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.
That was done because the density used to define the UA was not actually interrupted it was contiguous but it extended into the Providence, Worcester and Manchester MSA's so was not previously included. Now it is included because it is contiguous physically even if by commute patterns it is stuck in with a different metro area. However most of the additional people added in the Boston metro have actually been added in the urban core and very little development has happened at the suburban fringes compared to what is happening in the core.
Everything in orange and brown on this map that is contiguous to Boston is now included in the UA whereas previously it was cut off at the MSA borders. The US census definition of an urban area is also very generous and is part of the reason that the Boston UA is so large.
Here is the same type of map for NYC and Philly since they are connected.
For the record, I don't have any problems with Boston or how Demographia defines its UA when including the satellite communities around it.
I favor that.
I was just explaining to someone that some areas like Boston and New York, the added population that their UA's have accumulated since 2010 is a result of both natural population growth, as well as territorial expansion. I don't have a problem with that, was just explaining what it is to someone else. New York, for example, got two-thirds of its new population naturally but also acquired a third of it from territorial expansion as a result of the UA's definition being revised to what it is now. I don't have a problem with that at all. These things will bear themselves out on their own, it'll show. You'll see that when you sort through the details.
For the record, I don't have any problems with Boston or how Demographia defines its UA when including the satellite communities around it.
I favor that.
I was just explaining to someone that some areas like Boston and New York, the added population that their UA's have accumulated since 2010 is a result of both natural population growth, as well as territorial expansion. I don't have a problem with that, was just explaining what it is to someone else. New York, for example, got two-thirds of its new population naturally but also acquired a third of it from territorial expansion as a result of the UA's definition being revised to what it is now. I don't have a problem with that at all. These things will bear themselves out on their own, it'll show. You'll see that when you sort through the details.
I am not saying it's a bad thing either. I actually think it is a more accurate representation of the UA for both Boston and New York because although the commuting patterns break the developed areas up the UA is contiguous. I would even suggest combining NYC and Philly's UA at this point.
Ain't nobody in Charlotte worried about Raleigh, if that's what you're insinuating. And if also say the reverse is mostly true...
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.
