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.
Why are Brooklyn and New Jersey considered part of New York and Orange county and the inland empire considered part of LA when Oakland and San Jose are not considered part of San Francisco ?
Why are Brooklyn and New Jersey considered part of New York and Orange county and the inland empire considered part of LA when Oakland and San Jose are not considered part of San Francisco ?
As an outsider I don't get it.
Because San Jose is a world class city and much more important than SF. That's why. It's much bigger city, IMO.
I don't understand your question. Brooklyn is literally part of the city of New York and I'm not sure why anyone would ever not consider it otherwise even if it weren't that way legally. It's not part of the borough of Manhattan if that's what you mean?
Inland Empire is its own MSA so not everyone considers it part of LA. And Oakland is the same MSA as San Francisco so plenty of people recognize them together. And all of the above groups that you listed are actual CSAs so if you are using that perspective they're all seen the same way as well...
Commuters. MSAs are defined by where people commute to work. Search the US census bureau’s website. The definitions are there.
If you’re puzzled by why someplace is included in a metro area, it’s because enough people there commute to the core of the metro area (and/or vice versa).
If you’re puzzled by why someplace is not included in a metro area, it’s because not enough people there commute to the core of the metro area (and/or vice versa).
Commuters. MSAs are defined by where people commute to work. Search the US census bureau’s website. The definitions are there.
If you’re puzzled by why someplace is included in a metro area, it’s because enough people there commute to the core of the metro area (and/or vice versa).
If you’re puzzled by why someplace is not included in a metro area, it’s because not enough people there commute to the core of the metro area (and/or vice versa).
Yes, this is pretty much the core basis for the OMB's definition. For the most part I think it is as good as can be expected.
But I'm still confused by the OP because if they're strictly talking about MSAs, then their premise is wrong about the Inland Empire and Oakland.
Oakland is considered apart of San Francisco the same way that Oc is apart of LA.
San Jose is the outlier although it is apart of the Bay Area it can actually stand on its own better than any other metro with 2 million people.
In the US our jurisdictions of cities, and counties are really pretty random, and make no sense at all, but metro areas are a way of grouping all these cities, and counties into what they actually are just a bunch of random lines that are directly connected to the central city.
Actual metro areas aren't defined by lines, but by development
The I.E. does not have the ability to stand on its own like San Jose does though, and that's reflected by the abysmal GDP of the IE. It really shouldn't be it's own metro seeing this really makes me understand why from an outsider perspective this would be difficult to grasp because it really doesn't make sense.
Think of a metro aa what you would define as the "city" itself.
There's got to be a Rowan & Martin clip for this, but I can't find it.
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.