Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket
Looks like the poll is split fairly evenly. I think it might be due to differing personal definitions of what a megalopolis is. Is there even an official definition? To me, it implies that there is one great, dominant central city that all the other smaller cities and towns depend on. Basically a MSA or CSA.
That being said, I don't think LA-SD fits this. I've always thought of them as being their own thing. I don't think SD relies on LA economically the same way as Long Beach or Riverside might. Just because the fringes of SD's metro have sprawled all the way to nearly meet the fringe sprawl of LA's metro doesn't turn it into a megalopolis, IMO.
Likewise, I wouldn't call SF-Sacramento a megalopolis either just because of developments in Vacaville, Dixon, and Davis connecting them.
|
I agree with you; to me, a "megalopolis" implies that a huge region functions as one, and it's common for people to zip around from one end of it to the other. Like I said in an earlier post, LA and San Diego don't really depend on each other economically; each is its own entity.
And I totally agree with you in regards to SF and Sacramento; I'm glad you brought it up. In recent years, I've encountered people who live in the Sacramento area who consider themselves to be part of the Bay Area. I'm like "Whaaat??" I guess there might be super-commuters who commute from Sacramento to SF, or at least from Sac to somewhere in the Bay Area?
I know that Tracy has grown into a bedroom community, and some people in Tracy say they are part of the Bay Area, even though Tracy is closer to Modesto than it is to SF, or even the San Francisco Bay. What are your thoughts,
homebucket, regarding this?