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.
Okay I used to judge city size by metro area but after many of these outrageous delineations I will go to urban area (by demographia) to judge city size.
I will then use CSA to judge things like "city region" such as concert markerts.
The county exists for census purposes.
They are upgrading Metro North train speed in CT to shave off 25 minutes from New Haven to Grand Central.
I wonder if it will continue to though. I have to keep digging into CT to understand it better. Currently, the only areas in the NYC CSA are Western Connecticut Planning Region and the Greater Bridgeport Planning Region. In order to regain New Haven they'd have to add the South Central Connecticut Planning Region.
That is great for New Havens connectivity- CT is beginning to turn the corner when it comes to public transportation. Since 2015 they've seen the addition of CT Fastrak BRT, CT Rail connecting New Haven to Springfield and Hartford, and now this.
But well have to see what WFH trends look like in the future I think when people live all the way in New Haven they may have just been given the option to work from home. And that might just continue as the corporate world becomes adjusted to a new reality and more cognizant of the impacts of traffic/global warming.
Yall really feel metros are getting less centralized? All the jobs seem to be dying to locate in the primary city, hence the gentrification.
Whether urban proponents care to admit it or not, I think it's an inevitability that metro economies will absolutely continue to become more decentralized in the post-pandemic era, even in the Northeast, and yes, even in Boston. The days of the 9-5 daily rat race, cramming into downtown office buildings, is just not seen as desirable anymore (and for good reason).
Yes, there will always be a critical mass of jobs/industry in Boston/Cambridge, particularly when it comes to life sciences where physical presence is required, but dispersion was always going to be the next phase of the knowledge economy--it was just sped up A LOT by COVID. Cities are now going to be less centers of job commerce and much more recreational commerce.
It's an era that's going to continue to wrack the brains of urban planners, and public transit ridership is going to be hardest to adapt due to lack of predictable commuting patterns, but this is new phase we're in. Better for cities to evolve sooner rather later, instead of fighting against the inevitable.
It's also why I don't see the US having a 3rd megacity anytime soon. The closest city with the intensity of a megacity is Chicago and it is going in the wrong direction.
Chicago by all intents and purposes functions so close to that threshold, it’s effectively one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
There are places, such as Hong Kong, with less than 10M but is so intense, then we have DC... it's just not the same.
HK is part of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area. They cohesively function like one giant urbanized area akin to SF/Oakland-SJ except this region has 71 million people, not 7 and is just as land constrained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
After Chicago, SF would be my next choice for US mega city status, but it too is becoming more decentralized.
Never happening. It’s geographically hemmed in region that has refused to build enough housing for decades now and is feeling the effects of that now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
DFW is waaay to decentralized that I wouldn't call it a mega city even if it had 15M.
It would densify, not spread outward due to the Gravity Model of Migration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
DC is increasing its central density, and is changing before my eyes, but Baltimore is too much of a crutch in getting it to 10M.
The DC-Baltimore region is going to hit 10 million whether Baltimore (city) lags or rebounds. Either DC-Baltimore will merge into one MSA down the road or both will continue to grow and cross the official threshold in the next 2 decades.
They wouldn’t look and feel like a traditional mega city simply because the region would be split into two physically distinct cores rather than one.
Whether urban proponents care to admit it or not, I think it's an inevitability that metro economies will absolutely continue to become more decentralized in the post-pandemic era, even in the Northeast, and yes, even in Boston. The days of the 9-5 daily rat race, cramming into downtown office buildings, is just not seen as desirable anymore (and for good reason).
Yes, there will always be a critical mass of jobs/industry in Boston/Cambridge, particularly when it comes to life sciences where physical presence is required, but dispersion was always going to be the next phase of the knowledge economy--it was just sped up A LOT by COVID. Cities are now going to be less centers of job commerce and much more recreational commerce.
It's an era that's going to continue to wrack the brains of urban planners, and public transit ridership is going to be hardest to adapt due to lack of predictable commuting patterns, but this is new phase we're in. Better for cities to evolve sooner rather later, instead of fighting against the inevitable.
TBH this varies so much from one metro area to another that there's no pattern that fits them all.
Boston, for instance, is developed upon a core (Downtown/Cambridge)-"edgeless city" bipolar model - and lack a true secondary office cluster. Philly is somewhat similar (i.e. Center City, then it's just offices spread all over) except KOP is a fair size edge city. Then there's DC, the home of edge cities - with things being split almost equally between central core (Downtown DC, Arlington i.e. Rosslyn/Crystal City), edge city/suburban corridor (Tysons, Dulles Corridor, I-270 corridor), and "edgeless" office (basically offices that are spread all over with minor clustering).
