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.
Because the poster is amalgamating everything possible to Sacramento, so Baltimore naturally makes sense in response. Anyhow, Baltimore and DC are arguably already one metropolitan area and are heading closer and closer to that being the case with each passing year.
Statistically they’ve actually been diverging. Less people cross commute into the other metro than they did 10-20 years ago because there’s less need to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Yea, I said two things. I said they are either already there or about to be there. I think it's an arguable case, but in my view, they are already there.
Sure, people will make a distinction they're from New Jersey rather than from New York City. People in Tacoma are from Tacoma and not Seattle, same with people in Seattle who are not from Tacoma. That will always exist. They can still function as one metropolitan area regardless.
I think the funny thing in this topic is how quickly of an escalation of ever larger areas to the the cities in the topic. It makes the topic title misleading.
Except the relationship between suburbs and their principle cities (NJ vs. NYC and Tacoma vs. Seattle) is not even remotely analogous to the relationship between Baltimore & DC.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,137 posts, read 7,591,033 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Statistically they’ve actually been diverging. Less people cross commute into the other metro than they did 10-20 years ago because there’s less need to.
The two metros are more intertwined than they ever have been in their history at this point. Those are just county by county commuter statistics, and everyone's on remote work in both metros. The distinction largely remains at their two core beltways and inward, or down to about Rt 100 for Baltimore. In between that though "boots on the ground", the line has been blurring almost annually. We can thank a lot of the immigrant and transplant population for this. It's one mega-region headed by two individual spheres, let's not kid ourselves too much here.
Statistically they’ve actually been diverging. Less people cross commute into the other metro than they did 10-20 years ago because there’s less need to.
Except the relationship between NJ suburbs & NYC or Tacoma & Seattle is not even remotely analogous to DC & Baltimore.
Are you thinking about this in terms of the pandemic and county level commuter stat changes? I can't see how you would otherwise believe that. Even that's probably going to erode a bit, but meanwhile development between the two is going to intensify due to population growth and limited housing supply.
The relationship between NJ Suburbs & NYC and that of Tacoma & Seattle are not the same either. You're not going to get an exactly similarly correspondence, so I listed two in order to ward off the nitpicking knowing full well that it probably wasn't going to work anyways. Great.
Mind you, you're in topic where the OP is putting Stockton and all of the Bay Area into Sacramento.
Are you thinking about this in terms of the pandemic and county level commuter stat changes? I can't see how you would otherwise believe that. Even that's probably going to erode a bit, but meanwhile development between the two is going to intensify due to population growth and limited housing supply.
No it’s been an ongoing thing for the last 3 decades where the commuting share between the two metros essentially plateaued and hasn’t moved since despite having +2 million people today.
Development between the two is largely confined to either cities beltways because MD has extreme sprawl & nature conservation regulations. The core cities will densify, not their suburbs. Route 1 is never going to look like 82 on the peninsula.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The relationship between NJ Suburbs & NYC and that of Tacoma & Seattle are not the same either. You're not going to get an exactly similarly correspondence, so I listed two in order to ward off the nitpicking knowing full well that it probably wasn't going to work anyways. Great.
They are in the sense that they are suburbs of principles cities and play that roll in their respective regions (nuances aside)
It’s like saying Towson’s relationship with Baltimore or Bethesda’s relationship with DC is the same as DC & Baltimores because they are all “cities”.
I agree the OP was reaching hard with the Sac + The Bay Area analogy.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,137 posts, read 7,591,033 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
No it’s been an ongoing thing for the last 3 decades where the commuting share between the two metros essentially plateaued and hasn’t moved since despite having +2 million people today.
Development between the two is largely confined to either cities beltways because MD has extreme sprawl & nature conservation regulations. The core cities will densify, not their suburbs. Route 1 is never going to look like 82 on the peninsula.
There's a glut of new development in between actually, and now it's endless suburban sprawl between the two beltways of Washington and Baltimore. There's really no distinctive line where either ends. It's already filled in now today. Sure it's not like it's uber dense like a single city, but it's pretty consistent suburbia straight through on multiple routes. Sacramento is part of that whole NorCal sub-region, but in better juxtaposition to DC that would be more like extending out as far as Richmond or Wilmington. In fact the level of farm land in between Sac and Vallejo or Oakland is significantly greater than anything between NOVA and Wilmington, and I might say the same going southward to Richmond.
