HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 10:12 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,869
there goes the theory that LA wasnt growing. 500,000 more than the nearest other metro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 10:36 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
Yep...LA way out in front then a big clump with Atlanta, Dallas and Houston next in line...
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 11:01 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,173
Some other changes since last year- it looks like both Charlotte and Sacramento have passed Cincinnati.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 1:22 AM
tocoto tocoto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 361
From the numbers on your list it seems Boston should be #5.

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 1:33 AM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
whoa nellie Tocoto! You're right! I'll go back and edit!! I was cutting and pasting from census spreadsheets, and made a careless error!
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 3:33 AM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
I just noticed that I got moved again. Would a moderator please explain why this was moved from "City Discussions" to what I would presume it a far less viewed area of the forum, "United States"? After all, this thread, which lists the census bureau CSA population estimates, is fostering discussions about cities. I've only been in this forum for a little over a year, and I really would like an explanation. Is there some reason why it can't remain in "city discussions"? If so, what is it?
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 5:46 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles
Posts: 4,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by vertex View Post
I'm betting it won't. Judging by trends in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division of the MSA (it actually shrank so far this decade), along with the build-out in Orange county, the only place left for rampant growth is inland.

And judging by the quality-of-life problems already present for folks living inland, I think more people will simply vote with their feet and move on.
Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 5:58 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles
Posts: 4,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
I just noticed that I got moved again. Would a moderator please explain why this was moved from "City Discussions" to what I would presume it a far less viewed area of the forum, "United States"? After all, this thread, which lists the census bureau CSA population estimates, is fostering discussions about cities. I've only been in this forum for a little over a year, and I really would like an explanation. Is there some reason why it can't remain in "city discussions"? If so, what is it?
Well it seems to fit with all the other threads in this US Regional section.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 7:45 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,719
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:
  • Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
  • Dallas - 12,360 mi²
  • New York City - 11,842 mi²
  • Houston - 10,908 mi²
  • Chicago - 10,874 mi²
  • Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
  • Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
  • Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
  • St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
  • Denver - 9,085 mi²
  • San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
  • Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
  • Boston - 7,227 mi²
  • Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
  • Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
  • Detroit - 5,847 mi²
  • Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
  • Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
  • Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
  • Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
  • Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 7:52 AM
vertex's Avatar
vertex vertex is offline
under the influence...
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by dktshb View Post
Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.
you're right, I read it wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 12:28 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
One post up...LMich...thanks for posting that. I've said several times in this forum that, while enormous, Atlanta's land area is really not out of line with several other of the nation's largest metros, in particular other sunbelt sprawlers. This is not meant to minimize Atlanta's jaw-dropping sprawl, but it is meant to point out that the area is sometimes unfairly singled out, since there's really comparable sprawl in many other areas.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 2:19 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 3,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:
  • Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
  • Dallas - 12,360 mi²
  • New York City - 11,842 mi²
  • Houston - 10,908 mi²
  • Chicago - 10,874 mi²
  • Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
  • Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
  • Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
  • St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
  • Denver - 9,085 mi²
  • San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
  • Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
  • Boston - 7,227 mi²
  • Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
  • Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
  • Detroit - 5,847 mi²
  • Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
  • Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
  • Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
  • Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
  • Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.
Wow. Miami really is the oddball of the sunbelt with its density. Check out the extents of the 4 major metros (all with relatively equal population):
  • Dallas - 12,360 mi²
  • Houston - 10,908 mi²
  • Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
  • Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 3:03 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
Yeah, Dave, if Miami was able to sprawl like that, rest assurred, it would, but it can't, because of the Everglades.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 3:40 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
The City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacTownAndy View Post
Some other changes since last year- it looks like both Charlotte and Sacramento have passed Cincinnati.
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032


It's amazing that even with a cool housing market Sacramento still jumped from #26 to #22, adding 269,032 people..

