Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-18-2014, 09:12 PM
 
4,692 posts, read 9,308,766 times
Reputation: 1330

Advertisements

I'm so sorry but I have to get this out of my system but has anybody noticed that the MetroMonitor is still not using the new MSA delineation? See the map below
Attached Thumbnails
Brookings Institute and the MetroMonitor-image.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2014, 01:29 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,972,199 times
Reputation: 8436
Yes, this doesn't happen often, it's a once a decade realignment of definitions.

I think it's unfair to assume every department and agency will convert on over to the new definitions when they've been so accustomed to the old ones as is. In fact, is there anywhere that actually gained anything in it's MSA with the new definitions? Among the top twelve metropolitan statistical areas, I can only think of two that even gained anything in the MSA this go around.

Dallas-Fort Worth MSA and Washington DC MSA both gained a micopolitan area (a county) of about 40,000-60,000 in their MSA's that were in their CSA's before. Then both added areas into their CSA's.

It's all sort of pointless as is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 09:10 PM
 
4,692 posts, read 9,308,766 times
Reputation: 1330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
Yes, this doesn't happen often, it's a once a decade realignment of definitions.

I think it's unfair to assume every department and agency will convert on over to the new definitions when they've been so accustomed to the old ones as is. In fact, is there anywhere that actually gained anything in it's MSA with the new definitions? Among the top twelve metropolitan statistical areas, I can only think of two that even gained anything in the MSA this go around.

Dallas-Fort Worth MSA and Washington DC MSA both gained a micopolitan area (a county) of about 40,000-60,000 in their MSA's that were in their CSA's before. Then both added areas into their CSA's.

It's all sort of pointless as is.
The top 100 areas may be different. There may not be much change among the top 12 but there are more metropolitan areas than the top 12. In fact about 20 more metropolitan areas were created. I do see your point about being nitpicky. Perhaps I am. But I'm just wondering when the Brookings Institute will catch up to the census bureau. On c/d we do often look for credible sources of information, Brookings is one of the best but using outdated delineation does bring a point of contention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 12:16 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,972,199 times
Reputation: 8436
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215 View Post
The top 100 areas may be different. There may not be much change among the top 12 but there are more metropolitan areas than the top 12. In fact about 20 more metropolitan areas were created. I do see your point about being nitpicky. Perhaps I am. But I'm just wondering when the Brookings Institute will catch up to the census bureau. On c/d we do often look for credible sources of information, Brookings is one of the best but using outdated delineation does bring a point of contention.
It's not Brookings' responsibility to hire someone with the specific job of realigning metropolitan definitions when the most viewed markets, the large ones, haven't made any significant gains. I mean all the way up to the top 20-25, no significant changes.

Good enough for this viewer. Keep the status quo, why fix what just isn't broken?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 10:56 PM
 
4,692 posts, read 9,308,766 times
Reputation: 1330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
It's not Brookings' responsibility to hire someone with the specific job of realigning metropolitan definitions when the most viewed markets, the large ones, haven't made any significant gains. I mean all the way up to the top 20-25, no significant changes.

Good enough for this viewer. Keep the status quo, why fix what just isn't broken?
The problem is, for Brookings to be as reputable as it is bit to use outdated definitions makes the claims less reputable. You might have a point if something put out by Brookings only included the top 20. But if there is report claiming to be about the top 100, and the top 100 may not be the same with this delineation in 2013 as it was pre-2010, then it's hard to accept the report as accurate. Also, the top 20, 25 have actually changed with the post 2013 delineation from the pre-2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top