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.
The CSA of a region reflects cities and towns which are intrinsically connected, as with the LA region. The 125 mile stretch from northern Ventura county to south Orange County, crossing through LA City & County, is a continuum of connected cities and towns. The 70 mile stretch from LA International Airport (Pacific Ocean) east to Riverside is also a continuum of connected cities and towns. If you want an accurate picture of a city and it's environs, the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) of a city provides a more accurate picture for travelers or people looking to relocated to that area. In the vast 5 county interconnected region, referred to as greater Metro LA, there are several large cities, all of which are connected via more than 15 freeways and a regional transit train system called MetroLink. The largest cities in the aforementioned 5 county region are:
Los Angeles, LA County 4,050,000
Long Beach, LA County 480,000
Anaheim, Orange County 360,000
Santa Ana, Orange County 342,000
Riverside, Riverside County 330,000
Irvine, Orange County 270,000
San Bernardino, SB County 220,000
Oxnard, Ventura County 210,000
Glendale, LA County 202,000
I never said these cities, suburbs, and exurbs weren't "intrinsically connected" -- of course they are. Nor do I think the CSA concept is a sham. I see why it could be very useful (and why US Census updates its CSAs every year). I'm saying that a CSA is not a "metropolitan area" but a larger "trading-marketing region" that goes very far afield of a core city. And there's a real problem when you compare one CSA to another CSA and conflate other distinct metro areas (San Jose CA, Allentown PA, San Bernardino CA, or Athens GA) with a core metro area. American cities do have a different urban growth and commuting model than European and even most Canadian cities, but the CSA is so extensive that it becomes a very faulty "metropolitan area." Also, published US sourcebooks always use MSA populations as metro areas. Armchair demographers from Wikipedia and City-Data are rarely experts and more often city boosters. They would have to love the CSA.
Last edited by masonbauknight; 03-28-2018 at 09:26 AM..
I never said these cities, suburbs, and exurbs weren't "intrinsically connected" -- of course they are. Nor do I think the CSA concept is a sham. I see why it could be very useful (and why US Census updates its CSAs every year). I'm saying that a CSA is not a "metropolitan area" but a larger "trading-marketing region" that goes very far afield of a core city. And there's a real problem when you compare one CSA to another CSA and conflate other distinct metro areas (San Jose CA, Allentown PA, San Bernardino CA, or Athens GA) with a core metro area. American cities do have a different urban growth and commuting model than European and even most Canadian cities, but the CSA is so extensive that it becomes a very faulty "metropolitan area." Also, published US sourcebooks always use MSA populations as metro areas. Armchair demographers from Wikipedia and City-Data are rarely experts and more often city boosters. They would have to love the CSA.
Good posts and I agree with what you have written. I'd never say the CSA has no value, just that to use it as a measure of a metro or contiguous urbanized area - it is not that at all. MSA is much better. U.S cities are already expansive and sprawled out enough to do that even more via a CSA is baffling.. A CSA as a trading market region should be identified exactly as that and only that.
When I said standardization, I was referring to a more globalized standardization vs just American would be easier for comparative purposes across international boundaries. Demographia attempts this. I commend them for it though I have some issues with their data.
Demographia's Urban Areas just came out with the 2018 edition this week. Like all metrics, I take a good look at it annually.
So how did Boston surge ahead so much? Take a look back a few years ago and it was like way behind Toronto and Dallas and now look - suddenly millions of people are flocking to its urbanized area.. Perhaps there is a good explanation or maybe I just missed Boston when I looked at this like in 2015 or 2016? I also added land area/population density per sq mile to your list below.
Demographia's Urban Areas for North America in 2018:
01. New York: 21,575,000 4585/4500
02. Mexico City: 20,565,000 915/22500
03. Los Angeles: 15,620,000 2432/6000
04. Chicago: 9,160,000 2647/3400
05. Boston: 7,315,000 3548/2000
06. Toronto: 6,635,000 888/7200
07. Dallas/Fort Worth: 6,600,000 1998/2800
08. San Francisco Bay Area: 6,540,000 1106/5300
09. Houston: 6,285,000 1869/2800
10. Miami: 6,195,000 1239/4400
Another interesting note re land area and density is how much larger a typical U.S city is vs Toronto and M.C. Toronto is much more compact than all U.S cities at only 888 sq miles with a population density of 7200. Actually the Californian cities surprised me in terms of their density - L.A pulling off 6000 ppsm in 2432 sq miles is impressive. S.F and Toronto are very similar in land area though Toronto is more dense. That said, S.F as a contiguous urbanized area is pretty compact and dense vs other U.S cities. It is the most similar U.S city to Toronto in that regard. Boston - well that is a large urbanized area with pretty meagre density. Like is Boston as a contiguous area really that big!? I drove around the city and there is a lot of looow density burbs there.. This list however makes Boston look more sprawled out and less dense than Dallas and Houston - like really!? I also suspect Toronto's greenbelt curtails the size of the urbanized area. The compact size of Toronto's urban area and high density vs U.S cities is a result of urban planning focusing on compact high density/intensity growth as opposed to endless low density sprawl.
