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.
I find it odd how such vast areas in the US can still be classed as the same metro area. Even Portsmouth & Southampton, which are 25 miles apart, but joined through a continuous urban/sub-urban sprawl are very much separate areas...
^^
Smaller country maybe?
If they are fully urbanized or sub urbanized and that they have a commuter/employment exchange rate, then I don't see why they would be classed separately. Is there a substantial green zone between the London and Portsmouth? I'm 37 miles from the city limits, but how else would we be classified other than "suburban" or at most "exurban".
Actually the criteria to be classed as a "metropolitan area" by the US/OMB is pretty detailed and specific.
Chicago and Milwaukee are almost completely urbanized but are not considered one metropolitan area, because commuter/employment exchange rates have not reached the minimum criteria yet. I think it's 25 years away....
The only thing that separates LA and San Diego is the super huge military base Camp Pendelton
As for "urbanized" areas. There is no global standard as to what criteria defines "urban" but here is a list from 2010 and a projection to 2025. For what it's worth.
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 09-11-2014 at 09:14 PM..
If they are fully urbanized or sub urbanized and that they have a commuter/employment exchange rate, then I don't see why they would be classed separately. Is there a substantial green zone between the London and Portsmouth?
Yes. All of London is surrounded by a large green belt.
Quote:
Chicago and Milwaukee are almost completely urbanized but are not considered one metropolitan area, because commuter/employment exchange rates have not reached the minimum criteria yet. I think it's 25 years away....
That would be silly, though. Since Milwaukee and Chicago have always been separate large cities. It's almost continuously populated though rather low density in spots from here all the way to NYC, almost 160 miles away. At some point, you have to draw the line and saw it's not NYC, by commute or other means.
That would be silly, though. Since Milwaukee and Chicago have always been separate large cities. It's almost continuously populated though rather low density in spots from here all the way to NYC, almost 160 miles away. At some point, you have to draw the line and saw it's not NYC, by commute or other means.
Well that's why the criteria to combine metropolitan areas involves commuter exchange rates.... The two have not reached that criteria.... City limits to city limits Chicago to Milwaukee is about 73 miles. San Bernardino to LA is about 60 miles, as is Trenton to NYC and they are in one metro area.... DC and Baltimore are in the same CSA though they are only about 30 miles apart.
Well that's why the criteria to combine metropolitan areas involves commuter exchange rates.... The two have not reached that criteria.... City limits to city limits Chicago to Milwaukee is about 73 miles. San Bernardino to LA is about 60 miles, as is Trenton to NYC and they are in one metro area.... DC and Baltimore are in the same CSA though they are only about 30 miles apart.
Baltimore and DC are two separate cities with their own suburbs, I think it's rather absurd to treat them as one unit, the CSA means just a small % of Baltimore suburbanites are commuting to DC suburbs. Trenton isn't part of the NYC metro or urban area. The area has to be outgrowth of a city's growth to count as part of a metro area.
Baltimore and DC are two separate cities with their own suburbs, I think it's rather absurd to treat them as one unit, the CSA means just a small % of Baltimore suburbanites are commuting to DC suburbs.
Well CSA is "Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area" which is what the "Bay Area" San Fran/Oakland/San Jose is, as is "Greater LA" LA/OC/IE, Boston-Worcester-Providence, Houston/Galveston, and Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington....
Quote:
Trenton isn't part of the NYC metro or urban area. The area has to be outgrowth of a city's growth to count as part of a metro area.
LA Metro is LA/OC/IE since its all interconnected with freeways that lead to Downtown LA, and its all continous gridlock.
in London's case the green belt nei mentions, seperates other cities from it, and in Chicago and milwalkee, i would consider them seperate since they both have their distinct identity and they arent "connected"
Wow. I have difficulties to get my head around it. Drive from Turku to Helsinki and you're technically in the same urban area. And while driving those almost 2 hours all you see is mountains and suburbs.
I remember the drive thru Orange county between central Los Angeles and San Juan Capistrano (towards San Diego) was long and tedious, sprawl all the way under a thick blanket of stratus clouds (june gloom).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
What's amazing is Houston looks not that much smaller than Los Angeles yet has barely over a third of the population. Is that all of Paris, including the outer burbs? And wow, the SSP link does make LA look enormous.
Atlanta was the most impressive iirc considering its population. Though it's not easy to draw the line between suburbs, exurbs and rural land compared to, say, Los Angeles. The boundary is a bound to be arbitrary, it's a huge mess of low density development.
I think the most reasonable definitions the "urban" or "urbanized" area as listed above. .
So for Chicago
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area 9,912,730
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,537,289
Urban Area 9,185,000 (2010)
Still US cities outside the central core, have low density. Chicago pound for pound spawls worse than LA (but much lower density). LA's suburbs are actually dense by US standards because of geographic restrictions (mountains). Chicago has nothing but open flat land.
I remember the drive thru Orange county between central Los Angeles and San Juan Capistrano (towards San Diego) was long and tedious, sprawl all the way under a thick blanket of stratus clouds (june gloom).
Atlanta was the most impressive iirc considering its population. Though it's not easy to draw the line between suburbs, exurbs and rural land compared to, say, Los Angeles. The boundary is a bound to be arbitrary, it's a huge mess of low density development.
And yes it includes the outer suburbs of Paris. Basically all the built-up area within Paris' urban area (2,850 km² / 1,100 sq mi).
Very interesting maps, thanks for posting these.
The low density is what I love most about Atlanta - I live just 15-20 minutes from downtown, and yet I live in a woodsy area in a large-lot subdivision, with housing costs far lower than other big cities in the US. Dense cities = high cost of living, which is why I'm so happy not to be living in place like LA, or London, etc.
We just need to relocate Atlanta about a 1000 miles north, and then it'd be absolute paradise - I'd never want to leave.
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.
