Which of these do you see as one metro area? (apartments, hotel)

[215GUY]

If LA and San diego how bout Philly and NY. My aunt use to live in South Philadephia and worked in Midtown Manhattan

[UrbanLover]

Originally Posted by 215GUY

If LA and San diego how bout Philly and NY. My aunt use to live in South Philadephia and worked in Midtown Manhattan

Philly and NYC are too far apart, about an hour and a half.

[WanderingImport]

Originally Posted by grindin

South Florida is a united unit. There is no break in development between Homestead and Jupiter. PB County has its own radio and television stations that serve PB, Indian River and Martin Counties though. Boca Raton has more ties to Ft. Lauderdale and Miami, but the further north you go, the more separate it can feel. My relatives in WPB talk about Miami as if it is on another planet. It is about 60 miles or so away so I understand, but I thought that PB County had a San Bernardino/Riverside-LA type of relationship to Miami, but it seems to be more like a Baltimore/Washington relationship.

This is true. I think from about Boca northward, its more or less the Palm Beach area, though development is continuous from Florida City to just about Jupiter.
Its interesting how Florida's most populous counties are right on top of each other. (1)Miami-Dade, (2)Broward and (3)Palm Beach... AND in that order.

[grapico]

Ummm the bay area is one metro area, you have a bay, then complete development all the way around it... how is it not? Where should they build, on the water? Or possibly in the mountains going upwards of 4000 feet. There are already 5 giant bridges going over it...

[UrbanLover]

^ The MSA does not count San Jose in with San Fran and Oakland because of distance and the long commute time. In the CSA it's included because it is in more land mass.

[kcee510]

Originally Posted by UrbanLover

^ The MSA does not count San Jose in with San Fran and Oakland because of distance and the long commute time. In the CSA it's included because it is in more land mass.

Have you ever been to the Bay Area? I believe if you have you will see that SJ is very much apart of the SF Bay Area metro.

It doesn't make sense because Fremont is included in the SF Oakland metro yet it's border is only 5-10min from SJ.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by Spade

Downtown Dallas to Downtown Fort Worth are 30 minutes apart. But the Dallas westernmost city limits to Fort Worth's easternmost city limits are as much as 10 miles apart. They both grew into each other and share basically the same things such as media markets and airport. DFW is much more of a single metro than Washington/Baltimore. There is still open land between Washington and Baltimore.

I can honestly say that I don't see much open land at all between the two. Maryland is pretty much fully urban/suburbanized from the DC border all the way to Harford county. As I drive along I-95 North to Baltimore you see suburban development almost continuously along every exit. My whole thing is that it is so hard to tell when your "leaving" one metro and entering the next. If San Jose, Ca, San Francisco, Oakland and Vallejo are all considered part of one metro area, then why wouldn't the Maryland suburbs of DC and Baltimore be apart of the same thing? Laurel, Columbia, Ft.Meade, Glen Burnie, even Annapolis to the East all have the same relative distance from each city, give or take 5 or 10 miles.

[aceplace]

The rationale behind a MSA is travel and commute patterns. If people do not travel between two areas in sufficient numbers, then those two areas are not part of the same MSA, even if there is a continuous belt of suburban development between them. In that concept, a MSA is equivalent to our general concept of "city".

In the case of SF and San Jose, the local people are not willing to travel between them to the extent required, and that splits them into two independent regions. And they are, in fact, economically and socially independent. Both San Jose and SF-Oakland could survive if they were split and seperated.

The same thing seems to apply to both Washington and Baltimore. They are independent in terms of travel/commute, and have independent economies.

In the case of Dallas-Fort Worth, FW is integrated into the Dallas metro. WE know that because 30% of the local county commutes to jobs in Dallas county. Obviously, the local people believe that it is feasible to travel between Dallas county and and Tarrant county (Fort Worth) for entertainment and jobs. If Tarrant county (Fort Worth) were to be seperated from DFW metro and moved to another part of the state, its economy would collapse. 30% of its workforce would be unemployed.

[AZLiam]

Originally Posted by CityPerson09

Austin and San Antonio are separate metro areas, but anyone who has lived around that area can talk about the development along I-35 between the metros and how it has exploded.

They are definitely still two separate metro areas. There are about 80 miles between the actual cities. If you're going to include Austin/San Antonio, you might as well include Phoenix/Tucson (99 miles), but I certainly do not see Phoenix/Tucson as one (and hope they do stay separate).

[UrbanLover]

Originally Posted by kcee510

Have you ever been to the Bay Area? I believe if you have you will see that SJ is very much apart of the SF Bay Area metro.

It doesn't make sense because Fremont is included in the SF Oakland metro yet it's border is only 5-10min from SJ.

It makes PERFECT sense to me as to why San JOse is not included in the MSA.