So how did Boston surge ahead so much? Take a look back a few years ago and it was like way behind Toronto and Dallas and now look - suddenly millions of people are flocking to its urbanized area.. Perhaps there is a good explanation or maybe I just missed Boston when I looked at this like in 2015 or 2016? I also added land area/population density per sq mile to your list below.
Demographia's Urban Areas for North America in 2018:
01. New York: 21,575,000 4585/4500
02. Mexico City: 20,565,000 915/22500
03. Los Angeles: 15,620,000 2432/6000
04. Chicago: 9,160,000 2647/3400
05. Boston: 7,315,000 3548/2000
06. Toronto: 6,635,000 888/7200
07. Dallas/Fort Worth: 6,600,000 1998/2800
08. San Francisco Bay Area: 6,540,000 1106/5300
09. Houston: 6,285,000 1869/2800
10. Miami: 6,195,000 1239/4400
Another interesting note re land area and density is how much larger a typical U.S city is vs Toronto and M.C. Toronto is much more compact than all U.S cities at only 888 sq miles with a population density of 7200. Actually the Californian cities surprised me in terms of their density - L.A pulling off 6000 ppsm in 2432 sq miles is impressive. S.F and Toronto are very similar in land area though Toronto is more dense. That said, S.F as a contiguous urbanized area is pretty compact and dense vs other U.S cities. It is the most similar U.S city to Toronto in that regard. Boston - well that is a large urbanized area with pretty meagre density. Like is Boston as a contiguous area really that big!? I drove around the city and there is a lot of looow density burbs there.. This list however makes Boston look more sprawled out and less dense than Dallas and Houston - like really!? I also suspect Toronto's greenbelt curtails the size of the urbanized area. The compact size of Toronto's urban area and high density vs U.S cities is a result of urban planning focusing on compact high density/intensity growth as opposed to endless low density sprawl.
Toronto most similar too a SF? Maybe start a thread and ask? See if most agree. Attached housing is a SF trait. It also is not a big high-rise living city. It might look like Hong Kong today? If the city and its residents did not want most of its housing stock as it was and not replaced with high-rise and skyscraper living as some cities. That was a plan too.
I never see top densities boasted mean a superior city. Some cities maintain a continuous urban built on a more planned street-grid as a Chicago or a city that pre-dates a street-grid like a Boston.
Chicago did gain a high high-rise to skyscraper living city in its core last 30-years and north on its lakeshore even before that. But it was not Planned or Zoned for them. Today many outside the core that replaced lovely old mansions and stone Victorians .... would have had preservationist fight there destruction. Not really much of the city is zoned to even les a high-rise either. Zoned does not mean only or even preferred. Just allowed there. Boston has many oldest areas 4-6 story attached housing too. That is unique outside of NYC and its tenement-style stock.
Miami also skyrocketed in high-rise living. Though many condos a re occupied only part of the year. It also cannot expand to its west where infringement into the Florida Everglades is banned.
NYC and Mexico City are in there own class clearly. LA has a very continuous built area as its favor with the population.
Really none of these top cities is like the other. Maybe Dallas and Houston the most likenesses. Similar densities also mean little in these cities differing housing and varieties and layouts which these cities all have their unique housing-stock too.
Very few talked about Mexico City in this thread .... as most of us never visited there it would seem. Otherwise on the REAL topic .... the thread really had about all said about it that can be. IMO
Toronto most similar too a SF? Maybe start a thread and ask? See if most agree. Attached housing is a SF trait. It also is not a big high-rise living city. It might look like Hong Kong today? If the city and its residents did not want most of its housing stock as it was and not replaced with high-rise and skyscraper living as some cities. That was a plan too.
Dave - I was very SPECIFIC with what I said based on demographia's stats on land area vs density. In that regard the data is very clear - Toronto and S.F in that very specific domain are more alike than ANY other two urban areas on the continent. Look at the data yourself. What I am saying to you shouldn't be a source of confusion for you. If it is - I can't do more than offer you a hug!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
I never see top densities boasted mean a superior city. Some cities maintain a continuous urban built on a more planned street-grid as a Chicago or a city that pre-dates a street-grid like a Boston.
