Shouldn't Milwaukee & Madison WI metro areas be included in the CMSA of Chicagoland?

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by alex1

i lived in new haven for 2 years. There are huge areas of land between the areas that you have mapped out that are either:

1. under developed or
2. undeveloped

I didn't map that out. That is a map of the urban areas stretching from New York to Springfield created by the Census Bureau. It was delineated using a strict, methodical process that is standard across the entire United States. It isn't based on how someone "feels", and contrary to what many people think, urban areas are delineated based solely on population density and NOT the actual built environment. In a nutshell the pink areas represent every Census Block Group (smaller than 2 sq. mi.) with a population density of 500 ppsm or greater in addition to adjacent Census Blocks with densities of 500 ppsm or greater. As you can clearly see in the first map, the area stretching from New York to Hartford is interconnected when it comes to contiguous Blocks and Block Groups with densities of 500 ppsm or greater. In other words, you can travel from New York to Springfield without ever technically leaving what the Census Bureau defines as an urban area. There are reasons why the contiguous Blocks and Block Groups are then broken up, but that process is a bit more detailed.

I'm not saying that you have to believe that the stretch between New York and Springfield is one completely developed individual city where everyone has the same civic identity. (In fact, I'm not sure why you think I believe that.) All that I'm saying is that when the Census Bureau went and applied its standardized method for creating urban areas, that stretch just happened to be highly interconnected.

Originally Posted by alex1

it shouldn't and I agree with you but I do think you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not sure what you think I'm comparing... I'm comparing Census-defined urban areas and how interconnected they can be without being considered one individual urban area. My point is that because the stretch from New York to Hartford isn't one urban area, the stretch between Chicago and Milwaukee has absolutely no chance of being recognized as one individual urban area. Urban areas are about as close as you can get to an "apples to apples" comparison.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Well when those "tons of daily commuters" become 25% of the total commuters population, they you may have a discussion. But, don't see that ever happening. I don't think the current transportation system(Amtrak) could even handle that volume once you convert that 25% into number of people.

not so fast -- thats just the part A definition. it far surpasses the part B definition. wall st money fuels dc. but then again technically that would also make the whole country a wall st cbsa.

(a) at least 25 percent of the employed residents of the county work in the CBSA�s central county or counties, or (b) at least 25 percent of the jobs in the potential outlying county are accounted for by workers who reside in the CBSA

[alex1]

Originally Posted by hudkina

I didn't map that out. That is a map of the urban areas stretching from New York to Springfield created by the Census Bureau. It was delineated using a strict, methodical process that is standard across the entire United States. It isn't based on how someone "feels", and contrary to what many people think, urban areas are delineated based solely on population density and NOT the actual built environment. In a nutshell the pink areas represent every Census Block Group (smaller than 2 sq. mi.) with a population density of 500 ppsm or greater in addition to adjacent Census Blocks with densities of 500 ppsm or greater. As you can clearly see in the first map, the area stretching from New York to Hartford is interconnected when it comes to contiguous Blocks and Block Groups with densities of 500 ppsm or greater. In other words, you can travel from New York to Springfield without ever technically leaving what the Census Bureau defines as an urban area. There are reasons why the contiguous Blocks and Block Groups are then broken up, but that process is a bit more detailed.

I'm not saying that you have to believe that the stretch between New York and Springfield is one completely developed individual city where everyone has the same civic identity. (In fact, I'm not sure why you think I believe that.) All that I'm saying is that when the Census Bureau went and applied its standardized method for creating urban areas, that stretch just happened to be highly interconnected.





I'm not sure what you think I'm comparing... I'm comparing Census-defined urban areas and how interconnected they can be without being considered one individual urban area. My point is that because the stretch from New York to Hartford isn't one urban area, the stretch between Chicago and Milwaukee has absolutely no chance of being recognized as one individual urban area. Urban areas are about as close as you can get to an "apples to apples" comparison.

they aren't the same thing. New England was developed very differently from the rest of the country. The reason you see higher densities over larger tracts of land has much to do with Puritan settlement behaviors. They placed a large emphasis in keeping many small towns scattered about over creating large urban centers.

Also, I doubt many people who aren't over-zealous would disagree that the census way of defining metros isn't a bit screwed up. Surely, certain regions contain cities/metros that begin to blur boundaries, which sometimes can't be easily defined or delineated. I think we both agree on this point. We'll just have to disagree on the "why?".

Obviously, regions are interconnected. Few would argue that but I would argue that Hartford and New York aren't as interconnected as you would believe.

[alex1]

the idea of continuous 500 ppsm as some kind of barometer for metro connectivity is sort of interesting. Japan as a whole, or at least much of its southern two islands would certainly fit this criteria. All you need to do is either follow a road, the coast or a river from Nasushiobara (north) to Yatsushiro (south).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by alex1

they aren't the same thing.

No, they are the exact same thing.

Census tracts across the nation are an apples-to-apples comparison. The U.S. Census applies the exact same methodology.

Originally Posted by alex1

New England was developed very differently from the rest of the country.

Maybe, but irrelevent. The CMSA under discussion does not involve "the rest of the country", but neighboring states in the Northeast, none of which developed "very differently" from one another.

Originally Posted by alex1

The reason you see higher densities over larger tracts of land has much to do with Puritan settlement behaviors. They placed a large emphasis in keeping many small towns scattered about over creating large urban centers.

Again, maybe, but irrelevent. Southwest CT was never settled by Puritans, and has no different settlement patterns than the other parts of the CMSA.

Southwest CT, now the dominant population and economic center of the state, was a backwater until one of the Rockefellers moved to Greenwich in protest of a new tax across the state border.

