Northeast Megalopolis vs. California Urbanized Area's

kittyhawk28 · #1 Posted **Jan 17, 2022, 10:13 PM**

Based on 2010 Census Bureau definitions of urban areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...10_urban_areas

Thought this was an interesting visualization to show sprawl in California vs sprawl in the Northeast. However, it also demonstrates the problematic issues of how the Census Bureau defines "urbanized areas".

For example, unlike New York which retains the bulk of its contiguous urbanized area, LA and the Bay Area for some reason have the bulk of their urbanized region split into a dozen different smaller sections. For example, there was no break in development between LA-Long Beach-Anaheim and Mission-Viejo-San Clemente, Thousand Oaks, or Riverside/San Bernardino urbanized areas by 2010, bringing it ~17 million compared to NY's 19 million (if including Bridgeport). Similarly, no break in development exists between SF-Oakland and San Jose.

The way Census Bureau defines density requirements of urban areas are very lax, which favors New York's urban area to be defined much more expansively to actually include numerous disparate and noncontiguous cities and wide swathes of low-density rural areas, making New York's urban area seem much more contiguous than it actually is, in contradiction to LA, with its own respective surrounding suburban cities like Santa Clarita, Ventura, or Temecula that for strictly excluded due to the confusing way the CB defines an urban area.

The latter point demonstrates the different density profiles of each metro area that result from the Census Bureau's problematic density guidelines: that is, NY overall is less dense than LA as a whole, due to the Northeast's exurban development patterns. LA sprawl is more medium-density and contiguous, while New York's "sprawl" more disparate and more lower-density/rural as a result of including numerous lower-density rural swathes, despite the densities in their respective urban cores being the opposite.

Yuri · #2 Posted **Jan 17, 2022, 10:20 PM**

New York UA and MSA definitions have a problem as well: Bridgeport. It's clearly the same urban/metro area there and it's been the case since the 1950's or before.

kittyhawk28 · #3 Posted **Jan 17, 2022, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri

New York UA and MSA definitions have a problem as well: Bridgeport. It's clearly the same urban/metro area there and it's been the case since the 1950's or before.

Agreed with that too. Overall, I hope when the CB releases its new delineations of urban areas that they'll rectify these contradictions.

SFBruin · #4 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 11:07 AM**

To me, California isn't really a megalopolis.

It's basically the Bay Area (which may or may not be merging with parts of the Central Valley) and Southern California.

202_Cyclist · #5 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 12:58 PM**

Access magazine had an article about this back in 2010. Clearly, New York City is denser than Los Angeles but LA - Orange County is denser than the New York metro region because the latter has many low-density suburbs.

https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-...ell-us-sprawl/

JManc · #6 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 1:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin

To me, California isn't really a megalopolis.

It's basically the Bay Area (which may or may not be merging with parts of the Central Valley) and Southern California.

Yeah, LA and SF are way too far apart and don't anticipate them converging anytime soon.

kittyhawk28 · #7 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin

To me, California isn't really a megalopolis.

It's basically the Bay Area (which may or may not be merging with parts of the Central Valley) and Southern California.

LA/San Diego or the Bay Area/Sacramento are similarly merging like the Northeast though

Steely Dan · #8 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin

To me, California isn't really a megalopolis.

It's basically the Bay Area (which may or may not be merging with parts of the Central Valley) and Southern California.

Agreed.

Bos-Wash is the only thing that qualifies as a true megalopolis in our nation.

People try to make up other ones like California or the great lakes cities or the Texas triangle or whatever, but those are all pretty damn forced IMO.

MolsonExport · #9 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Agreed.

Bos-Wash is the only thing that qualifies as a true megalopolis in our nation.

People try to make up other ones like California or the great lakes cities or the Texas triangle or whatever, but those are all pretty damn forced IMO.

Agreed. And Canada hasn't a true megalopolis.
BosWash is all there is.

As for Asia...

pj3000 · #10 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

The latter point demonstrates the different density profiles of each metro area that result from the Census Bureau's problematic density guidelines: that is, NY overall is less dense than LA as a whole, due to the Northeast's exurban development patterns. LA sprawl is more medium-density and contiguous, while New York's "sprawl" more disparate and more lower-density/rural as a result of including numerous lower-density rural swathes, despite the densities in their respective urban cores being the opposite.

Density difference is not necessarily due to the "Northeast's exurban development patterns". The stage was set long before the term "exurban" was ever used.

It's due to significant differences in age and topography between the two regions. That is the root of it.

