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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,130 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
In summary, regardless of what one thinks of any of the population metrics that we have available at our disposal, the smart play is to look at all six of them together. Collectively.
They all exist for a reason and all have something different to offer to the table.
If I had to give preferential treatment to any of the metrics then I would give it to the Metropolitan Statistical Area and Demographia's Urban Area. That's just me though. I like that they are more core-based than some of the others, more standalone measures for most places. Therefore I think their value is slightly more clear and concise than the others.
Still I would opt to look at all six together though.
You are right about everything you said, and again thanks for all the leg work breaking the stats down.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,130 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
Even though Chicago is significantly smaller than Los Angeles, Chicago continues to offer things that LA cannot and will not. Same goes for Dallas, Houston, and the DC Baltimore region. Bigger is not always better. Chicago's core and downtown will not be rivaled by any other city door this century, except by New York City, period.
That is all true yes. However a part of the issue is that, although most cities downtown areas and cores are seeing a resurgence and rebirth, cranes in the sky etc, in the majority of metro areas across the country the largest percentage of people still down live "downtown". In an metropolitan area of 9.5 million people how many of them live inside the loop actually? How many live in Midtown and Lower Manhattan out of 18-19 million in NYC? So yes those two cities by far have best two urban cores, but neither of those make up 1/10th of their entire metro areas. What we are comparing here is entire metro areas or a region of the core city on a macro scale. With these MSA's across the country expanding to entire counties surrounding it for thousands of square miles it changes how comparable these metro areas are looked at.
In the case of what Chicago offers in comparison to the cities you mentioned, take a look at the link from the OP. By 1900 NYC and Chicago were already built to be the two biggest cities of the country at that point, and I don't think that most people envisioned what cities would compete with NYC and Chicago 100 years later. LA, Dallas, Houston, SF Bay Area and DC-Baltimore offer a different balance across their metro areas than Chicago. Their suburban areas a lot of the time are some of their strongest areas. I know there are some nice quality suburbs around Chicago, but they simply don't hold the weight that the suburbs of the aforementioned cities do. They are downright hubs in some cases and their own commercial or residential or activity centers. I could make the case that if we extrapolate outside of downtown cores that SF Bay Area, LA, and DC-Baltimore each offer more within their regions, in the suburban areas, than Chicago's area outside the loop or core Chicago proper. So this is the where the comparison is essentially being made. When comes to city core, absolutely Chicago is #2 to NYC.
That is all true yes. However a part of the issue is that, although most cities downtown areas and cores are seeing a resurgence and rebirth, cranes in the sky etc, in the majority of metro areas across the country the largest percentage of people still down live "downtown". In an metropolitan area of 9.5 million people how many of them live inside the loop actually? How many live in Midtown and Lower Manhattan out of 18-19 million in NYC? So yes those two cities by far have best two urban cores, but neither of those make up 1/10th of their entire metro areas. What we are comparing here is entire metro areas or a region of the core city on a macro scale. With these MSA's across the country expanding to entire counties surrounding it for thousands of square miles it changes how comparable these metro areas are looked at.
In the case of what Chicago offers in comparison to the cities you mentioned, take a look at the link from the OP. By 1900 NYC and Chicago were already built to be the two biggest cities of the country at that point, and I don't think that most people envisioned what cities would compete with NYC and Chicago 100 years later. LA, Dallas, Houston, SF Bay Area and DC-Baltimore offer a different balance across their metro areas than Chicago. Their suburban areas a lot of the time are some of their strongest areas. I know there are some nice quality suburbs around Chicago, but they simply don't hold the weight that the suburbs of the aforementioned cities do. They are downright hubs in some cases and their own commercial or residential or activity centers. I could make the case that if we extrapolate outside of downtown cores that SF Bay Area, LA, and DC-Baltimore each offer more within their regions, in the suburban areas, than Chicago's area outside the loop or core Chicago proper. So this is the where the comparison is essentially being made. When comes to city core, absolutely Chicago is #2 to NYC.
Agree with everything you said...EXCEPT that Chicago suburbs don't hold their weight against the aforementioned city's suburbs.
Naperville, Aurora, Schaumburg, Evanston, Aurora, and others, I could go on. I'm interested how these suburbs don't hold up to DC and Baltimore suburbs.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,130 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
Agree with everything you said...EXCEPT that Chicago suburbs don't hold their weight against the aforementioned city's suburbs.
Naperville, Aurora, Schaumburg, Evanston, Aurora, and others, I could go on. I'm interested how these suburbs don't hold up to DC and Baltimore suburbs.
That's not what I'm implying at all. I'm referring to as they are relavant to their respective regions in comparison to the city's core.
I think this point is relavant in a number of regions like the San Jose/SF/Oakland region as well as DC-Baltimore.
For example, the suburbs you mentioned don't matter as much to Chicago's regional success, or diversity, or economic performance as do DC's major suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, Rockville, Silver Spring, Tysons, Reston, Herndon, Dulles, Landmark, Springfield etc matter to the DC region. There is 432 million sq ft of office space in the DC region, 2nd in the nation, and about 320 million of that office space is outside of DC proper. Tysons, VA alone is the 12th or 13th largest CBD in the country, this would be a bigger loss to the DC region than Chicago losing Aurora or Schaumburg would.
