Worldwide Demographics

[tech12]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's kind of like the (San Francisco) Bay Area. Strictly speaking, it's not an actual metro area (it's two, SF and San Jose) but for all intents and purposes, it acts as one.

It's actually made up of 5 metro areas:

SF/Oakland (SF, Alameda, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Marin counties)
SJ (Santa Clara, San Benito counties)
Vallejo (Solano county)
Santa Rosa (Sonoma county)
Napa (Napa county)

Basically, census methodology doesn't work well with polycentric cities where development is broken up by terrain. It measures commuters well, but doesn't do a good job describing the actual extent of "the city". Those 5 metros share a common identity as part of the "Bay Area", share public transit, media markets, infrastructure, culture, etc, and in the case of SF/Oakland and SJ, are also connected by unbroken development, on both sides of the bay...but the census keeps trying to tell us that it's actually 5 separate metro areas lol. If you live in the Vallejo or Santa Rosa or Napa MSAs, you understand that you're living in a suburban area of SF/Oakland/SJ (same deal in suburban parts of the SF/Oakland MSA in relation to SJ, and suburban parts of the SJ MSA in relation to SF/Oakland), or at least that you're well inside the sphere of influence of the Bay Area, if you live way out at the far edge of those counties.

The CSA adds four more metros, but they're not traditionally part of the Bay Area and have more of their own identity:

Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz county)
Stockton (San Joaquin county)
Modesto (Stanislaus county)
Merced (Merced county)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by tech12

It's actually made up of 5 metro areas:

SF/Oakland (SF, Alameda, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Marin counties)
SJ (Santa Clara, San Benito counties)
Vallejo (Solano county)
Santa Rosa (Sonoma county)
Napa (Napa county)

Basically, census methodology doesn't work well with polycentric cities where development is broken up by terrain. It measures commuters well, but doesn't do a good job describing the actual extent of "the city". Those 5 metros share a common identity as part of the "Bay Area", share public transit, media markets, infrastructure, culture, etc, and in the case of SF/Oakland and SJ, are also connected by unbroken development, on both sides of the bay...but the census keeps trying to tell us that it's actually 5 separate metro areas lol. If you live in the Vallejo or Santa Rosa or Napa MSAs, you understand that you're living in a suburban area of SF/Oakland/SJ (same deal in suburban parts of the SF/Oakland MSA in relation to SJ, and suburban parts of the SJ MSA in relation to SF/Oakland), or at least that you're well inside the sphere of influence of the Bay Area, if you live way out at the far edge of those counties.

The CSA adds four more metros, but they're not traditionally part of the Bay Area and have more of their own identity:

Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz county)
Stockton (San Joaquin county)
Modesto (Stanislaus county)
Merced (Merced county)

Interesting. I always assumed these three were just the Wine Country and their own thing but yeah:

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

Interesting. I always assumed these three were just the Wine Country and their own thing but yeah:

That’s exactly the definition I used for San Francisco I those lists. I find the MSA too strict and the current CSA too broad.

This 9-County definition (8 million inh.) is the best one for San Francisco.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That's fine.

But 12,000 sq. miles is not a "city" or a metro area, that's a region, and those are just less interesting to me because I'm a "city" person.

That is part of the disconnect when people use these vastly inflated areas and/or population figures in the context of a city. Most of these areas, including within the same urban area have a poor relationship with their core city. There simply isn’t the infrastructure nor demand for the level of interaction.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by nito

That is part of the disconnect when people use these vastly inflated areas and/or population figures in the context of a city. Most of these areas, including within the same urban area have a poor relationship with their core city. There simply isn’t the infrastructure nor demand for the level of interaction.

yep. and it all stems from the US CB's wacky county mash-up game.

people in other countries see these utterly massive land areas for US MSAs/CSAs and think, "my god, US metro areas are so fucking big, if my city's metro area included over 10,000 sq. miles we'd have a bazillion people too".

except that in many cases (and chicago is a prime example) the CB gloms on these massive rural cornfield counties to the MSA/CSA because they are so damn low in population that even if a couple hundred super-commuters who live out in the sticks commute into the core counties for employment, boom, they pass the very low commuter percentage threshold even though those areas really have fuck-all to do with "chicago".


and a lot of this also comes down to the very arbitrary process of where the lines are drawn. i could draw a 12,000 sq. mile blob of land from South Bend, IN over to Madison, WI, hugging the bottom of lake michigan, and call it the "Greater Platinum Jockstrap" (lake michigan kinda looks like a schlong). it would roughly contain some 13.5M people, and we could all jump up and down with excitement about the fact that "chicagoland" is approaching 15M people, OMG!!! but it would all just be made-up bullshit.