And what you're describing applies to the entire Eastern United States. Only the American West lacks the "many small towns scattered about" settlement phenomenon. It's hardly a New England phenomenon. Go to (for example) Ohio, Georgia or Wisconsin.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by alex1

the idea of continuous 500 ppsm as some kind of barometer for metro connectivity is sort of interesting.

But it isn't a barometer for metro connectivity. The Census makes no such claims.

As for Japan, there is no way the entire country would be a single urban area using U.S. Census definitions. The vast majority of Japan is mountainous and unpopulated. Japan is mostly empty.

Better examples would be Central Mexico, parts of Western Europe, and certain urban agglomerations in China and India.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by alex1

they aren't the same thing. New England was developed very differently from the rest of the country. The reason you see higher densities over larger tracts of land has much to do with Puritan settlement behaviors. They placed a large emphasis in keeping many small towns scattered about over creating large urban centers.

Also, I doubt many people who aren't over-zealous would disagree that the census way of defining metros isn't a bit screwed up. Surely, certain regions contain cities/metros that begin to blur boundaries, which sometimes can't be easily defined or delineated. I think we both agree on this point. We'll just have to disagree on the "why?".

Obviously, regions are interconnected. Few would argue that but I would argue that Hartford and New York aren't as interconnected as you would believe.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on... All that I said was when the U.S. Census Bureau applied a uniform methodology to every square meter of the United States to create the closest thing to an "apples to apples" comparison of urban areas, it just so happened that many of the urban areas in the highly urbanized Northeastern corridor blended together.

Do I agree with the U.S. methodolgy for creating urban areas? No. In fact, there are PLENTY of things I would do differently. My point has NEVER been to say that the stretch from New York to Hartford is one large city simply because the Census-defined urban areas blend together. I agree that Hartford is Hartford and New Haven is New Haven, etc.

My point in even bringing it up was to show just how urbanized an area can become while still maintaining separate urban areas. My point was to show that the Milwaukee to Chicago corridor, though heavily urbanized, will never be delineated as a single urban area by the Census Bureau.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by alex1

the idea of continuous 500 ppsm as some kind of barometer for metro connectivity is sort of interesting. Japan as a whole, or at least much of its southern two islands would certainly fit this criteria. All you need to do is either follow a road, the coast or a river from Nasushiobara (north) to Yatsushiro (south).

Keep in mind that it's based on block groups that are less than 2 sq. mi. in area. Once you start getting into more rural areas, block groups tend to grow in size. Once you start getting into the rural areas you have to rely more on blocks, which are much harder to merge together. While an area might collectively have a density much higher than 500 ppsm, the truth is that much of that density is derived from the urban core.

Also, remember, that just because urbanity connects along certain corridors, doesn't mean that they would be defined as one single urbanized area. Take San Francisco/San Jose or Greenwhich/Port Chester as examples. Driving down Putnam Ave between Port Chester and Greenwhich, one wouldn't notice that they are traveling between Census-defined urban areas. The same is true driving along El Camino Real between Palo Alto (San Francisco) and Mountain View (San Jose). There's absolutely nothing to show that you are traveling between census-defined urban areas. That's because the Census Bureau has a way of keeping larger urban areas that blend together separate.

In that sense, there's little chance that applying the methods used by the Census Bureau to Japan would amass one large urban area...

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But it isn't a barometer for metro connectivity. The Census makes no such claims.

As for Japan, there is no way the entire country would be a single urban area using U.S. Census definitions. The vast majority of Japan is mountainous and unpopulated. Japan is mostly empty.

Better examples would be Central Mexico, parts of Western Europe, and certain urban agglomerations in China and India.

I never mentioned that the census made that claim. And regarding Japan, if you look at detailed density maps or just a google map is by and large interconnected from northern Tokyo to the Southern Island. With the exception of a few miles here and there of farms/green space.

And Bangladesh would also be another example.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by hudkina

In that sense, there's little chance that applying the methods used by the Census Bureau to Japan would amass one large urban area...

It probably wouldn't, but there are only a few points where there is more then a 2-3 mile break between population centers.

Obviously, seeing how populated Japan is, this isn't much of a surprise.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, they are the exact same thing.

Census tracts across the nation are an apples-to-apples comparison. The U.S. Census applies the exact same methodology.


Maybe, but irrelevent. The CMSA under discussion does not involve "the rest of the country", but neighboring states in the Northeast, none of which developed "very differently" from one another.

Again, maybe, but irrelevent. Southwest CT was never settled by Puritans, and has no different settlement patterns than the other parts of the CMSA.

Southwest CT, now the dominant population and economic center of the state, was a backwater until one of the Rockefellers moved to Greenwich in protest of a new tax across the state border.

And what you're describing applies to the entire Eastern United States. Only the American West lacks the "many small towns scattered about" settlement phenomenon. It's hardly a New England phenomenon. Go to (for example) Ohio, Georgia or Wisconsin.

SW CT was settled by Puritans. Some of the bigger towns/cities weren't, which is no surprise. and NE was settled different due to religious beliefs of towns and cities. but anyways...

[liat91]

Milwaukee and Madison are a long long way from ever joining the Chicago CSA. In the near future, maybe Walworth county, WI and La Salle, IL might be added.

[jpIllInoIs]

Way too soon for Madison or Milw to be part of the Chicago CSA. Only recently Dekalb and Kankakee counties and I think LaPort, IN. were added to Chicago CSA. Right now Rockford is its own MSA and is part of the Rockford-Freeport-Rochelle CSA. I think that Rockford and Beloit will combine soon. Also to the east-South Bend, IN and Niles, MI could join the Chicago CSA in the next decade.