Where did I mention 'superior' - what I wrote was pretty clear and isn't controversial at all. Boston, in order to be a larger and more populated contiguous urbanized area than the likes of Toronto, Dallas, Houston, D.C, S.F must be pretty damned low density sprawl. In terms of big city urban feel - YES density matters.. You'd need to get our head examined to think that Lexington M.A is 'urban'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Chicago did gain a high high-rise to skyscraper living city in its core last 30-years and north on its lakeshore even before that. But it was not Planned or Zoned for them. Today many outside the core that replaced lovely old mansions and stone Victorians .... would have had preservationist fight there destruction. Not really much of the city is zoned to even les a high-rise either. Zoned does not mean only or even preferred. Just allowed there. Boston has many oldest areas 4-6 story attached housing too. That is unique outside of NYC and its tenement-style stock.
Great - thanks for the info. I will challenge nothing about it. I like NYC, Boston and Chicago actually. Far more than some up and comers down south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Miami also skyrocketed in high-rise living. Though many condos a re occupied only part of the year. It also cannot expand to its west where infringement into the Florida Everglades is banned.
Very well true. I think you'll see perhaps Miami densifying/intensifying more in a manner like T.O. In a decade or so - Miami may have the same number of highrises as T.O does now. Pretty impressive - EH?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
NYC and Mexico City are in there own class clearly. LA has a very continuous built area as its favor with the population.
In terms of overall size yes. With honourable mention to L.A.. L.A is not only big but the contiguous urbanized area is more dense than I thought. I will be keeping an eye on L.A.... It may be my biggest 'regret' of a city in the U.S I have not visited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Really none of these top cities is like the other. Maybe Dallas and Houston the most likenesses. Similar densities also mean little in these cities differing housing and varieties and layouts which these cities all have their unique housing-stock too.
Totally agree. Even the T.O v Chicago infamous stuff is overated - they share some really interesting macro level comparisons (which two city propers in N.A have essentially the same population 2.8 million in the same area 230 sq miles) but --- they are very different cities. I'm glad T.O isn't Chicago and vice versa - that would be boring!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Very few talked about Mexico City in this thread .... as most of us never visited there it would seem. Otherwise on the REAL topic .... the thread really had about all said about it that can be. IMO
Mexico City has a whopping 20 million people in 915 sq miles. I mean wrap your head around that. NYC needs over 4000 sq miles to match that population. I've been to M.C once and I've been to many cities across the world Dave - no city exceeded M.C in streetlife or sensory delight more than M.C. Honourable mentions go to London, Paris, NYC, Bangkok, Istanbul - but for overall in your face street vibrancy and delight - Mexico City is in a class her own. It may not have the per cap GDP that we have up here but for sheer fun, culture, food and full of life - Mexico City is in a league of its own.
Boston's Demographia Urban Area was redefined 2 years ago, it shot up from 4 million something to the present 7 million something.
Initially it came as a surprise to me too but I know that both Boston and San Francisco are due for long sought after upgrades to their various definitions with regards to population; upgrades throughout their various population metrics, if I may add, such as MSA, CSA, both the American Urban Area and Demographia's Urban Area, and the Urban Agglomeration as well. There will be more redefinition cases for areas like Boston and San Francisco going forward.
New England enacts land-use planning that is stricter than most of the rest of the United States, it is geared towards preservation of historic zones, which is why Greater Boston's density plummets when moving away from the core of the metropolitan area and into the middle and outer ring nodes and suburbs. The core of the metropolitan area, the actual city of Boston itself and the high-density but small cities that encircle it are pretty dense for a North American place, but right after that it falls off to some of the lowest urban densities on the planet.
This will help from a picture-based argument point-of-view:
Boston's Demographia Urban Area was redefined 2 years ago, it shot up from 4 million something to the present 7 million something.
Initially it came as a surprise to me too but I know that both Boston and San Francisco are due for long sought after upgrades to their various definitions with regards to population; upgrades throughout their various population metrics, if I may add, such as MSA, CSA, both the American Urban Area and Demographia's Urban Area, and the Urban Agglomeration as well. There will be more redefinition cases for areas like Boston and San Francisco going forward.
New England enacts land-use planning that is stricter than most of the rest of the United States, it is geared towards preservation of historic zones, which is why Greater Boston's density plummets when moving away from the core of the metropolitan area and into the middle and outer ring nodes and suburbs. The core of the metropolitan area, the actual city of Boston itself and the high-density but small cities that encircle it are pretty dense for a North American place, but right after that it falls off to some of the lowest urban densities on the planet.
