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.
I appreciate the fact that you are making this argument without any ties to Cleveland. But the exclusion of Akron could be said about any city. San Jose should be included with San Francisco. Raleigh should be included with Durham. And there are literally dozens more examples. But the fact is, the OMB separates them, so I’m not sure if arbitrarily combining metros together to make a point is credible.
I know nothing firsthand about the relationship between Cleveland and Akron, but the point he's making is that combining the two *isn't* arbitrary, presumably because of economic and cultural ties they have to each other that simply aren't reflected in the way the OMB analyzes commuting data between the two. The OMB commuter criteria, while good, isn't perfect and sometimes it results in flukes of different types. Due to regional land use patterns, Raleigh and Durham are considered two MSAs in a singular CSA but they function more like an MSA and they used to be a singular MSA in the 2000 Census before the modifications to the criteria were made. But there are some CSAs that consist of two MSAs that truly should be considered individually, such as DC and Baltimore (IMO).
I know nothing firsthand about the relationship between Cleveland and Akron, but the point he's making is that combining the two *isn't* arbitrary, presumably because of economic and cultural ties they have to each other that simply aren't reflected in the way the OMB analyzes commuting data between the two. The OMB commuter criteria, while good, isn't perfect and sometimes it results in flukes of different types. Due to regional land use patterns, Raleigh and Durham are considered two MSAs in a singular CSA but they function more like an MSA and they used to be a singular MSA in the 2000 Census before the modifications to the criteria were made. But there are some CSAs that consist of two MSAs that truly should be considered individually, such as DC and Baltimore (IMO).
I think an argument can be made that Raleigh and Durham should be viewed individually just like DC and Bmore. It is one interconnected region and if someone wants to use the CSA to give the size of the region, cool. Both cities definitely have their own spheres of influence with their own suburbs, and there aren't as many people hanging out within both cities as I think people assume...
The Park is what ties the region together but these cities are otherwise, for the most part, independent of each other. In my opinion they definitely function more as separate MSAs that just have the proximity and baseline functions that grew into a larger region...
I know nothing firsthand about the relationship between Cleveland and Akron, but the point he's making is that combining the two *isn't* arbitrary, presumably because of economic and cultural ties they have to each other that simply aren't reflected in the way the OMB analyzes commuting data between the two. The OMB commuter criteria, while good, isn't perfect and sometimes it results in flukes of different types. Due to regional land use patterns, Raleigh and Durham are considered two MSAs in a singular CSA but they function more like an MSA and they used to be a singular MSA in the 2000 Census before the modifications to the criteria were made. But there are some CSAs that consist of two MSAs that truly should be considered individually, such as DC and Baltimore (IMO).
No I totally get you’re saying. What I’m saying is you and I don’t get to make those decisions. If the OMB decides not to combine them, saying they should be combined and then acting as if they’re combined is arbitrary. And furthermore, to make it equitable, you would have to consider other metro areas that should be combined as well. And who gets to decide that? It doesn’t make sense. The status quo prevails.
I think an argument can be made that Raleigh and Durham should be viewed individually just like DC and Bmore. It is one interconnected region and if someone wants to use the CSA to give the size of the region, cool. Both cities definitely have their own spheres of influence with their own suburbs, and there aren't as many people hanging out within both cities as I think people assume...
The Park is what ties the region together but these cities are otherwise, for the most part, independent of each other. In my opinion they definitely function more as separate MSAs that just have the proximity and baseline functions that grew into a larger region...
I'd have to slightly disagree here although there are certainly correlations to be made between the two regions and what connects them. Certainly both Raleigh and Durham have their own suburbs and spheres of influence which is the case in so many other MSAs with two or more sizable primary cities like Richmond-Petersburg (and I'm not saying that Raleigh/Durham and Richmond-Petersburg are just alike in their development patterns or anything like that, just used Richmond-Petersburg as an example of that basic fact). You are absolutely right that it is RTP, the region's largest office district, that ties Raleigh and Durham but the fact that it is an office park with no residential uses and largely within Durham County precludes the region from being a singular MSA. From the OMB statistical perspective, RTP is mostly a Durham asset because it is mostly located in Durham County, and since it pulls in a good bit of commuters from the neighboring larger county, this qualifies Durham to be the center of its own MSA. The statistical analysis for commuting is unable to take into account the fact that RTP is not an organic business district belonging to an actual city but a purposely planned business district to economically unify the entire region. If the Durham/Wake county line were to shift just a bit to the west so that most of it was in Wake County instead, it would be a singular MSA with nothing changing on the ground or with respect to commuting patterns. Also consider that both Raleigh's and Durham's municipalities spill over into the other's respective counties and now you have the city of Raleigh, the city of Durham, AND RTP all being located in both Wake and Durham counties to some extent or another--and instead of this making them a singular MSA, they are separate ones. And if you look at Cary and Chapel Hill, each is also located in two counties: Cary is most in Wake but extends into Chatham and Chapel Hill is mostly in Orange but extends into Durham *and* Chatham. That's a ton of blending and spillover of the 5 largest cities and employment centers in the Triangle which should really result in it all being a single MSA.