Although it looks like the housing market is finally starting to recover, with new homes sales jumping by 10% in the 1st quarter of '07 accoridng to the Business Journal...
__________________
“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”~~Theodor Seuss Geisel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 6:36 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 3,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
Yeah, Dave, if Miami was able to sprawl like that, rest assurred, it would, but it can't, because of the Everglades.
Actually the 5000 sq mile area includes a good chunk of the Everglades. I'd say well over half of the area listed as Miami's metro in unihabited and uninhabitable (less than 30% of Miami-Dade's ~2000 sqmiles are inhabited for example). So the populated portion of Miami's metro is closer to 2000 sq miles than 5000 sqmiles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 6:48 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
Actually the 5000 sq mile area includes a good chunk of the Everglades. I'd say well over half of the area listed as Miami's metro in unihabited and uninhabitable (less than 30% of Miami-Dade's ~2000 sqmiles are inhabited for example). So the populated portion of Miami's metro is closer to 2000 sq miles than 5000 sqmiles.
Oh, I know Dave. My point is that Miami is only able to sprawl north and south, which it most certainly is doing, and can't go east or west due to the ocean and the Everglades. 75% of metro Atlanta's 5.5 million people live in the core five or six counties (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, etc), not the other 20+ that comprise the MSA and CSA. Of course I realize that central Miami is far more dense than central Atlanta.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 7:01 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032


It's amazing that even with a cool housing market Sacramento still jumped from #26 to #22, adding 269,032 people..

Although it looks like the housing market is finally starting to recover, with new homes sales jumping by 10% in the 1st quarter of '07 accoridng to the Business Journal...

Zowie!! I have to admit I'm not familiar with the area, but those towns following Sacremento caught my eye, so I pulled up microsoft streets and started looking around. Truckee is 100 miles from downtown Sacramento! That's part of the same metro?
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 8:38 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,046
It has been for a few years now. It's not really a big deal since Truckee is a small mountain town of only 10-15k people. The census bureau believes that Truckee and some town in NV near Carson City are more tied to Sacramento than Reno, but I don't know if I feel that way. Probably doesn't matter though cause I'm sure Sacramento and Reno will be combined in the next 20 years, if not sooner.

Another question; have they included Stockton and/or Modesto in the Bay Area yet, or will that not happen for a while?
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 9:42 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,026
The short answer is "no".

The long answer is, here's what the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area is. It's a combination of:

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Napa County, CA

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division
Alameda County, CA
Contra Costa County, CA

San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division
Marin County, CA
San Francisco County, CA
San Mateo County, CA


San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
San Benito County, CA
Santa Clara County, CA


Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Santa Cruz County, CA

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Sonoma County, CA

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Solano County, CA
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 9:53 PM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:
  • Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²
  • Dallas - 12,360 mi²
  • New York City - 11,842 mi²
  • Houston - 10,908 mi²
  • Chicago - 10,874 mi²
  • Atlanta - 10,429 mi²
  • Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²
  • Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²
  • St. Louis - 9,102 mi²
  • Denver - 9,085 mi²
  • San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²
  • Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²
  • Boston - 7,227 mi²
  • Sacramento - 6,784 mi²
  • Charlotte - 6,493 mi²
  • Detroit - 5,847 mi²
  • Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²
  • Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)
  • Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²
  • Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²
  • Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.
Like I said before, if you superimpose the land mass the constitutes metropolitan Dallas or Atlanta, over places like Detroit and Boston, the Detroit and Boston totals would shoot up by nearly a million folks. Thus, you really have just as many folks living in a given area but are simply not being counted due to the formula used to calculate totals. Hence, it’s not a true comparison.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me the practical functionality of these figures? I know that in regards to cities, money is often allocated from the State based upon the size of the city. I am wondering just how much politics is involved in these rankings given that the methodology is born from the federal governments Office of Management and Budget I believe.

I think a better methodology is to simply do a 100-mile radius from every core city and do a head count. The problem with that methodology, of course, is that the circle would truncate part of county totals and thus there would be no way to isolate and count the portion that intersects with the circle. However, a given radius would give a much better indication of how populated an area is than the methodology of commuting patterns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.