This will help from a picture-based argument point-of-view:
This still doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in demographia's numbers and a 'rewrite' inflating an urban area from 4 million to 7 million in a matter of only a few years. Perhaps other cities are long due uhem Toronto for long sought after upgrades to their various definitions/metrics. Demographia has pegged Toronto's urban area as 888 sq miles for the last 4 or 5 years I've kept up with that site and I know for a fact that Toronto has expanded and has more contiguously linked itself with other nodes in the GGH. I'll now take Demographia with a grain of salt. In pretty much no way at all does Boston feel like a larger urban area than Toronto either contiguously or with surrounding node cities in their respective CSA's.
A 2017 estimate for Boston's MSA is 4.8 million vs the 2010 census of 4.5 million. I have a considerably hard time believing that Boston's MSA is going to jump from 4.5 million to the over 7 million (which is what Demographia has for its Boston Urban area population in 2018) in the official 2020 census. Seriously, According to Demographia, Boston is the 4th largest urban area in the U.S after NYC, L.A and Chicago - I have a hard time believing that. So as I said, if Demographia is off with some cities than how can we seriously rely on them as a source in a standardized manner for all cities.
I think what some want to say is ..... how dare a Boston have its CSA expanded to surpass a Toronto's urban area. When Toronto's growth is Supersonic compared to the Boston region.....
Then skylines .... fagetabout it. Toronto can't be touched by US cities but NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
Hopefully the new Chicago CSA does not include Rockford...
Rockford is 89 miles (143 km) NW of Chicago
Way to far away...halfway to the Iowa state line.
No offense to Rockford ...a nice town...rockband Cheap Trick were from Rockford
Toronto then could include a lot of cities to it’s Golden Horseshoe...
Barrie is only 106 km (65 miles) from Toronto...easy pickup of 150,000
Brantford is only 103 km (64 miles) from Toronto...add another 100,000
Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge a close 107 km (66 miles) ...525,000
Super Golden Horseshoe Toronto could top 11 million in a few years...
and in a few more years nip at cities as large as Paris and Los Angeles
Don't you Americans forget either.... That Toronto has a SUPER Golden Triangle now too or forming.
You ain't seen nothing yet.... Even you LA .... you'll be passed too.
I think what some want to say is ..... how dare a Boston have its CSA expanded to surpass a Toronto's urban area. When Toronto's growth is Supersonic compared to the Boston region.....
Then skylines .... fagetabout it. Toronto can't be touched by US cities but NYC.
Don't you Americans forget either.... That Toronto has a SUPER Golden Triangle now too or forming.
You ain't seen nothing yet.... Even you LA .... you'll be passed too.
IMHO Chicago has a much more impressive skyline than Toronto.
I think what some want to say is ..... how dare a Boston have its CSA expanded to surpass a Toronto's urban area. When Toronto's growth is Supersonic compared to the Boston region.....
:
Well you have to get into some pretty slick and creative boundary methods and include some super low density farm like sprawl to make a case that Boston is larger than Toronto - as a city, as a contiguous urbanized area and yes, as a region. That is the only way you would be able to make a case for Boston being larger than Toronto and yes, Toronto as a city and region is growing faster than Boston. I don't know if i'd use supersonic but growing much faster - yeah.
I mean - do you really think Boston feels larger than Philly? As a city, contiguous urbanized area and region?
Look at this Dave - Canadian or not ya can't tell me i'm losing my mind with this lol.. In a c v c vs of which is larger - Boston, D.C or Philly this was posted and this was posted not long ago...
Suddenly Boston is now larger than D.C, Toronto and Philly... wtf... lol.. Better be careful Dave - the next introduction will be that Boston is now larger than Chicago and is heading supersonic towards L.A..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Don't you Americans forget either.... That Toronto has a SUPER Golden Triangle now too or forming.
Such a hospitable guy there lol.. C v C is for N.A cities. Whoever created this forum decided that is the way they wanted it to be. I operate within that envelope. Inevitably, Canadian cities are going to be brought up - Especially one that is the 4th largest city proper on the continent. I think I already provided some pretty good information to show that indeed the greater golden horseshoe functions in much the same manner as a U.S CSA. Also, I'm in a Toronto vs and people ask questions and engage in relational discussions. You can't fault me for it either - you're just doing the national pride waving thing.
Last edited by fusion2; 04-17-2018 at 06:46 AM..
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.
When Toronto's growth is Supersonic compared to the Boston region..... 
Even you LA .... you'll be passed too. 