DC and Baltimore *almost* have a similar dynamic with Fort Meade which employs a similar amount of people as RTP does (54-55K), but Fort Meade is all within Anne Arundel County. DC and Baltimore themselves are independent cities not part of any county and they do not come close to bordering each other at all. Both cities have two counties as buffers betwee them (Montgomery and Anne Arundel), and while Fort Meade is definitely a big deal, it has less of an overall impact on broader commuting patterns because the rest of AA, Montgomery, DC, and Baltimore are collectively a MUCH bigger deal themselves and again, there's more space separating DC, Fort Meade, and Bmore. So that's why I ultimately don't perceive DC-Baltimore like I perceive the Triangle.
No I totally get you’re saying. What I’m saying is you and I don’t get to make those decisions. If the OMB decides not to combine them, saying they should be combined and then acting as if they’re combined is arbitrary. And furthermore, to make it equitable, you would have to consider other metro areas that should be combined as well. And who gets to decide that? It doesn’t make sense. The status quo prevails.
But this is an online discussion forum; we're not the OMB nor are we computers that simply crunch numbers without context. We provide more context for this very subjective exercise because we aren't a government agency aiming for statistical consistency. That's why this isn't arbitrary on our parts. Consider that the definition of arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." There is legitimate reasoning going into the decision to include the IE with LA or to consider the Bay Area as a singular entity or to consider the Triangle is one economic unit but our reasoning isn't solely contingent on county-based commuting statistics. It's just a subjective online discussion, not a serious proposal for submission to a federal government agency.
...We provide more context for this very subjective exercise because we aren't a government agency aiming for statistical consistency. ...There is legitimate reasoning going into the decision to include the IE with LA or to consider the Bay Area as a singular entity or to consider the Triangle is one economic unit but our reasoning isn't solely contingent on county-based commuting statistics.
I can't rep you, but these points are excellent. There are valid criteria way beyond the blunt instruments used by the Census Bureau and other agencies.
But this is an online discussion forum; we're not the OMB nor are we computers that simply crunch numbers without context. We provide more context for this very subjective exercise because we aren't a government agency aiming for statistical consistency. That's why this isn't arbitrary on our parts. Consider that the definition of arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." There is legitimate reasoning going into the decision to include the IE with LA or to consider the Bay Area as a singular entity or to consider the Triangle is one economic unit but our reasoning isn't solely contingent on county-based commuting statistics. It's just a subjective online discussion, not a serious proposal for submission to a federal government agency.
You’re misapplying the term arbitrary. It seems like you’re suggesting that if one has a good reason or enough evidence, then his or her decision suddenly is NOT arbitrary. That’s not the spirit of what arbitrary means. The definition of the manner in which I was using arbitrary is “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by intrinsic nature.” Or “depending on individual discretion and not law.” Even by the definition you presented, there is a legitimate system already in place and combining Cleveland and Akron is absolutely a personal choice. I personally don’t think they should be combined. The very fact that I don’t and that other poster does is the literal embodiment of “personal whim rather than any system.”
And to your point about our reasoning isn’t solely based on county based commuting statistics, this is true. But it makes up the overwhelming portion of how we view a metro area. This website is after all called City-DATA. The majority of us — and humankind — abides by that data, partly because they don’t care enough to make their own judgments and criterion and mostly because they’re unqualified.
Anyway, no point in going round and round with this. The two are officially separate. But yes, you’re right, this is merely a subjective discussion. I just prefer to deal in concrete realities, not what ifs arguments. No harm, no foul
For example, some real estate developers win by getting ahead of any data...sniffing out a trend that's hasn't been measured or won't be for a couple years.
I spend a lot of time trying to guess where our various construction sectors are going. This ends up being more about guesswork because data is limited and only marginally useful. Some basic truths have become obvious. Some major ones:
1. Data about the past can be pretty good, but nobody publishes 5/10/20 stats, to say nothing of 2021 or 2022. Therefore we're guessing.
2. Data inaccuracy and error have to be assumed. The question is how much. Understanding the methods and bias of the source is important. For example, office space inventories are extremely inaccurate even if you buy the paid, relatively comprehensive version.
