What metric or stat used for city vs city arguments infuriates you the most? (crime rate, life)
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 was thinking about this topic the other day. I have mixed feelings about CSA. It's undeniably a useful metric that describes real demographic and economic data about particular regions, but it also can be nebulous, ill-defined, and otherwise problematic. I think this is part of the reason some of the Philly-San Francisco shouting matches get so heated. It's not so much that nobody can quite agree on just what constitutes a CSA; nobody can quite agree on what should constitute a CSA, either. And....(real talk)....let's be honest, when the numbers line up in your city's favor, everybody loves CSA. When the numbers don't....well....
Clearly, it makes sense to measure SF/Oakland/San Jose as a statistical unit for at least some purposes. There is an undeniable pattern of development and connectivity that marks it as a unified region. Whether it makes sense for all purposes, or whether CSA is the most accurate method of cataloging the level and degree of inter relationship of the various metros in the region is another question....although, personally, I'm satisfied that for most practical purposes it is, or at least the best we have for now. I don't have a better idea, anyway. <shrugs>
Still, as a Philly guy, I have to admit that I do sometimes wonder 'what if'....? Like, for example, say, metro Baltimore were 45 miles further north, and the San Jose metro were 45 miles further south? If I'm not mistaken, a hypothetical Philly-Baltimore CSA would have (very broadly) similar pop/GDP numbers to those of the Bay currently, and include some suburban Maryland counties that rank among the wealthiest in the country. The numbers for the Bay would drop roughly correspondingly, and be in line with the current Philly stats. (I did the numbers for this once for the heck of it, but I don't have time right now. Guesstimating from memory, Metro Philly/Metro SF GDP both apprx $385B (give or take), SJ's GDP about $200B, Baltimore's around $170B. Pop metro SJ around 2mil, metro Baltimore around 2.7mil. And I'm pretty sure the Bay's per capita income numbers would remain higher. Again, just a very rough comparison, so please nobody blow a gasket. Somebody wants to round Baltimore off to a neat 2mil, and do the numbers, knock yourself out. I got work to do.)
Or lets say, L.A. and S.F., instead of being separated by several hundred miles, were only 90 miles apart. And the L.A. CSA were siphoning off pop and GDP from the periphery of the S.F. CSA. Meanwhile, in this scenario, imagine NYC were a bit farther north, and Philly got to claim more of the Mid-Atlantic/NJ/NE PA region for itself.
In either case, S.F. posters would be (rightly, in my opinion) a little P.O.'ed about being short-changed by essentially quirks of geography. Philly posters, on the other hand, who currently dislike CSA stats would (I'm guessing) be a lot more favorably inclined, for obvious reasons. And you couldn't really blame either of them. All just from moving Baltimore slightly north, and San Jose slightly south by the same distance. It's that seeming arbitrariness of CSA that people find frustrating, I think.
In the end though, CSA is what it is. Somewhat flawed, maybe, in the sense that it doesn't quite work as a one size fits all descriptor for all the very different types of metros and regions it's asked to take into account. But not totally useless by any means. Will have to do, I suppose, until somebody thinks of something better. Which will probably **** people off for many of the same reasons, plus a whole bunch of new ones nobody's even thought of yet.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,194,015 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFrom215
I was thinking about this topic the other day. I have mixed feelings about CSA. It's undeniably a useful metric that describes real demographic and economic data about particular regions, but it also can be nebulous, ill-defined, and otherwise problematic. I think this is part of the reason some of the Philly-San Francisco shouting matches get so heated. It's not so much that nobody can quite agree on just what constitutes a CSA; nobody can quite agree on what should constitute a CSA, either. And....(real talk)....let's be honest, when the numbers line up in your city's favor, everybody loves CSA. When the numbers don't....well....