Whether urban proponents care to admit it or not, I think it's an inevitability that metro economies will absolutely continue to become more decentralized in the post-pandemic era, even in the Northeast, and yes, even in Boston. The days of the 9-5 daily rat race, cramming into downtown office buildings, is just not seen as desirable anymore (and for good reason).
Yes, there will always be a critical mass of jobs/industry in Boston/Cambridge, particularly when it comes to life sciences where physical presence is required, but dispersion was always going to be the next phase of the knowledge economy--it was just sped up A LOT by COVID. Cities are now going to be less centers of job commerce and much more recreational commerce.
It's an era that's going to continue to wrack the brains of urban planners, and public transit ridership is going to be hardest to adapt due to lack of predictable commuting patterns, but this is new phase we're in. Better for cities to evolve sooner rather later, instead of fighting against the inevitable.
But do you have any actual data supporting that in the Boston area? Were not gaining any new area, and out CSA lost one county. Like this overarching theme is totally disrupted by the fact that Bosotn is more heavily reliant on lab space college classrooms and than office space than all but a handful of MSAs. Is there more growth in concentrated in Cambridge and Boston compared to like 2000. My guess would be- yes there is.
Just because things are a national phenomenon doesn't make it a local phenomenon...as we see time and time again in the Boston area. And if you're working from home then you're not commuting - is that expansion of the metro area? I work from home in Maryland for a company in Boston. My entire team has basically decamped from Boston because we don't have salaries that allow us to afford the COL. They're in New Jersey, Denver, Connecticut, Detroit, Alaska, Florida
TBH this varies so much from one metro area to another that there's no pattern that fits them all.
Boston, for instance, is developed upon a core (Downtown/Cambridge)-"edgeless city" bipolar model - and lack a true secondary office cluster. Philly is somewhat similar (i.e. Center City, then it's just offices spread all over) except KOP is a fair size edge city. Then there's DC, the home of edge cities - with things being split almost equally between central core (Downtown DC, Arlington i.e. Rosslyn/Crystal City), edge city/suburban corridor (Tysons, Dulles Corridor, I-270 corridor), and "edgeless" office (basically offices that are spread all over with minor clustering).
this- this is what I'm saying. Boston probably had more of a true secondary office market and was more decentralized back when Route 128 was booming and Seaport was parking lots. I don't think trends would show it is decentralizing, I think they would show the opposite. At best you'd have more people commuting to Worcester maybe? but thats a separate MSA and is accounted for in the CSA.
DC is very different. DFW is very different.
You head 2/3 miles south or north of Downtown Boston and offices just stop
The vast majority of the population growth in the Atlanta MSA is from 5 counties: Fulton, Gwinnett, Dekalb, Cobb, Forsyth, and Clayton (1,978 square miles). Outside of here, you don't see much growth.
But then you are left with less than 4.2M people. You can't have it both ways.
But do you have any actual data supporting that in the Boston area? Were not gaining any new area, and out CSA lost one county. Like this overarching theme is totally disrupted by the fact that Bosotn is more heavily reliant on lab space college classrooms and than office space than all but a handful of MSAs. Is there more growth in concentrated in Cambridge and Boston compared to like 2000. My guess would be- yes there is.
Just because things are a national phenomenon doesn't make it a local phenomenon...as we see time and time again in the Boston area. And if you're working from home then you're not commuting - is that expansion of the metro area? I work from home in Maryland for a company in Boston. My entire team has basically decamped from Boston because we don't have salaries that allow us to afford the COL. Theyre in New Jersey, Denve retc etc, Detroit, Alaska, Florida
In the 2010s there was a pretty distinct trend of Boston, NY, Philly, DC, Chicago, And Seattle outperforming their metro areas in growth while sunbelt areas had suburbs outpace the inner city.
Partially because suburbs in most of those regions are extremely NIMBY so since all the residents are moving into that region are moving to the urban sections. But also most of Dallas adds nothing compared to living in suburban Arlington while Boston is pretty fundamentally different than Lexington. People who want to live in Boston might settle for Malden but will not settle for Billerica. Cause Eastern MSA’s (and Seattle) have a very strong dichotomy than Western ones between City and suburb.
Also despite the absolute disaster the T is I think it’s recovered faster than SEPTA or the CTA so it’s something unique to Boston that is resisting decentralization
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.