3. Most data isn't granular enough to be very useful. For example you can find percentage of households without cars, but last I checked it didn't cross reference on a local level with income, age, student status, etc.
4. Trends aren't due to one thing. We can't point to one policy or project and consider it the cause of all outcomes. There's no alternate universe to serve as a control group. Everything that happens has a million causes. (I'm getting far afield here.)
You’re misapplying the term arbitrary. It seems like you’re suggesting that if one has a good reason or enough evidence, then his or her decision suddenly is NOT arbitrary. That’s not the spirit of what arbitrary means. The definition of the manner in which I was using arbitrary is “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by intrinsic nature.” Or “depending on individual discretion and not law.” Even by the definition you presented, there is a legitimate system already in place and combining Cleveland and Akron is absolutely a personal choice. I personally don’t think they should be combined. The very fact that I don’t and that other poster does is the literal embodiment of “personal whim rather than any system.”
My use of the term "arbitrary" here is very much appropriate. There is no personal preference or convenience involved in my analysis of such places that I have little to no ties to. I, and other who chose to look at this subject a bit more critically and comprehensively, have absolutely nothing to gain by looking at factors other than MSA GDP to determine the overall importance of cities in ways that go beyond regional economic output.
I think this "disclaimer" by the OMB regarding the usage and application of MSA statistical data is relevant here:
While OMB recognizes that a number of agencies, both inside and outside the Federal government, make use of the delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas for nonstatistical programmatic applications, OMB delineates the areas for statistical purposes only. In delineating metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, OMB does not attempt to anticipate or take into account any nonstatistical uses that may be made of the delineations, nor will OMB modify the delineations to meet the requirements of any nonstatistical program. Questions about how metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas are used within any particular nonstatistical program should be directed to the agency that administers that program.
Here the OMB explicitly recognizes the express purpose and scope and of the metropolitan data it analyzes and it does not attempt to delegitimize any nonstatistical uses of the data. It appears as though you are putting greater significance and importance on MSA statistics the OMB itself.
Quote:
And to your point about our reasoning isn’t solely based on county based commuting statistics, this is true. But it makes up the overwhelming portion of how we view a metro area. This website is after all called City-DATA. The majority of us — and humankind — abides by that data, partly because they don’t care enough to make their own judgments and criterion and mostly because they’re unqualified.
Anyway, no point in going round and round with this. The two are officially separate. But yes, you’re right, this is merely a subjective discussion. I just prefer to deal in concrete realities, not what ifs arguments. No harm, no foul
This is a strawman because I am still advocating for the use of OMB metropolitan statistical data here. I simply do not think that only one type of delineation must be used in an exercise like this, especially when the OMB has designated others that can be used.
At the end of the day, this subjective exercise is not mandating that we perform any statistical analyses to support our lists. The order of the cities on our lists only reflects our perceptions of their importance. I am not saying that the CSA of a particular place should be used instead of the MSA in an official government-related context; the standards as they exist currently should be abided by in a consistent way. This thread isn't that however and I believe there's a bit of room at the margins to consider other kinds of criteria.
It sounds like your real issue may be with the creators of these types of threads and not I and others who approach the subject similarly. We are merely following instructions.
Wait so which cities were in 11-15 tops? I thought both Denver an HD Phoenix made the cut.
Premier City
1. New York
All around mega beasts
2. LA
3. Chicago
Dominant Players in important industries
4. DMV
5. SFBA
6. Boston
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
Premier regional hubs
9. Atlanta
10. DFW
Large hubs that are major players in certain industries
11. Seattle
12. Miami
13. Detroit
Medium sized regional hubs that excel overall in industry
14. Phoenix
15. MSP
16. Denver
17. San Diego
Medium sized hubs that excel in at least one major industry
18. Charlotte
19. Portland
20. Baltimore
21. Tampa
22. Orlando
Sizeable hubs that are not there yet or used to be but slipping
23. Cleveland
24. St Louis
25. Pittsburgh
26. New Orleans
Fast Growing up and comers or former up and comers
27. Cincinnati
28. Nashville
29. Austin
30. Sacramento
31. SLC
32 Las Vegas
33. Raleigh - Durham
34. Columbus
35. Kansas City
36. Honolulu
37. Indianapolis
38. Milwaukee
39. San Antonio
40. Memphis
San Jose I included in their CSA
I edited my list slightly.
I chose Portland, Tampa, Orlando, Pittsburg and St Louis from the poll choices available.
I know that from 35+ I am missing some cities such is OKC, Jacksonville, Tulsa
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.