On the Baltimore side of the CSA the importance of suburbs like Towson, Columbia, Ft. Meade, Annapolis mean a lot to its immediate area's survival. Heck Annapolis is a state Capitol within Baltimore's MSA and the regional CSA as a whole. Chicago doesn't have a state Capitol in its reach, not even the Indiana or Wisconsin state Capitol. This is what I'm referring to, the integral part that is played by those suburban cities or towns within its region.
I am not saying that the suburbs you mentioned aren't as nice or wealthy or not important at all, but it's a different dynamic in comparison to DC-Baltimore or even the Bay Area's multi city/ suburb region. And honestly in the DC region I should call them "edge cities" or satellite cities, more so than "suburbs" because that's exactly how they function.
Last edited by the resident09; 10-13-2018 at 06:28 PM..
That's not what I'm implying at all. I'm referring to as they are relavant to their respective regions in comparison to the city's core.
I think this point is relavant in a number of regions like the San Jose/SF/Oakland region as well as DC-Baltimore.
For example, the suburbs you mentioned don't matter as much to Chicago's regional success, or diversity, or economic performance as do DC's major suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, Rockville, Silver Spring, Tysons, Reston, Herndon, Dulles, Landmark, Springfield etc matter to the DC region. There is 432 million sq ft of office space in the DC region, 2nd in the nation, and about 320 million of that office space is outside of DC proper. Tysons, VA alone is the 12th or 13th largest CBD in the country, this would be a bigger loss to the DC region than Chicago losing Aurora or Schaumburg would.
On the Baltimore side of the CSA the importance of suburbs like Towson, Columbia, Ft. Meade, Annapolis mean a lot to its immediate area's survival. Heck Annapolis is a state Capitol within Baltimore's MSA and the regional CSA as a whole. Chicago doesn't have a state Capitol in its reach, not even the Indiana or Wisconsin state Capitol. This is what I'm referring to, the integral part that is played by those suburban cities or towns within its region.
I am not saying that the suburbs you mentioned aren't as nice or wealthy or not important at all, but it's a different dynamic in comparison to DC-Baltimore or even the Bay Area's multi city/ suburb region. And honestly in the DC region I should call them "edge cities" or satellite cities, more so than "suburbs" because that's exactly how they function.
I doubt all those cities you listed, look at themselves as suburbs.....
With the high commute patterns from York County, PA into Baltimore County, Maryland - I wonder if we will see York County, PA ever join the Baltimore market, and by association of Baltimore to Washington, it'd increase the size of the Washington CSA.
With the high commute patterns from York County, PA into Baltimore County, Maryland - I wonder if we will see York County, PA ever join the Baltimore market, and by association of Baltimore to Washington, it'd increase the size of the Washington CSA.
That's not what I'm implying at all. I'm referring to as they are relavant to their respective regions in comparison to the city's core.
I think this point is relavant in a number of regions like the San Jose/SF/Oakland region as well as DC-Baltimore.
For example, the suburbs you mentioned don't matter as much to Chicago's regional success, or diversity, or economic performance as do DC's major suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, Rockville, Silver Spring, Tysons, Reston, Herndon, Dulles, Landmark, Springfield etc matter to the DC region. There is 432 million sq ft of office space in the DC region, 2nd in the nation, and about 320 million of that office space is outside of DC proper. Tysons, VA alone is the 12th or 13th largest CBD in the country, this would be a bigger loss to the DC region than Chicago losing Aurora or Schaumburg would.
On the Baltimore side of the CSA the importance of suburbs like Towson, Columbia, Ft. Meade, Annapolis mean a lot to its immediate area's survival. Heck Annapolis is a state Capitol within Baltimore's MSA and the regional CSA as a whole. Chicago doesn't have a state Capitol in its reach, not even the Indiana or Wisconsin state Capitol. This is what I'm referring to, the integral part that is played by those suburban cities or towns within its region.
I am not saying that the suburbs you mentioned aren't as nice or wealthy or not important at all, but it's a different dynamic in comparison to DC-Baltimore or even the Bay Area's multi city/ suburb region. And honestly in the DC region I should call them "edge cities" or satellite cities, more so than "suburbs" because that's exactly how they function.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from and do agree for the most part. Chicago's suburbs, while vast, diverse, and very nice....are more "traditional" suburbs in a sense. Many, many, of the major firms in the region are actually in Chicago proper, and most people commute to Chicago for work, and just live in the suburbs. It is like one major node in Chicago proper, and many smaller nodes being the suburbs (some exceptions obviously).
The DC suburbs really exploded during the tech boom. So while DC proper is probably the biggest node, there are other sizable relevant suburbs (that are more than just "traditional" suburbs where people live)- I.e Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, Tyson's Corner, Reston, etc (although I'd probably cut your list down a little lol). You will find equal numbers of high profile jobs, firms, etc in some of these "suburbs" as you will in DC proper. Many people will commute to work in these suburbs, as opposed to DC proper. The DC suburbs tend to be more than just your traditional suburbs, in that many of them are headquarters for very high profile firms/corporations.
CSA doesn't mean "metro" not sure how many times this has to be explained to you.
And yes Baltimore/Washington is a "thing" no matter how many of us try to deny it. It has been for 2 decades. It's just a matter of understanding what exactly that "thing" is.
The Bay Area is one example where the CSA actually makes a lot more logical sense than the MSAs that comprise it. But that is definitely the exception, not the rule.
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.
-->the 👹 is making me say this. But Downtown Chicago has no Skid Row... that's true. 
...