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.
Good point. This is especially true of the Western U.S. cities. Western states have much larger counties than Eastern states. Some Western counties are much larger than certain entire Eastern states.
L.A. is the best example. 2 of the counties included in the Greater Los Angeles MSA are San Bernardino and Riverside counties - the #1 and #2 largest counties in the nation. Their physical boundaries extend all the way East to the Nevada and Arizona state lines, thereby making that entire area a part of "Greater Los Angeles", even though the vast majority of those counties are wide open, uninhabited desert and mountain ranges. It presents a terribly skewed and inaccurate picture of L.A.'s true population stats, and feeds all the trolls who love to harp on about L.A.'s "endless sprawl"... even though in reality, L.A. has what is probably the densest suburban development in the nation.
Using counties as a metric for urban/suburban population stats is horribly misleading. Of course, many people like the MSA/CSA model as it is, since it makes their metro look bigger than it actually is.
I absolutely agree with you. I believe that in San Bernardino County Metro LA extends to around the Yucaipa/Calimesa area and in Riverside County to about MO valley. I suppose one could argue that Murrieta and Temecula are part of Metro LA but I think that's a stretch.
The fact that The Census Bureau includes cities like Palm Springs, Cat City ,Palm Desert ,Indio and Blythe as part of metro LA is an absolute joke and makes a complete mockery out of the system. That being said Eastern San Bernardino county and Riverside County add very little population to LA as they are very sparsely populated.
The fact that The Census Bureau includes cities like Palm Springs, Cat City ,Palm Desert ,Indio and Blythe as part of metro LA is an absolute joke and makes a complete mockery out of the system. That being said Eastern San Bernardino county and Riverside County add very little population to LA as they are very sparsely populated.
What really gets blown out of proportion using the counties as a metric for Greater L.A. are the density stats. San Bernardino county is 20,105 sq miles in area. For perspective, that's slightly larger than the combined land area of the entire states of Massachussetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Only the extreme Southwestern corner of SB county could truly be considered part of L.A.'s actual suburban mass. Roughly 4% of the county's actual land area. The rest is either open desert, mountains, or small, isolated desert cities and towns (Barstow, Baker, Needles) that are separated by many miles of open land from Greater L.A.
Since the U.S. Census bureau measures population density based on the MSA land area vs population, this presents such an unbelievably skewed picture of Greater L.A.'s figures that it's laughable. Of course, the detractors run with these skewed figures so they can claim L.A. has the worst sprawl in the nation. Why the census bureau continues to use this horrible method is beyond me.
It shouldn't even be debatable that urban area is the far superior standard for measuring urban/suburban population. Some cities fall in rankng, while others gain... but at least it's more accurate. My hometown is one of the cities that falls a few notches in ranking, but that's fine with me. People are too hung up on the "bigger is better" mindset.
Yes I was going by the MSA/CSA rankings. I didn't even know the Census Bureau had a similar methodology as Demographia
I will still contend though that Atlanta has very inflated numbers. I don't care that somebody lives in a rural county 60 miles from Atlanta and commutes there to work every day; such a joke.
That's why I don't really consider MSA/CSA numbers. I only go by the Census' UA rankings. The best way to tell how large and how dense a "city" actually is, in my opinion.
Demographia's urban area definitions share similarities with our own census-designated urbanized areas, but appear to be more accurate overall. LA and San Francisco's numbers, in particular, are far closer to reality than the census numbers. Also, posters complaining that DC and Baltimore are separate should know they're separate under US definitions as well. IOW, the development isn't contiguous to the point where you can label to label DC/BAL one urban area. That sounds accurate to me--they're clearly not connected development-wise the way SF/SJ are. The idea that these numbers are somehow "made up" is silly.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
These numbers are either extremely outdated or just way off to begin. DC's urban area even without adjacent counties to Baltimore MSA equal at least 5 million +.
Original diamond of DC's district: Washington proper +Alexandria + Arlington= 1.1 million
Fairfax County, Va= 1.1 million
Montgomery County, MD= 1 million
Prince George's County, MD =900,000
That's 4.1 million right there and that's just the "Beltway"
Loudon County, Va =350,000
Prince William, Va= 431,000
Charles County, MD=150,000
Frederick County, MD= 250,000
That's another 1,181,000 without even reaching the far exurbs like Stafford and Calvert and Faquier counties that are in the DC MSA but would be a stretch to call them urban.
So my math has it around 5.2 million without even adding some of the DC MSA counties beyond 30 miles from DC that are more exurban in nature. That's not to mention Howard (290,000) and Arundel (537,000) which both are WITHIN 30 miles of DC which are closely related to Baltimore but honestly have no divide between Montgomery and PG Counties other than the Patuxent River. Then your just off immediately into "Baltimoreland" without interruption.
These numbers are either extremely outdated or just way off to begin. DC's urban area even without adjacent counties to Baltimore MSA equal at least 5 million +.
Original diamond of DC's district: Washington proper +Alexandria + Arlington= 1.1 million
Fairfax County, Va= 1.1 million
Montgomery County, MD= 1 million
Prince George's County, MD =900,000
That's 4.1 million right there and that's just the "Beltway"
Loudon County, Va =350,000
Prince William, Va= 431,000
Charles County, MD=150,000
Frederick County, MD= 250,000
That's another 1,181,000 without even reaching the far exurbs like Stafford and Calvert and Faquier counties that are in the DC MSA but would be a stretch to call them urban.
So my math has it around 5.2 million without even adding some of the DC MSA counties beyond 30 miles from DC that are more exurban in nature. That's not to mention Howard (290,000) and Arundel (537,000) which both are WITHIN 30 miles of DC which are closely related to Baltimore but honestly have no divide between Montgomery and PG Counties other than the Patuxent River. Then your just off immediately into "Baltimoreland" without interruption.
Here's the problem with this logic. We're talking Urban Areas not MSA. The population of an entire county is irrelevant. Urban Areas are always smaller than Metro Areas.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
Here's the problem with this logic. We're talking Urban Areas not MSA. The population of an entire county is irrelevant. Urban Areas are always smaller than Metro Areas.
The problem with your logic is that you have to align my example with other comparables, the counties I listed are not rural counties nor are they disconnected from the urban stretch of DC's urban area due to highways and other forms of transit inbetween. If I compared it to many of the other metros listed you would notice the level of urbanity is no worse than equal to those for probably a longer stretch.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
Here's the problem with this logic. We're talking Urban Areas not MSA. The population of an entire county is irrelevant. Urban Areas are always smaller than Metro Areas.
This is a screen shot of urbanity between the DC and Baltimore MSA's. You see the squiggly line there in the middle, the Patuxent river, that's the census designated "dividing line" between the two. So where does the urbanity end? It's apart of both MSA areas. And at least along Rt. 1, that level of urbanity exists all the way beyond Baltimore.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Demographia's urban area definitions share similarities with our own census-designated urbanized areas, but appear to be more accurate overall. LA and San Francisco's numbers, in particular, are far closer to reality than the census numbers. Also, posters complaining that DC and Baltimore are separate should know they're separate under US definitions as well. IOW, the development isn't contiguous to the point where you can label to label DC/BAL one urban area. That sounds accurate to me--they're clearly not connected development-wise the way SF/SJ are. The idea that these numbers are somehow "made up" is silly.
See my most recent post.
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.