[Crawford]

U.S. metros are vastly larger than other global metros, however. Atlanta is a much bigger metro than Tokyo.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

U.S. metros are vastly larger than other global metros, however. Atlanta is a much bigger metro than Tokyo.

Isn't Atlanta an outlier? It's a ridiculously large urban land area even by U.S. standards. According to Wikipedia, it's only second to NYC.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Isn't Atlanta an outlier? It's a ridiculously large urban land area even by U.S. standards. According to Wikipedia, it's only second to NYC.

In a sense, all US urban areas are outliers when compared to peers around the world. The density goes from 600 inh/km2 (Atlanta) to 2,300 inh/km2 (Los Angeles). Elsewhere, the least dense urban areas start at Los Angeles levels.

For comparison, Netherlands density is at 500 inh/km2, just below Atlanta urban area. And it's not like the Dutch have any super dense urban districts pushing their density up.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

In a sense, all US urban areas are outliers when compared to peers around the world. The density goes from 600 inh/km2 (Atlanta) to 2,300 inh/km2 (Los Angeles). Elsewhere, the least dense urban areas start at Los Angeles levels.

For comparison, Netherlands density is at 500 inh/km2, just below Atlanta urban area. And it's not like the Dutch have any super dense urban districts pushing their density up.

Yes, but Atlanta is a substantial outlier in the U.S. for a major metro. It's not anywhere close to being representative. Even compared to its Sun Belt peers, Atlanta is a very low density metro.

It is the least dense major metro (+3m pop.) in the U.S. Only Boston is remotely close to it in density, and Boston's density number is artificially depressed.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, but Atlanta is a substantial outlier in the U.S. for a major metro. It's not anywhere close to being representative. Even compared to its Sun Belt peers, Atlanta is a very low density metro.

It is the least dense major metro (+3m pop.) in the U.S. Only Boston is remotely close to it in density, and Boston's density number is artificially depressed.

If we low the bar a bit, to include the metro areas above 1.5 million or so, then we have others like Atlanta: Raleigh, Charlotte, Nashville. And even though Boston has its particularities, its outer suburbs are massive land eaters.

The average US urban area is between 1,000 inh./km2 to 1,300 inh./km2. A very low density.

[MolsonExport]

The problem (and one of the biggest and never-ending issues on SSP) is that people use CSA population statistics (or some Richard Florida nonsense agglomeration classifications) for homerism and to compensate for deep seated inferiority complexes.

Adding some fields and shit kicker distant hamlets does not automatically make one's city "bigger" and certainly it does not make it any "better". Perhaps it is the reverse: adding all the banal exurbs just dilutes the greatness of your city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, but Atlanta is a substantial outlier in the U.S. for a major metro. It's not anywhere close to being representative. Even compared to its Sun Belt peers, Atlanta is a very low density metro.

It is the least dense major metro (+3m pop.) in the U.S. Only Boston is remotely close to it in density, and Boston's density number is artificially depressed.

average density is a dumb way to look at things with the CB's wacky county mash-up for MSAs, given the wild and arbitrary size differences between counties.

weighted density is much more useful for the comparison of MSAs, and on that score, metro boston is nothing like metro atlanta.

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Weighted population density for MSAs over 1 million:

