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.
Chicago has also 3 million more people than DC MSA, and 5 million more than SF MSA. If Chicago had Minneapolis 40 miles away from it you would see the same affect in its MSA/CSA relationship.
QWorld said it best:
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
This is the crux of the issue right here. Chicago accounts for 98.7% of its CSA's GDP, while DC is 70.4% of its CSA, and San Francisco only 57.9% of its CSA. Concentration of power has to count for something, especially when there is so much debate over what is "DC" and what is "San Francisco". Based on the traditional model of primacy and city definition, I still see it as Chicago, DC and San Francisco, in that order. You can't claim true supremacy when your percentage of GDP in your metro is significantly lower than the other guys'.
As we've also been discussing, the Chicago-Milwaukee CSA will happen eventually...just a matter of time.
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA $711.188 Billion
San Francisco MSA $411.969 Billion
San Jose MSA $213.819 Billion
Stockton MSA $23.491 Billion
Santa Rosa MSA $23.804 Billion
Vallejo MSA $18.055 Billion
Santa Cruz MSA $11.245 Billion
Napa MSA $8.805 Billion
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,144 posts, read 7,620,185 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini
QWorld said it best:
As we've also been discussing, the Chicago-Milwaukee CSA will happen eventually...just a matter of time.
Chicago and Milwaukee are 90 miles away. This would mean that Baltimore and Philly should combine as one CSA, hence when that happens you would literally be able to call everything from NOVA to Central CT one gigantic CSA, which ain't happening.
Chicago and Milwaukee are 90 miles away. This would mean that Baltimore and Philly should combine as one CSA, hence when that happens you would literally be able to call everything from NOVA to Central CT one gigantic CSA, which ain't happening.
I think Philadelphia and Baltimore could also combine. Milwaukee and Chicago are 90 miles apart DOWNTOWN TO DOWNTOWN with few significant development breaks between. There are south suburbs of Milwaukee and north suburbs of Chicago that are within commuting distance of the other primary city.
Last edited by IrishIllini; 06-16-2016 at 10:04 AM..
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,193,097 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Chicago and Milwaukee are 90 miles away. This would mean that Baltimore and Philly should combine as one CSA, hence when that happens you would literally be able to call everything from NOVA to Central CT one gigantic CSA, which ain't happening.
Baltimore to Philadelphia is 105 miles away, has a fairly significant developmental gap and is not connected by commuter rail. Philadelphia to New York City is ~95 miles away (much closer at extreme points), almost developmentally contiguous, is connected via commuter rail (SEPTA to NJTransit), and already technically meets the definition of a CSA. I think Milwaukee to Chicago is a pretty decent bet if they get commuter rail, whereas Baltimore-Philly probably won't ever happen.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,144 posts, read 7,620,185 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
Baltimore to Philadelphia is 105 miles away, has a fairly significant developmental gap and is not connected by commuter rail. Philadelphia to New York City is ~95 miles away (much closer at extreme points), almost developmentally contiguous, is connected via commuter rail (SEPTA to NJTransit), and already technically meets the definition of a CSA. I think Milwaukee to Chicago is a pretty decent bet if they get commuter rail, whereas Baltimore-Philly probably won't ever happen.
All of this leads up to my bigger point that NONE of them should or will be CSA's.
SF Bay Area and DC-Balt are much better examples of CSA's that can realistically be compared to Chicagoland. The difference is that they are dual-city or maybe even tri-city CSA regions, where as Chicago is more uniformed as one.
An multi-nodal metros are probably the way of the future. The way of the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
All of this leads up to my bigger point that NONE of them should or will be CSA's.
SF Bay Area and DC-Balt are much better examples of CSA's that can realistically be compared to Chicagoland. The difference is that they are dual-city or maybe even tri-city CSA regions, where as Chicago is more uniformed as one.
I think the issue is with calling these CSA's metro. Metro areas have a human component, and Balt-Wash lacks cohesion of cultural identity. It's an inter-connected region, not a metro.
I think the Bay is the most cohesive, with DC/Baltimore and DFW also at the top of the list (I'm a fan of the night sky maps: http://www.nightearth.com/ for this stuff). Metro's just a bit more organic sounding to me than CSA but I see your point. True CSA's (not like Chicago which is just a hyper MSA imo) I think will have an advantage going forward, along with regions that can work together, even if they do have separate cultural identities.
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.
