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 only thing that I've admitted to City-Data is the fact that I judge an area based on MSA vs CSA. I've also admitted that SF/San Francisco and DFW feels more interconnected than Washington and Baltimore. I am the original OP of this thread who started this thread as "Census 2021 MSA Estimates." If I recall, you brought the CSAs into the thread. Lastly, I am going to dismiss CSAs because that measure have/had nothing to do with the thread from the beginning.
You said you disliked CSAs and you preferred MSAs because DFW and the San Francisco Bay Area feel more connected. Except the Bay Area is a CSA, so it's unclear what you are trying to say. If you dislike Baltimore/Washington being treated as one, you should equally dislike San Francisco/San Jose being treated as one.
You said you disliked CSAs and you preferred MSAs because DFW and the San Francisco Bay Area feel more connected. Except the Bay Area is a CSA, so it's unclear what you are trying to say. If you dislike Baltimore/Washington being treated as one, you should equally dislike San Francisco/San Jose being treated as one.
Read the entire thread. Someone compared these three areas (DC/Baltimore, DFW, and SF/San Jose) and I stated that the other two were more interconnected than DC and Baltimore...Nothing to debate here.
Read the entire thread. Someone compared these three areas (DC/Baltimore, DFW, and SF/San Jose) and I stated that the other two were more interconnected than DC and Baltimore...Nothing to debate here.
Define interconnected?
Becuase I'm struggling to find something DFW or SF/Oakland-SJ have as a region(s) that theres not an equivalent to in greater DC-Baltimore.
Still, physical connection has zero relevance when it comes to MSA designations...
I will end by saying that I can see SF and San Jose combining into one MSA. For Baltimore and Washington, I can't see it, those two areas doesn't feel interconnected like DFW and SF/San Jose.
Do you have any strong feelings one way or the other about Boston and Worcester, Providence, or Nashua/Manchester?
Read the entire thread. Someone compared these three areas (DC/Baltimore, DFW, and SF/San Jose) and I stated that the other two were more interconnected than DC and Baltimore...Nothing to debate here.
One thing I will point out in favor of the "the other two are more interconnected than DC/Baltimore" argument:
Fort Worth, Oakland and San Jose do not have their own full complement of legacy network broadcast TV stations. Fort Worth residents watch Dallas stations, and Oakland and San Jose residents watch San Francisco's.
Baltimore and DC both have a full complement of legacy network broadcast TV stations. And because they were too close together for one city to get the bigger analog VHF set and the other to get the smaller one, they shared the large set (channels 2/4/5/7/9/11/13, which contains enough channels to have accommodated all three of the networks in each city at the time).
And Fort Worth is as far from Dallas as Baltimore is from Washington. San Francisco and Oakland are a good deal closer to each other while San Jose is the farthest away from other core cities in all three regions.
(Fox became the fourth network only in the 1990s.)
Becuase I'm struggling to find something DFW or SF/Oakland-SJ have as a region(s) that theres not an equivalent to in greater DC-Baltimore.
Still, physical connection has zero relevance when it comes to MSA designations...
True, it's all about commuter percentages.
However, the Bay Area from San Francisco all the way to San Jose, feels much more densely populated for that entire 50-mile distance than the equivalent area in between Baltimore and Washington imo. I feel like there is a distinct break between DC and Baltimore that one does not get at all in the Bay Area on either side of the Bay between SF and SJ AND Oakland and SJ. I mean, I could be wrong, but this is my observation.
I think it's just the way that CA is built, this is one way in which LA and the Bay are similar, unbroken density over very long distances compared to really anywhere else in the country I can think of except the NY and Miami metros, imHo.
One thing I will point out in favor of the "the other two are more interconnected than DC/Baltimore" argument:
Fort Worth, Oakland and San Jose do not have their own full complement of legacy network broadcast TV stations. Fort Worth residents watch Dallas stations, and Oakland and San Jose residents watch San Francisco's.
Baltimore and DC both have a full complement of legacy network broadcast TV stations. And because they were too close together for one city to get the bigger analog VHF set and the other to get the smaller one, they shared the large set (channels 2/4/5/7/9/11/13, which contains enough channels to have accommodated all three of the networks in each city at the time).
And Fort Worth is as far from Dallas as Baltimore is from Washington. San Francisco and Oakland are a good deal closer to each other while San Jose is the farthest away from other core cities in all three regions.
(Fox became the fourth network only in the 1990s.)
There is quite a bit of distinction between DC and Baltimore, the fact that's not one MSA makes total sense. I will say that FW is closer to Dallas than Baltimore is to DC. There's around 12 miles separating the Dallas city limits to FW city limits at their farthest points, only separated by the suburb of Irving. DFW shares the same media and sports markets, etc.
There is quite a bit of distinction between DC and Baltimore, the fact that's not one MSA makes total sense. I will say that FW is closer to Dallas than Baltimore is to DC. There's around 12 miles separating the Dallas city limits to FW city limits at their farthest points, only separated by the suburb of Irving. DFW shares the same media and sports markets, etc.
Good point about the sports teams — and it's worth noting here that in the Bay Area, Oakland has its own baseball team (and had an NFL team before it moved to Las Vegas). But I'd say that there, it's more like New York, Chicago and LA, where the one metro has two teams in baseball and football (and New York has two hockey and basketball teams as well).
But as Dallas and Fort Worth both sprawl, I think the city center-to-city center distances still somewhat relevant, though yes, the territory between the two cities is pretty urbanized now where it was not before D/FW Airport was built. (Edited to add: And the city that sits in between the two on I-30, the freeway/former toll road connecting the two centers, is Arlington rather than Irving, and the MLB team serving the metro plays in a stadium located there.) But the same thing can be said for the 40 or so miles that separate San Jose from both Oakland and San Francisco. The distance between Baltimore and Washington is probably less uniformly developed than any of these, though I think all of it falls within the urbanized area of one city or the other.
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.
