santa Rosa MSA, Vallejo MSA, or even Stockton MSA will be added into the San Francisco/Oakland MSA.
I've never looked into Boston MSAs commuter-shed before, but I would be hard pressed if areas in its current CSA aren't added into its MSA. Most specific among them, Providence MSA and Manchester MSA.
I think Phoenix MSA and San Francisco/Oakland MSA will both enter the top 10 in the big picture, the former through organic natural population growth as its driver, the latter for the combination of area redefinition (areas in CSA going into MSA) and also organic natural population growth. In the short term, things will be close between Boston, Phoenix, and San Francisco/Oakland. The 2020 census will offer some limited clarity and the 2023 redefinitions will offer further clarity into the matter.
I've never looked into Boston MSAs commuter-shed before, but I would be hard pressed if areas in its current CSA aren't added into its MSA. Most specific among them, Providence MSA and Manchester MSA.
I'd place the Worcester MSA as a very likely addition as well, possibly before Manchester - by the way, there are actually two separate commuter rail lines (Worcester line and Fitchburg line) that connect Worcester's metropolitan area to Boston's.
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.