The northeast megalopolis is composed of hundreds of old, well-established, densely developed cities and towns (and populated rural areas) which, in may cases, have been around just as long as the primary major city nodes and have been economic centers in their own right for literally centuries. Less dense sprawl has connected them to the mass... simply because the terrain readily allows population to diffuse.

California is obviously a very different case (I don't think we even need to get into the age/history differences). Developable land is at a much greater premium. Valleys are going to completely fill in and be disconnected from other filled-in valleys... simply because the terrain does not readily allow population to diffuse.

iheartthed · #11 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin

To me, California isn't really a megalopolis.

It's basically the Bay Area (which may or may not be merging with parts of the Central Valley) and Southern California.

Coastal southern California is definitely a megalopolis. There is contiguous development from at least Oxnard (maybe even Santa Barbara) in the north to Tijuana. I don't really think there is a northern California megalopolis, though.

Obadno · #12 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Agreed.

Bos-Wash is the only thing that qualifies as a true megalopolis in our nation.

People try to make up other ones like California or the great lakes cities or the Texas triangle or whatever, but those are all pretty damn forced IMO.

I disagree, Socal and The Bay are for sure Megalopolis with no real space between the sprawl outside of mountain preserves.

Southern California is a nearly unbroken sprawl of 20 million people from Tijuana to Santa Barbara filling up every inch of flat (and lots of not flat) space.

Same with the bay area and now its spilling out into the central valley

Obadno · #13 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Coastal southern California is definitely a megalopolis. There is contiguous development from at least Oxnard (maybe even Santa Barbara) in the north to Tijuana. I don't really think there is a northern California megalopolis, though.

lol Hivemind

iheartthed · #14 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

lol Hivemind

Almost lol. I'm still skeptical about northern California as a megalopolis.

Crawford · #15 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

Southern California is a nearly unbroken sprawl of 20 million people from Tijuana to Santa Barbara filling up every inch of flat (and lots of not flat) space.

Same with the bay area and now its spilling out into the central valley

So what about that huge area in between? Like between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz? How is that remotely sprawl? It's more like wilderness. There's deep wilderness just a few miles south of San Jose.

Steely Dan · #16 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

I disagree, Socal and The Bay are for sure Megalopolis with no real space between the sprawl outside of mountain preserves.

I was talking about all of California, from socal up to the bay area, not being a megalopolis.

If you want to consider socal a megalopolis by itself, knock yourself out, but it diminishes the term too much in my opinion.

I stand by my original statement that Bos-Wash is the only true one in our nation.

pj3000 · #17 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

I disagree, Socal and The Bay are for sure Megalopolis with no real space between the sprawl outside of mountain preserves.

Southern California is a nearly unbroken sprawl of 20 million people from Tijuana to Santa Barbara filling up every inch of flat (and lots of not flat) space.

Same with the bay area and now its spilling out into the central valley

By "mountain preserves", are you referring to the roughly 250-300 mile linear stretch of largely unpopulated coastal rangeland?

Obadno · #18 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 4:14 PM**

Nobody would consider the entire coast of California a Megalopolis

Just so cal and I would argue the bay area on their own.

Socal has over 20 million, The bay has nearly 10 million.

If the new line is something crazy like 40 Million + then I guess by that definition sure its not.

But If we are talking about Bos-Wash there is more open undeveloped spaces between Boston and Washington than between Santa Barbara and TJ

pj3000 · #19 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

But If we are talking about Bos-Wash there is more open undeveloped spaces between Boston and Washington than between Santa Barbara and TJ

Maybe so... but you're talking about a roughly 500 mile linear stretch vs. a roughly 200 mile linear stretch... to say nothing of the width of those swaths.

Obadno · #20 Posted **Jan 20, 2022, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

Maybe so... but you're talking about a roughly 500 mile linear stretch vs. a roughly 200 mile linear stretch... to say nothing of the width of those swaths.

I was under the impression that a megalopolis was multiple connected MSA/CSA's where generally speaking there was minimal undeveloped space between.

That makes the Chicago-Milwaukee-area a Megalopolis, Southern Florida, Soon San-Antonio/Austin, Seattle-Vancouver-Tacoma (soon Portland), Ogden-salt lake-Provo etc. etc

It was less to do with population and more just to do with geography. As well China especially (but the other Asian countries) have some pretty wildly overexaggerated definitions of city districts. China wants to define the entire provinces as a city district.

Just look at the area around Hong Kong or Taiwan or Shanghai as shown on the maps above and huge swaths of those "Cities" are actually farmland.