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.
They definitely are. There is no change. Just developed urban area to more urban area. I guess it doesn't really matter. We still get stuff other places don't have, so they at least recognize the draw of people in the area.
I have called or emailed the CB before. They could explain. Putting the two together would bring Greenville’s urban population up to about 550,000 by now.
I have called or emailed the CB before. They could explain. Putting the two together would bring Greenville’s urban population up to about 550,000 by now.
Mutiny had a good explanation. Once they've designated an area as it's own urban area it doesn't change it. I'm just not really sure how Mauldin-Simpsonville got designated it's own urban area in the first place. It's definitely no different than Taylors, Greer etc. We even have Greenville transit out here.
How is Charleston a "newly designated urban area"? It's been designated as such from the beginning.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I meant re-designated I suppose, since that’s what the CB did by changing the definition and changing what qualifies as an urban area. I was speaking in terms of all urban areas having just been newly designated, not just Charleston. BTW, I find it interesting that there’s no North Charleston, Mount Pleasant, etc., newly designated urban area. That speaks to contiguity.
Mutiny had a good explanation. Once they've designated an area as it's own urban area it doesn't change it. I'm just not really sure how Mauldin-Simpsonville got designated it's own urban area in the first place. It's definitely no different than Taylors, Greer etc. We even have Greenville transit out here.
I would think that when Mauldin-Simpsonville was first designated as its own urban area, there was even less contiguity with Greenville as an urban area that there is now. Of note is that Spartanburg is its own urban area, as is Anderdon-Clemson.
So, within the Upstate’s MSAs, the CB apparently sees the developed areas as acting individually and independently of each other more so than the developed areas within the Charleston-North Charleston MSA. If we are to think anything of the just-released urban area numbers, it would seem to me that we have to see, for instance, that Greenville’s population as an independent urban area is about 56% the size of Charleston’s population as an independent urban area.
The CB did the re-designation in order to have urban versus rural funds more accurately distributed according to the urban population’s needs versus the rural population’s needs. While they were at it the re-designation provides a more accurate, more practical assessment of cities’ true population size notwithstanding city boundaries, paper towns, doughnut holes, etc.
I would think that when Mauldin-Simpsonville was first designated as its own urban area, there was even less contiguity with Greenville as an urban area that there is now. Of note is that Spartanburg is its own urban area, as is Anderdon-Clemson.
So, within the Upstate’s MSAs, the CB apparently sees the developed areas as acting individually and independently of each other more so than the developed areas within the Charleston-North Charleston MSA. If we are to think anything of the just-released urban area numbers, it would seem to me that we have to see, for instance, that Greenville’s population as an independent urban area is about 56% the size of Charleston’s population as an independent urban area.
The CB did the re-designation in order to have urban versus rural funds more accurately distributed according to the urban population’s needs versus the rural population’s needs. While they were at it the re-designation provides a more accurate, more practical assessment of cities’ true population size notwithstanding city boundaries, paper towns, doughnut holes, etc.
Anderson-Clemson and Spartanburg are different. Those areas aren't technically Greenville like Simpsonville-Mauldin is. They have some distance. Mauldin-Simpsonville doesn't. They overlap one another.
Anderson-Clemson and Spartanburg are different. Those areas aren't technically Greenville like Simpsonville-Mauldin is. They have some distance. Mauldin-Simpsonville doesn't. They overlap one another.
The Simpsonville-Mauldin-Greenville disagreement you have with the CB’s urban re-designations is where I would contact the them for an explanation.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I meant re-designated I suppose, since that’s what the CB did by changing the definition and changing what qualifies as an urban area. I was speaking in terms of all urban areas having just been newly designated, not just Charleston. BTW, I find it interesting that there’s no North Charleston, Mount Pleasant, etc., newly designated urban area. That speaks to contiguity.
The criteria for determining urban areas has changed but if a place was already designated as such previously, the new criteria doesn't make them "newly designated" nor "re-designated." That's a misuse of terminology.
And North Charleston, Mount Pleasant, etc. have always been part of Charleston's urban area, and rightfully so. There's nothing in the new criteria that would cause them to have been independently designated as their own standalone urban areas. In most other states, they'd likely be part of Charleston proper anyway.
Anderson-Clemson and Spartanburg are different. Those areas aren't technically Greenville like Simpsonville-Mauldin is. They have some distance. Mauldin-Simpsonville doesn't. They overlap one another.
After doing a little bit of digging, I found out that Mauldin-Simpsonville was designated as a separate urban area in the 2000 Census, which is when the criteria governing the delineation of urbanized areas (as well as metropolitan areas) underwent a substantial overhaul for the first time since the introduction of the concept in 1950; that's also when Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson were broken up into individual MSAs after having been considered a singular metropolitan area up until that point (Greenville and Anderson were recombined into a singular MSA after the 2010 Census).
It would seem that Mauldin-Simpsonville having been split off to become its own urbanized area represented something of a fluke, which happens occasionally given standardized application of criteria to all places across the country which obviously vary in their historic and present-day growth and development patterns.
The criteria for determining urban areas has changed but if a place was already designated as such previously, the new criteria doesn't make them "newly designated" nor "re-designated." That's a misuse of terminology.
And North Charleston, Mount Pleasant, etc. have always been part of Charleston's urban area, and rightfully so. There's nothing in the new criteria that would cause them to have been independently designated as their own standalone urban areas. In most other states, they'd likely be part of Charleston proper anyway.
Oxford:
re·des·ig·nate
/ˌrēˈdeziɡnāt/
verb
give (someone or something) a different official name, description, or title.
Word Hippo:
What is another word for redesignate?
Verb
Reclassify
recategorize reclass
reclassify regroup
reindex reassign
relabel rerank
resort retag
seslisozluk dot com:
Redefine:
restatement of the meaning of a word or phrase; act of specifying again, redesignation
The “different description” part of the definition of “redesignate” covers it. The Census Bureau changed what qualifies as urban by changing the population size that it takes to qualify. An urban area by the Census Bureau’s description of “urban area” is different now.
Anyway, no big deal as long as we know which urban areas in South Carolina are the largest, unless that was never important to SC City Data members at any time in the first place, not in 2010 or at any time.
But I figure the CB crunches the numbers for a reason. There are some municipalities/areas within MSAs that were included under the old urban area criteria that are excluded from the redesignated/redefined urban areas or under the new urban area criteria, however one wishes to say it.
I wasn’t saying that I thought Mount Pleasant and North Charleston should be their own urban areas. Summerville isn’t even its own urban area despite its distance from Charleston-North Charleston.
Last edited by Charlestondata; 12-30-2022 at 07:49 PM..
When thinking in terms of what makes a city’s true size - city boundaries, the urban area, the county or counties - of note to me is that the state’s largest estimated urban area population as of 2021 was 150,939 greater than the state’s largest county’s. I’ll go with urban area.
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.
