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
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
That's a bridge that we'll cross when we get to it, I suppose. As of today, as in right now, the Chicago CSA is still in command of the #3 spot. Not just as a CSA but in every metric, all six of the size metrics.
I value every metric and it is important to look at them all as a collective rather than fixating on one and solely one but CSAs are chasms created to measure commuter ties and loose connections. In reality it makes small places come across like they can actually compete with large places. Loosely defined commuter sheds with even more loosely aligned local culture.
Pass Chicago in all six and then you deserve the mantle of being #3. Nothing says bigger than shutting the opponent out in every metric, leaving them with no words to argue otherwise or to the contrary. Pass Chicago in just one, yeah, that's not a big enough achievement worth celebrating. Washington DC will never truly surpass Chicago. It wont ever be able to truly shut Chicago out, it is just not capable of it. In some ways it is just too small and that fact wont ever change.
Currently that's fine and safe to say. But even using your criteria Chicago will not keep the 3 spot across multiple metrics. It may still feel bigger than all these other cities in question, but I think in 20 or so years, Chicago will no longer be 3rd in city proper, MSA, or CSA, and possibly one of those Urban Agglomeration metrics. So in the year 2045 will Chicago really still be able to claim sole possession of the 3rd most populated while leading in only lets say two of the 6?
With DC specifically, correct it won't ever "catch Chicago" in population alone, but the broader region that includes Baltimore and the suburbs around both cities in about the same land mass, will pass Chicagoland in population. But I understand that to most people on here this will mean nothing. Also DC won't be the city to dethrone Chicago in every metric, making it that much harder to outright claim #3. Overall though I think the three spot will be pretty ambiguous the next couple decades across these metrics.
The Chicago and Milwaukee are almost 100 miles from one another.
DC and Baltimore are only 40. That’s closer than Boston and Providence who always share stats.
DC and Baltimore are like Houston and Galveston if they were separate metros (barring the 1900 Storm). Chicago and Milwaukee are like Houston and Beaumont (30 miles from the LA state line; the eastern edge of the metro).
People in Galveston proper receive Houston's TV and radio signals clearly. But it would be hard to receive Beaumont stations clearly in Houston, unless you live on the extreme eastern edges of the metro.
Even in population while Chicago is third, it is certainly not a clear third in terms of importance anymore. You might as well clump Chicago with the likes of San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. For example, I honestly don't feel that metro Atlanta is any less important than Chicagoland.
I completely disagree.
Except for the Bay Area and DC-Bmore, Chicagoland is clearly more important on a national level and exceeds all of the other cities in basically all other metrics; Bay Area and DC-BMore have to reach to the CSA level to compete in most metrics with Chicagoland. This is basically the point the FKR made, and the data bore it out.
Oh, CSA...not as relevant as MSA. When you have to combine two cities (CSA) to meet Chicago's MSA, it's just not the same.
That might change though.
The same argument used to be used back in the day for Dallas and Fort Worth as being two separate cities being compared to Houston. Now that they are so intertwined it's hard to not look at them as one area.
Then again Chicagos core is way ahead of anything in DC/Balt while Houston's core is not that different from core areas in Dallas.
With DC specifically, correct it won't ever "catch Chicago" in population alone, but the broader region that includes Baltimore and the suburbs around both cities in about the same land mass, will pass Chicagoland in population. But I understand that to most people on here this will mean nothing. Also DC won't be the city to dethrone Chicago in every metric, making it that much harder to outright claim #3. Overall though I think the three spot will be pretty ambiguous the next couple decades across these metrics.
While all of the focus is being paid to the prospect of the Washington DC-Baltimore CSA surpassing Chicago CSA, I would just like to point out that MSA and CSA definitions were redone last month and that the Washington DC-Baltimore CSA is also on notice of possibly being surpassed now as well. Yeah, the margin of error is razor thin now, not just for Chicago but also for the Washington DC-Baltimore CSA and San Francisco Bay Area CSA as well.