No it’s been an ongoing thing for the last 3 decades where the commuting share between the two metros essentially plateaued and hasn’t moved since despite having +2 million people today.
Development between the two is largely confined to either cities beltways because MD has extreme sprawl & nature conservation regulations. The core cities will densify, not their suburbs. Route 1 is never going to look like 82 on the peninsula.
They are in the sense that they are suburbs of principles cities and play that roll in their respective regions (nuances aside)
It’s like saying Towson’s relationship with Baltimore or Bethesda’s relationship with DC is the same as DC & Baltimores because they are all “cities”.
I agree the OP was reaching hard with the Sac + The Bay Area analogy.
If the commuting share is the same as in a proportion, but the region has grown by +2 million people then that's a lot more people commuting in between the two. Or are you saying that the total numbers stayed the same?
The suburbs are sprawling and densifying overall and there is no clean line break between the two suburbs.
Tacoma is not a suburb of the principal city. It's the smaller city whose suburbs increasingly came under the more prominent city's influence which is in some ways what's happening with DC and Baltimore. It's also kind of nice in the analogy as it's the more working class port city for the larger region as Baltimore is. Again, I'm not going to list every single analogy out there. Baltimore-DC fit somewhere in that spectrum, and I think are at this point part of the same metro. You can certainly argue against it, but saying it's "not even remotely analogous" is a stretch.
Furthermore, I'll argue that Sacramento is part of the DC giga region.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; Yesterday at 05:42 PM..
It's not unreasonable or strange to create such a thread to compare the big state capital with the big national capital to look for parallels.
That said, these efforts to shoehorn Sacramento into some kind of mega region are silly because its a great stand alone metro like Portland or Pittsburgh. Tacking on more stuff to places like that isn't doing anything for its aura.
It's not unreasonable or strange to create such a thread to compare the big state capital with the big national capital to look for parallels.
That said, these efforts to shoehorn Sacramento into some kind of mega region are silly because its a great stand alone metro like Portland or Pittsburgh. Tacking on more stuff to places like that isn't doing anything for its aura.
This is my sentiment 100%. I get his premise, and there are threads of connectivity between The Bay and Sacramento, but Sacramento is large enough and dynamic enough to stand on its own merits, as you said it's a stand alone, self-supporting metropolis anyway, with a significant sphere of influence in its own right (Redding to Stockton north to south, and east to Reno)...
This is my sentiment 100%. I get his premise, and there are threads of connectivity between The Bay and Sacramento, but Sacramento is large enough and dynamic enough to stand on its own merits, as you said it's a stand alone, self-supporting metropolis anyway, with a significant sphere of influence in its own right (Redding to Stockton north to south, and east to Reno)...
I appreciate your posts very much , and thanks for posting, but this particularly post is a reach because Redding is 160 miles from Sacramento, Reno 130 miles from Sac. Sacramento is by far closer to key cities in the Bay Area (Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and then some).
Sacramento has more in common with the North Bay, East of Bay, and SF and the larger Bay Area CMSA than either those outlier cities. Stockton is 50 miles from Sacramento and it's actually, technically part of the Bay Area CMSA, not Sacramento's.
Yes, Sacramento is large enough and dynamic enough, no doubt about that, with its own economy and distinctive culture apart from the Bay Area but as you said there is an enormous amount of connectivity between the two CMSA's. Sacramento's largest tech employers come from the Bay Area and Europe, not Redding, Reno, or Stockton.
Like Washington DC's affect on the nation, Sacramento's sphere of influence, as the state capital of a huge state, reaches far, it's legislation, governance and regulation affect the entire State of California.
Last edited by Chimérique; Yesterday at 09:25 PM..
It's not unreasonable or strange to create such a thread to compare the big state capital with the big national capital to look for parallels.
That said, these efforts to shoehorn Sacramento into some kind of mega region are silly because its a great stand alone metro like Portland or Pittsburgh. Tacking on more stuff to places like that isn't doing anything for its aura.
Yes, Sacramento is a great stand alone metro like Portland and Pittsburgh I wholeheartedly agree. Discussing its' similarities with Washington DC, or any other metro, does not take from its aura.
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.
, and thanks for posting, but this particularly post is a reach because Redding is 160 miles from Sacramento, Reno 130 miles from Sac. Sacramento is by far closer to key cities in the Bay Area (Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and then some).