Clearly, it makes sense to measure SF/Oakland/San Jose as a statistical unit for at least some purposes. There is an undeniable pattern of development and connectivity that marks it as a unified region. Whether it makes sense for all purposes, or whether CSA is the most accurate method of cataloging the level and degree of inter relationship of the various metros in the region is another question....although, personally, I'm satisfied that for most practical purposes it is, or at least the best we have for now. I don't have a better idea, anyway. <shrugs>
Still, as a Philly guy, I have to admit that I do sometimes wonder 'what if'....? Like, for example, say, metro Baltimore were 45 miles further north, and the San Jose metro were 45 miles further south? If I'm not mistaken, a hypothetical Philly-Baltimore CSA would have (very broadly) similar pop/GDP numbers to those of the Bay currently, and include some suburban Maryland counties that rank among the wealthiest in the country. The numbers for the Bay would drop roughly correspondingly, and be in line with the current Philly stats. (I did the numbers for this once for the heck of it, but I don't have time right now. Guesstimating from memory, Metro Philly/Metro SF GDP both apprx $385B (give or take), SJ's GDP about $200B, Baltimore's around $170B. Pop metro SJ around 2mil, metro Baltimore around 2.7mil. And I'm pretty sure the Bay's per capita income numbers would remain higher. Again, just a very rough comparison, so please nobody blow a gasket. Somebody wants to round Baltimore off to a neat 2mil, and do the numbers, knock yourself out. I got work to do.)
Or lets say, L.A. and S.F., instead of being separated by several hundred miles, were only 90 miles apart. And the L.A. CSA were siphoning off pop and GDP from the periphery of the S.F. CSA. Meanwhile, in this scenario, imagine NYC were a bit farther north, and Philly got to claim more of the Mid-Atlantic/NJ/NE PA region for itself.
In either case, S.F. posters would be (rightly, in my opinion) a little P.O.'ed about being short-changed by essentially quirks of geography. Philly posters, on the other hand, who currently dislike CSA stats would (I'm guessing) be a lot more favorably inclined, for obvious reasons. And you couldn't really blame either of them. All just from moving Baltimore slightly north, and San Jose slightly south by the same distance. It's that seeming arbitrariness of CSA that people find frustrating, I think.
In the end though, CSA is what it is. Somewhat flawed, maybe, in the sense that it doesn't quite work as a one size fits all descriptor for all the very different types of metros and regions it's asked to take into account. But not totally useless by any means. Will have to do, I suppose, until somebody thinks of something better. Which will probably **** people off for many of the same reasons, plus a whole bunch of new ones nobody's even thought of yet.
I understand what you're saying, and as it stands, CSA does boost some regions (Boston; The Bay) while shortchanging some others (Philly; Tampa, which deserves one if we're being fair).
Thing is, I think its utility is vastly inflated, much like the metric itself, and is leading to a future where "cities" are defined by communities literally hours away (see Richard Florida's megaregions). There's some use, sure, but I think very loose connections to cities are being used to justify exaggerated claims of importance/power, and that CSAs are leading the charge.
Where do you draw the line? At this rate, "Philadelphia" will be a 29 million metropolis, and then a 55 million one. Even when that happens, I'm not one of those folks who will be happy it's in "my favor ". I think this overreaching of importance is eroding actual city and community identity. I guess it's human nature to expand, but I don't find CSAs as natural as say, annexation.
But that's just my own two cents. Great post, and I guess I'm just one of those unsatisfied, ****ed off people lol.
I roll my eyes whenever I see posts about cities with the best food. I will never be one of those people who would spend $1300 on a dinner on Valentine's Day at the highest rated restaurant in NYC, as a friend of mine did earlier this year. Not interested in tiny plates of food with paragraphs of description at some place in the Michelin rankings.
I recognize my preferences in food are not everyone's since I HATE any food from the ocean.
Good post but don't waste your time, there is only a handful or so of somewhat vocal posters who take issue with this and they clearly don't even know or understand what they are talking about most of the time.
