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.
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.
At most, you could speak of a redesignation of what statistically constitutes an urban area at base level under newly revised criteria, but that doesn't translate into individual redesignations of each urban area. If it was previously considered an urban area known by the same name, then there's no redesignation occurring. It simply retains the same designation with the new criteria in place.
As far as I can tell, the only urban area in SC that was actually redesignated is Anderson's which is officially now Anderson-Clemson.
Quote:
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.
And those places aren't even thought of as "urban" anyway, generally speaking. A hamlet with 3500 residents that lost its urban designation under the new criteria which raises the population threshold for urban places from 2500 to 5000 has only lost access to certain sources of federal government funding; no one fundamentally thinks of it as a different place after the change in criteria was implemented.
Quote:
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.
Summerville would have more of a case for an individual designation as an urban area because of its distance from Charleston which you rightfully mention, but then you must consider that its distance from Charleston is ironically a feature of its historically close association with Charleston as the closest inland location suitable as a summer retreat. It was essentially established as an outpost of Charleston at the outset which explains its inclusion within Summerville's urban area.
Plus in most other states, North Charleston, which immediately borders Summerville, would have simply been northern Charleston instead of a suburban municipality rivaling its southern namesake in population and economic growth and development.
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.
Go with it for what? It doesn't change anything by you going with it. The people bringing in business seem to be more realistic than everyone else when it comes to numbers.
At most, you could speak of a redesignation of what statistically constitutes an urban area at base level under newly revised criteria, but that doesn't translate into individual redesignations of each urban area. If it was previously considered an urban area known by the same name, then there's no redesignation occurring. It simply retains the same designation with the new criteria in place.
As far as I can tell, the only urban area in SC that was actually redesignated is Anderson's which is officially now Anderson-Clemson.
And those places aren't even thought of as "urban" anyway, generally speaking. A hamlet with 3500 residents that lost its urban designation under the new criteria which raises the population threshold for urban places from 2500 to 5000 has only lost access to certain sources of federal government funding; no one fundamentally thinks of it as a different place after the change in criteria was implemented.
Summerville would have more of a case for an individual designation as an urban area because of its distance from Charleston which you rightfully mention, but then you must consider that its distance from Charleston is ironically a feature of its historically close association with Charleston as the closest inland location suitable as a summer retreat. It was essentially established as an outpost of Charleston at the outset which explains its inclusion within Summerville's urban area.
Plus in most other states, North Charleston, which immediately borders Summerville, would have simply been northern Charleston instead of a suburban municipality rivaling its southern namesake in population and economic growth and development.
Forgive my loose interpretation and terminology. It seems to me, then, that what has happened is, whereas Charleston and Columbia’s urban areas were neck and neck in 2010, with Columbia holding a slight edge, Charleston’s urban area has pulled ahead of Columbia’s by 94,000+ people on growth alone, not by redefinition or redesignation. Interesting. Or am I wrong about that too? And I care even if no one else does.
Go with it for what? It doesn't change anything by you going with it. The people bringing in business seem to be more realistic than everyone else when it comes to numbers.
Go with it for fun at least? But it goes back to business execs using phrases such as “the largest city in the state” and “the state’s primary urban area” and so forth as reasons they sometimes cite when telling business journalists why they chose to locate where they chose. And I have read enough of those phrases in the many, many business news articles I’ve read to either believe that there’s something to it or that the business execs just like to fluff up such articles to make at least some locals feel good. Just having a little fun with the new numbers.
Forgive my loose interpretation and terminology. It seems to me, then, that what has happened is, whereas Charleston and Columbia’s urban areas were neck and neck in 2010, with Columbia holding a slight edge, Charleston’s urban area has pulled ahead of Columbia’s by 94,000+ people on growth alone, not by redefinition or redesignation. Interesting. Or am I wrong about that too? And I care even if no one else does.
Yes that is absolutely correct. And that makes perfect sense given Charleston's accelerated growth over the previous decade which resulted in the city of Charleston reclaiming its status as the state's largest municipality and the shrinking gap between it and Columbia's MSA population. As a matter of fact, urbanized area population estimates were released for 2014 which showed Charleston's (599K) had already pulled ahead of Columbia's (578K).
Go with it for fun at least? But it goes back to business execs using phrases such as “the largest city in the state” and “the state’s primary urban area” and so forth as reasons they sometimes cite when telling business journalists why they chose to locate where they chose. And I have read enough of those phrases in the many, many business news articles I’ve read to either believe that there’s something to it or that the business execs just like to fluff up such articles to make at least some locals feel good. Just having a little fun with the new numbers.
If you think this matters. Why does Greenville tend to get things first and is the only city in the state to have some of these things? Example, Greenville has the only Cheesecake Factory in SC. And it got things like Dave and Busters, Top Golf, etc first. In business we're more likely to use metro area when setting up shop. Based on your theory Greenville should be last in amenities. It isn't. I can argue that it's first.
If you think this matters. Why does Greenville tend to get things first and is the only city in the state to have some of these things? Example, Greenville has the only Cheesecake Factory in SC. And it got things like Dave and Busters, Top Golf, etc first. In business we're more likely to use metro area when setting up shop. Based on your theory Greenville should be last in amenities. It isn't. I can argue that it's first.
Greenville is actually another similar example, except the reference is to the state's largest metropolitan area (which it shares with neighboring cities). That's why it isn't uncommon for Greenville, or the Upstate overall, to land the first location of a major national retailer, restaurant, etc in SC.
I agree with Charlestondata that urban area is the best singular measure for gauging the size of a "city" (which typically includes close-in suburbs). However metropolitan area is best for larger regions with more extensive economic and commercial ties, or labor markets.
If you think this matters. Why does Greenville tend to get things first and is the only city in the state to have some of these things? Example, Greenville has the only Cheesecake Factory in SC. And it got things like Dave and Busters, Top Golf, etc first. In business we're more likely to use metro area when setting up shop. Based on your theory Greenville should be last in amenities. It isn't. I can argue that it's first.
There may be many factors. Cost of land, cost of labor, city regulations, expendable income, etc. Simple population may contribute as much as you think.
There may be many factors. Cost of land, cost of labor, city regulations, expendable income, etc. Simple population may contribute as much as you think.
Yes but on the metropolitan level since retail and restaurants are reliant on the population of the larger catchment area or consumer market. Municipal and urban area boundaries mean less in that context.
Yes that is absolutely correct. And that makes perfect sense given Charleston's accelerated growth over the previous decade which resulted in the city of Charleston reclaiming its status as the state's largest municipality and the shrinking gap between it and Columbia's MSA population. As a matter of fact, urbanized area population estimates were released for 2014 which showed Charleston's (599K) had already pulled ahead of Columbia's (578K).
I missed that. I have been waiting all this time. I don’t remember seeing it posted on City Data or elsewhere. I could have chilled in 2014, before I even moved here. Thanks.
Last edited by Yac; 01-09-2023 at 03:20 AM..
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.