1. New York: 33,787.5
2. San Francisco....13,267.8
3. Honolulu....12,581.9
4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
5. San Jose....9,075.9
6. Chicago....9,011.9
7. Boston....8,987.9
8. Miami....8,489.2
9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
10. San Diego....7,381.9
11. Washington....7,296.1
12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
13. Seattle....6,146.3
14. Denver....5,418.0
15. Providence....5,204.6
16. Baltimore....5,144.7
17. Salt Lake City....5,070.9
18. Portland....5,058.8
19. Milwaukee....5,023.7
20. Sacramento....5,002.7
21. Phoenix....4,807.7
22. Riverside....4,636.9
23. Houston....4,606.4
24. New Orleans....4,577.0
25. Fresno....4,518.4
26. Buffalo....4,348.8
27. Dallas....4,274.7
28. Detroit....3,906.9
29. Minneapolis....3,784.4
30. Cleveland....3,676.9
31. Tampa Bay....3,616.6
32. Columbus....3,605.8
33. Virginia Beach....3,580.8
34. Austin....3,565.3
35. San Antonio....3,424.0
36. Tucson....3,285.2
37. Orlando....3,275.7
38. Hartford....3,195.3
39. Pittsburgh....2,970.0
40. Rochester....2,948.2
41. St. Louis....2,738.0
42. Atlanta....2,686.4
43. Louisville....2,686.3
44. Cincinnati....2,658.2
45. Oklahoma City....2,647.3
46. Richmond....2,590.4
47. Kansas City....2,561.4
48. Indianapolis....2,457.3
49. Jacksonville....2,431.3
50. Grand Rapids....2,413.3
51. Memphis....2,339.4
52. Tulsa....2,167.3
53. Raleigh....2,166.8
54. Charlotte....1,996.1
55. Nashville....1,943.3
56. Birmingham....1,402.6

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

average density is a dumb way to look at things with the CB's wacky county mash-up for MSAs, given the wild and arbitrary size differences between counties.

weighted density is much more useful for the comparison of MSAs, and on that score, metro boston is nothing like metro atlanta.

For UAs, however, average density is very useful as a way to see how much land an urban area takes. Both Atlanta and Boston have a massive urban footprint, around 6,000 km2.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

For UAs, however, average density is very useful as a way to see how much land an urban area takes. Both Atlanta and Boston have a massive urban footprint, around 6,000 km2.

yes, i anxiously await the release of 2020 UA data.

metro boston and metro atlanta are both mighty land gobblers, but one has a very dense core, and the other does not, which is born out by the WPD numbers above.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

For UAs, however, average density is very useful as a way to see how much land an urban area takes. Both Atlanta and Boston have a massive urban footprint, around 6,000 km2.

Boston's urban area is made up of a bunch of towns first settled several hundred years ago, while Atlanta's is mostly postwar sprawl.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Boston's urban area is made up of a bunch of towns first settled several hundred years ago, while Atlanta's is mostly postwar sprawl.

Indeed. Many old towns, but with younger exurban developments connecting them by continuous sprawl. It's different from Atlanta, but it's a massive land eater offender, specially compared to the rest of the world.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Indeed. Many old towns, but with younger exurban developments connecting them by continuous sprawl. It's different from Atlanta, but it's a massive land eater offender, specially compared to the rest of the world.

I don't think land eater is the right term. Boston metro towns were settled under the transportation constraints of the 17th and 18th centuries. Under 21st century eyes, they appear to be closely situated. One of the towns just happened to grow into a very large city, but these towns would be there with or without that happening.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think land eater is the right term. Boston metro towns were settled under the transportation constraints of the 17th and 18th centuries. Under 21st century eyes, they appear to be closely situated. One of the towns just happened to grow into a very large city, but these towns would be there with or without that happening.

But it's not only the towns. Zoom in, specially into Middlessex and Essex counties. There are plenty of modern, ultra-low density developments. And those people naturally need big freeways to reach their jobs in Boston and other employment clusters in the area.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think land eater is the right term. Boston metro towns were settled under the transportation constraints of the 17th and 18th centuries. Under 21st century eyes, they appear to be closely situated. One of the towns just happened to grow into a very large city, but these towns would be there with or without that happening.

I think he's referring more of the recent low density sprawl emanating out from these old towns which began as compact colonial era towns independent of one another. I lived fairly close to Nashua which dates back to the 18th century but most of the city today is shopping areas (for Massholes to escape sales tax) and sprawly exurban areas of Boston, south of the historical city center. The vast majority of Boston's footprint is still pretty green though. Compared to most areas its size.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think he's referring more of the recent low density sprawl emanating out from these old towns which began as compact colonial era towns independent of one another. I lived fairly close to Nashua which dates back to the 18th century but most of the city today is shopping areas (for Massholes to escape sales tax) and sprawly exurban areas of Boston, south of the historical city center. The vast majority of Boston's footprint is still pretty green though. Compared to most areas its size.

I also noticed I-95 that goes through Essex County is massive, 4 lanes in each direction, indicating it's mostly serving exurban commuters.