Combined Statistical Areas, 2017:
03. Chicago CSA: 9,901,711
04. Washington DC-Baltimore CSA: 9,763,116
05. San Francisco Bay Area CSA: 9,658,361
Roughly 244,000 people separate the largest from the smallest amongst the three CSAs. Needless to say, this is about as air-tight as it has ever been and in the next 2-3 years as that already narrow gap narrows even more, it will get even tighter. I'm sure that it'll get so tight that it will be hard to breathe for some. By percentage basis, the San Francisco Bay Area has slightly outpaced the Washington DC-Baltimore CSA in population gains, same can be said of their raw number change, and both have severely outperformed Chicago CSA in this since 2010. What I am getting at is that all it takes is 2 years of a leveling off for Washington DC-Baltimore CSA to permanently lose its footing at #4 and concede the potential #3 spot to the San Francisco Bay Area. The Washington DC-Baltimore CSA has slowed down significantly since the earlier years this decade when it was out doing in excess over + 100,000 people a year, it is now around + 75,000 or + 80,000 a year. Fortunately for the Washington DC-Baltimore CSA, the San Francisco Bay Area has also leveled off from its own six-digit (+ 100,000 a year) population growth as well. Still the gap between the current #4 and #5 is a mere 105,000 people. That's it. That's a razor thin lead that can evaporate any given year.
Since 2010 the San Francisco Bay Area CSA has grown by 724,000 people; the Washington DC-Baltimore CSA has grown by 714,000 people; and the Chicago CSA has grown by 61,000 people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
So in the year 2045 will Chicago really still be able to claim sole possession of the 3rd most populated while leading in only lets say two of the 6?
If you look at every metric right now, as in the present moment, the United States' #1, #2, and #3 cities are ALL locked into their position across all six population measuring metrics. So far it is always New York #1, Los Angeles #2, and Chicago #3. It is a consensus. They are #1, #2, and #3, in that very order in every metric across the board.
The revolving door begins at #4, where seemingly for every metric there is a different candidate city for #4. By City-Proper the #4 is Houston. By United States Urban Area the #4 is Miami/Fort Lauderdale. By Demographia's Urban Area the #4 is Boston. By MSA the #4 is Dallas/Fort Worth. By CSA the #4 is Washington DC-Baltimore. By Global Urban Agglomeration the #4 is Washington DC-Baltimore. There is no consensus #4 city in the United States by size, because when you utilize all six metrics together, there is a different answer for every metric with the sole exception and overlap between a common #4 with CSAs and Global Urban Agglomerations, where Washington DC-Baltimore is #4 for both.
Although yes, you're right that by 2045 the #3 spot will essentially come to mirror the scenario that is already in place for the #4 spot, which is to say that it means that a different city by the six various metrics will be in that #3 spot.
Lets do a quick review of where we stand with the #3, #4, and #5 spots in all six metrics in the present moment.
Metric #1: City-Proper, 2017:
01. New York: 8,622,698
02. Los Angeles: 3,999,759 03. Chicago: 2,716,450 04. Houston: 2,312,717
05. Phoenix: 1,626,078
06. Philadelphia: 1,580,863
07. San Antonio: 1,511,946
08. San Diego: 1,419,516
09. Dallas: 1,341,075
10. San Jose: 1,035,317
Metric #6: Combined Statistical Areas (CSA), 2017:
01. New York: 23,035,605
02. Los Angeles: 18,788,800 03. Chicago: 9,901,711 04. Washington DC-Baltimore: 9,763,116
05. San Francisco Bay Area: 9,658,361
06. Boston: 8,233,270
07. Dallas/Fort Worth: 7,800,952
08. Philadelphia: 7,206,807
09. Houston: 7,078,523
10. Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 6,863,649
Expanding outside of the United States and to the entire North American continent, the Big 3 are firmly set as New York, Mexico City, and Los Angeles. The next four are all close and all in the 9 millions now: Chicago CSA, Washington DC-Baltimore CSA, San Francisco Bay Area CSA, and Toronto's GGH (Greater Golden Horseshoe - 9.37 million people). To add more dramatic detail to the fold, the smallest (Toronto GGH) is also the fastest growing with + 140,000 people per year. A full + 60,000 more than the next of the bunch.
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.
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.
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.
And Los Angeles doesn’t offer things Chicago doesn’t? It goes both ways.
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.
