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.
There was a discussion on a thread earlier about comparing two cities' sizes using population as the main measure as to size. Some wanted to use straight MSA data, I thought using population within a 25 or 50 mile radius would yield more real-world results.
I know that using radius can bring in other nearby metros into the number, but that's valid in my view because that is part of living in the area. You still benefit from that population even though they're not in your particular MSA.
For instance, Orange CA, Pasadena CA.. They're not large cities, but there's NOTHING NOT LARGE CITYISH about them given their proximity to LA so you have to take that into account. It ain't like they're rural.
So when someone says that they're from Tulsa OK, I don't think it's accurate to say they're from a larger city than Pasadena. Because taking the LA factor out of Pasadena is kinda ridiculous.
This is the tool I used: Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
MSA seems to do a better job of adjusting for different growth patterns. What would you do for metros that have multiple cores, like DFW? Base the radius on the geographic center or do it for each of the "cores" in a metro and then add them up (subtracting overlap)?
Or #3, using aerial imagery at identical scale to compare contrasting cities. Google Maps works well for that. No calculations, no numerical data, no obtuse parameters, etc., but a simple visual. You can also get a feel for roads, buildings, parks, and trees with that approach, which the other ways will not have
MSA seems to do a better job of adjusting for different growth patterns. What would you do for metros that have multiple cores, like DFW? Base the radius on the geographic center or do it for each of the "cores" in a metro and then add them up (subtracting overlap)?
Here's where MSA might fail I think, if you're next to a larger metro area, your MSA might not reach into it because it's considered part of another MSA, even though it's very close and by all standards, is pretty much the same metro.
MSA. The only instances where I can see the radius info being relevant is if you're trying to make a commercial/viability decision and need to know the demographics associated with a particular area or region. For a city to city comparison where cultural and economic ties matter, MSA is best. Perhaps, urbanized area in some cases. Why? Because MSA tells us the true "size" of the economically-connected region based on a set of very clear metrics. Research shows that commuting patters are a good indicator of the economic and social ties that a city-region might possess simply because many residents are connected to the core via employment. And you can use that data to predict urban spatial structure/density. Basically, my understanding is that commuting patterns and the MSA metric
's supposed effectiveness is its predictive power for a variety of needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfmx1
Here's where MSA might fail I think, if you're next to a larger metro area, your MSA might not reach into it because it's considered part of another MSA, even though it's very close and by all standards, is pretty much the same metro.
But technically, they're not. Maybe it might be helpful for trying to carve out a market or pointing to certain amenities in a particular area, but if you're drawing a radius as a point of comparison, you create this bias towards areas with cities that are close in distance that may or may not be culturally or economically connected, or otherwise miss the nuances between them. Lots of people get up in arms about the separation between Baltimore and DC, but these are two distinct communities with very distinct needs. Imagine if you just drew a 50 mile radius around one and said, 'well here are our demos for this region overall. You miss a lot of nuance in understanding the region's true size, read as connectivity to the core or supporting that area's needs.
MSA. The only instances where I can see the radius info being relevant is if you're trying to make a commercial/viability decision and need to know the demographics associated with a particular area or region. For a city to city comparison where cultural and economic ties matter, MSA is best. Perhaps, urbanized area in some cases. Why? Because MSA tells us the true "size" of the economically-connected region based on a set of very clear metrics. Research shows that commuting patters are a good indicator of the economic and social ties that a city-region might possess simply because many residents are connected to the core via employment. And you can use that data to predict urban spatial structure/density. Basically, my understanding is that commuting patterns and the MSA metric
's supposed effectiveness is its predictive power for a variety of needs.
But technically, they're not. Maybe it might be helpful for trying to carve out a market or pointing to certain amenities in a particular area, but if you're drawing a radius as a point of comparison, you create this bias towards areas with cities that are close in distance that may or may not be culturally or economically connected, or otherwise miss the nuances between them. Lots of people get up in arms about the separation between Baltimore and DC, but these are two distinct communities with very distinct needs. Imagine if you just drew a 50 mile radius around one and said, 'well here are our demos for this region overall. You miss a lot of nuance in understanding the region's true size, read as connectivity to the core or supporting that area's needs.
Agreed but that's primarily what people on here are looking for and arguing about, amenities a specific area has to offer. Which are is "better" or "offers more". Normally that's correlated with population. The more people, generally the more opportunity and variety the area has to offer.
For instance, looking at Winston Salem's MSA, it's quite small, because Charlotte's and Greensboro's MSAs' butts right up to it making MSA misleading when it comes to the urban amenities and economic mite of an area.
I think MSAs can be misleading. Using MSA, Houston and Dallas are larger than Toronto...
That’s because Toronto doesn’t have an equivalent measure to MSA. StatsCan has different requirements for metro area than the USCensus.
I also think for very different sized cities raduis is pretty bad because people who live 25 miles from New York City are in the sphere of influence but 25 miles from Augusta ME is not equally economically dependent on Augusta.
I've said this a lot on different threads, but (imo) Westborough, MA and Easton, MA (neither part of Boston's MSA) feel much more like Boston suburbs than Somersworth, NH or New Durham, NH (which ARE part of Boston's MSA).
So consider me firmly in the "radius from downtown" camp.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 09-26-2019 at 03:59 PM..
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.