Agreed. Someone's clearly on some sort of mission. Every other post in this thread belongs to one person who states over and over how he doesn't think CSA is a good metric, and calls out the Bay Area specifically each time. I can't say I've lived in DC or Baltimore, so can't opine like others have, but I don't think a thousand people who have lived in both areas (Bay Area, or DC or Baltimore) arguing otherwise would convince the man, a man (I'm assuming man), who has lived in neither. We should get some Raleigh-Durham folks in here too because that's another metro broken into two MSAs that is undoubtedly one metro. It's even closer than DC and Baltimore or even Dallas and Fort Worth and yet is considered two MSAs.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,194,015 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
If we're gonna use this inflated metric (and I don't think we should), then there's really not one region where it "works" substantially better than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
Culturally they're distinct, yes, but on geographic and commuting patterns, it's all one big metro, at this point. It makes no sense to single out the Bay as the only "correct" CSA, if we're gonna use this ridiculous, inflated metric, when Baltimore and D.C. are literally closer geographically.
So yes, the Bay is much more culturally unified (though not completely. It's still Oakland sports teams vs San Francisco teams in the two most popular sports). It's also more economically similar than D.C./Baltimore (though Baltimore is more white collar these days).
But if we're going off pure geography, D.C. and Baltimore are already one. It's already Baltimore Washington International. And culturally, they do share some attributes. I greatly foresee the day when they're actually part of the same MSA, a less inflated metric in my eyes.
Agreed. Someone's clearly on some sort of mission. Every other post in this thread belongs to one person who states over and over how he doesn't think CSA is a good metric, and calls out the Bay Area specifically each time. I can't say I've lived in DC or Baltimore, so can't opine like others have, but I don't think a thousand people who have lived in both areas (Bay Area, or DC or Baltimore) arguing otherwise would convince the man, a man (I'm assuming man), who has lived in neither. We should get some Raleigh-Durham folks in here too because that's another metro broken into two MSAs that is undoubtedly one metro. It's even closer than DC and Baltimore or even Dallas and Fort Worth and yet is considered two MSAs.
I'm not trying to single out the Bay; someone much earlier in the thread brought it up as the only CSA that "works" and several other posters and I have questioned that statement. And personally, I think CSAs are a bogus metric to begin with; "Philadelphia" could be 55 million strong and I would still vehemently disagree with it. Just way too much fluff and arbitrary politics involved. So there's no "mission" here.
I'm not trying to single out the Bay; someone much earlier in the thread brought it up as the only CSA that "works" and several other posters and I have questioned that statement. And personally, I think CSAs are a bogus metric to begin with; "Philadelphia" could be 55 million strong and I would still vehemently disagree with it. Just way too much fluff and arbitrary politics involved. So there's no "mission" here.
There are a few CSAs that make sense. The SF Bay Area is one of them. Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino is another. One CSA that should be a MSA is Raleigh-Durham, NC.
It provides no actual context for the built environment (other than the number of people who reside there divided by the land area), yet some people use that as a basis of comparing whether one area is superior to another.
It provides no actual context for the built environment (other than the number of people who reside there divided by the land area), yet some people use that as a basis of comparing whether one area is superior to another.
Density does matter on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, but yes it should never be used to compare entire cities.
Density does matter on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, but yes it should never be used to compare entire cities.
I tend to agree -- but again, it's not the end-all of statistical comparisons. Some neighborhoods have large commercial districts, which can have a negative impact on density. Suburban neighborhoods can have higher densities than urban neighborhoods. There are a lot of factors to consider.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,194,015 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Density does matter on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, but yes it should never be used to compare entire cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashvols
I tend to agree -- but again, it's not the end-all of statistical comparisons. Some neighborhoods have large commercial districts, which can have a negative impact on density. Suburban neighborhoods can have higher densities than urban neighborhoods. There are a lot of factors to consider.
This is all very true. Some posters emphasize JUST density itself, without weighing in all the factors. Density just for density's sake is often NOT good. I don't think anybody here is pining for NYC of the 1920s or Manila of the present.
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.
