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.
San Jose is not part of the SF MSA though, it's a separate city, with its own MSA. As I've stated previously, it doesn't stand on its own...ever, on this site.
And again an arbitrary census line doesn't change the fact that the two function as a whole. Just like no one would actually try to claim that Riverside is an actual functioning metro outside of LA lol.
And again an arbitrary census line doesn't change the fact that the two function as a whole. Just like no one would actually try to claim that Riverside is an actual functioning metro outside of LA lol.
This whole Bay Region is boasted here in a thread actually on Chicago. Is because it became the key boasting point to push a regional GDP for SF. The OP did not say city, metro or regional combined metros. To me that means by metro is the DEFAULT choice for this thread. Most with knowlege of cities, probably know that Chicago is a stand-alone city. One could say a Southern Lake Michigan region to add Milwaukee. It would push buttons for sure, but really why? Chicago CSA gains some more rural areas mainly and threrfore not much help. Milwaukee by city cores to core is like 90-miles. The exburbs come together and Chicagoland does reach into Wisconcin, but the city of Mil is not added to Chi CSA.
But my real point for this thread (unless the OP added use CSA or regions?) I saw no original choice. I just then see BY METRO as the default choice. NYC needs no CSA used for its might. Apparently SF does. I believe we understand the reason for many claims of region or CSA. Just not every thread needs to or intends a default measure is a CSA. I believe the default is to use by the metro.
This whole Bay Region is boasted here in a thread actually on Chicago. Is because it became the key boasting point to push a regional GDP for SF. The OP did not say city, metro or regional combined metros. To me that means by metro is the DEFAULT choice for this thread. Most with knowlege of cities, probably know that Chicago is a stand-alone city. One could say a Southern Lake Michigan region to add Milwaukee. It would push buttons for sure, but really why? Chicago CSA gains some more rural areas mainly and threrfore not much help. Milwaukee by city cores to core is like 90-miles. The exburbs come together and Chicagoland does reach into Wisconcin, but the city of Mil is not added to Chi CSA.
But my real point for this thread (unless the OP added use CSA or regions?) I saw no original choice. I just then see BY METRO as the default choice. NYC needs no CSA used for its might. Apparently SF does. I believe we understand the reason for many claims of region or CSA. Just not every thread needs to or intends a default measure is a CSA. I believe the default is to use by the metro.
CSA isn't even what I'm talking about here as that stat is even more flawed than the metro one. I'm talking urban area. A functioning city per se. The firm demographia for example lumps San Jose and San Francisco as one area because they function as one. There isn't reaching to prop up San Francisco in here because it is really darn hard to justify calling San Jose and San Francisco as two different areas rather than parts of a whole and anyone thats been there can tell you the same. It isn't remotely comparable to Milwaukee and Chicago for example.
How did this thread turn into a thread about San Francisco??? We know the difference between Milwaukee and Chicago. Some day they will be a CSA, though...and it won't be too far off. Then, Chicago's MSA will not be the same as its CSA.
CSA isn't even what I'm talking about here as that stat is even more flawed than the metro one. I'm talking urban area. A functioning city per se. The firm demographia for example lumps San Jose and San Francisco as one area because they function as one. There isn't reaching to prop up San Francisco in here because it is really darn hard to justify calling San Jose and San Francisco as two different areas rather than parts of a whole and anyone thats been there can tell you the same. It isn't remotely comparable to Milwaukee and Chicago for example.
Well the UA or Urban Area has its own statistics. It does not unite SF and SJ into one UA. It separates them. But guess what they do for Chicaagoland? They include the into Wisconsin parts where Milwaukee suburbs meet Chicago's as one UA or Urban Area. So when you say Urban Area. That is another stat where Chicago can claim its goes into Milwaukee region and UA as they meet.
It is clear as I noted that Chicago downtown and Milwaukee downtown are still 90-miles apart. Np one implies it is as close as SF and SJ's. Just by definition of Urban Area they unite. So that is that, Just not a CSA fully as the Bay Area is.
You said Chi Mil isn't remotely comparable using Urban Area, but it is. If other Bay cities are on this list of UA areas? You can add SF's and SF's and them cities. But apparently the UA area does not unite. So that is that. The built environment going North from downtown Chicago is continuous even with suburbs into WI.
Chicago just happens to be a larger city as a whole. Just commuting does not apparently go far enough into WI to have Milwaukee to be a part of Chicago's CSA. I'm not trying to debate this till .... I just saw you now say Urban Area so that is another Statistic in its own that is many times called a preferred method on C-D by many I have read.
Urban area by the census also splits Riverside and Los Angeles. Again its an extremely flawed stat which has been pointed out for years on this site. Which is why firms like demographia which try to equalize urban areas uniformly lump SF and SJ together because they are parts of a whole. Anyone saying otherwise has clearly never been in the region.
Urban area by the census also splits Riverside and Los Angeles. Again its an extremely flawed stat which has been pointed out for years on this site. Which is why firms like demographia which try to equalize urban areas uniformly lump SF and SJ together because they are parts of a whole. Anyone saying otherwise has clearly never been in the region.
Who are you, really? Sounds like you've been on this site for "years", yet you only have a handful of posts. Hmmmmm......curious.
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.
