Power Shift: Cities

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

^^
While I agree with your using that figure for Toronto, you should point out you're using the Greater Golden Horseshoe population to translate into an American CSA population. Otherwise people may get confused

They've been on here long enough that they know that it's the Canadian equivalent of US CSAs. I think regional populations are a little bogus for comparing cities, but he responded that Toronto's 'regional' population (9.1 million) was much closer to that of Detroit (5.2 million) than Chicago (9.8 million) so I thought I'd have a look.

Even if you add Milwaukee to Chicago's number that wouldn't be true.

[ue]

Could someone explain to me the preference of using CSAs over MSAs for American metropolitan areas? CSAs to me seem a bit too generous and broad in defining metropolitan areas, with a few exceptions. To me, a metropolitan area has a core city with surrounding suburbs as an extension of that city. In more polycentric cities (such as LA or the Twin Cities), there may be more than one "city" but they're close together and have the same general identity.

With that, when I see Washington and Baltimore or Providence and Boston or Detroit and Ann Arbor (which may have some cross-pollination, but are still two distinct cities), I just shake my head. It's like lumping Ottawa and Montreal or Toronto and Hamilton as the same city.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ue

Could someone explain to me the preference of using CSAs over MSAs for American metropolitan areas? CSAs to me seem a bit too generous and broad in defining metropolitan areas, with a few exceptions. To me, a metropolitan area has a core city with surrounding suburbs as an extension of that city. In more polycentric cities (such as LA or the Twin Cities), there may be more than one "city" but they're close together and have the same general identity.

With that, when I see Washington and Baltimore or Providence and Boston or Detroit and Ann Arbor (which may have some cross-pollination, but are still two distinct cities), I just shake my head. It's like lumping Ottawa and Montreal or Toronto and Hamilton as the same city.

CSA's aren't really metropolitan population counts at all, but a regional population count. Using CSA you could even add Buffalo to the Toronto count as it's literally across the river from the GGH. I gets a little absurd.

[Minato Ku]

I don't think that Buffalo would be part of Toronto CSA.
CSA is not based on distance but on commute rate to a central core of counties.
To be part of Toronto CSA, there would need to be a large number of cummuters between the Buffalo MSA and the urban area of Toronto.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

I don't think that Buffalo would be part of Toronto CSA.
CSA is not based on distance but on commute rate to a central core of counties.
To be part of Toronto CSA, there would need to be a large number of cummuters between the Buffalo MSA and the urban area of Toronto.

You got it. While I do think passing off CSAs as "metropolitan areas" is a bit dinsingenuous - and that calling them "regions" is probably a better way to think of them, some of them consisting of multiple "metropolitan areas" - and while I'd probably up the commuting threshold for a county to be added to a CSA/region, there is a method to the maddness.

By the United States definition, the only way I could conceivably see Buffalo added to a theoretically Toronto CSA is if Hamilton somehow became a core county/municipality in a Toronto MSA. And, even then, even if there were a stronger commuting connection between Buffalo and Hamilton, I don't imagine it'd be enough to include Buffalo in even an overwrought Toronto CSA.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by kingchef

i am responding---a week later--- re: post 20 something....memphis-nashville. memphis has always been the big girl in tn, and she remains so.

Definitely disagree. Nashville looks and feels much bigger and richer, and in fact is much bigger and richer. They don't even seem close.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

^^
While I agree with your using that figure for Toronto, you should point out you're using the Greater Golden Horseshoe population to translate into an American CSA population. Otherwise people may get confused

Which is why the comparison is nonsensical. Toronto is bigger than Metro Detroit, but not by that much. It's definitely closer in size to Detroit than to Chicago.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Which is why the comparison is nonsensical. Toronto is bigger than Metro Detroit, but not by that much. It's definitely closer in size to Detroit than to Chicago.

Metro-to-metro yes, but Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton and Niagara is one huge continuous urban area with lots of interdependancy on each other. Detroit has that with Ann Arbor and Flint and ppssibly even Toledo, but it's significantly less than Toronto region.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Which is why the comparison is nonsensical. Toronto is bigger than Metro Detroit, but not by that much. It's definitely closer in size to Detroit than to Chicago.

In which case, Metro Detroit has 4.3 million people while Greater Toronto has about 6.5 million and Chicago's MSA has what, 9.5 million? Closer yes, but not by much. More important though are the growth projections of the next 15 years, which have the Toronto area gaining 1.5-2 million people and Chicagoland around 900,000, so the gap is closing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LMich

You got it. While I do think passing off CSAs as "metropolitan areas" is a bit dinsingenuous - and that calling them "regions" is probably a better way to think of them, some of them consisting of multiple "metropolitan areas" - and while I'd probably up the commuting threshold for a county to be added to a CSA/region, there is a method to the maddness.

By the United States definition, the only way I could conceivably see Buffalo added to a theoretically Toronto CSA is if Hamilton somehow became a core county/municipality in a Toronto MSA. And, even then, even if there were a stronger commuting connection between Buffalo and Hamilton, I don't imagine it'd be enough to include Buffalo in even an overwrought Toronto CSA.

Also, if Toronto gets Buffalo then how far into Ontario does Detroit go? London?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ue

Could someone explain to me the preference of using CSAs over MSAs for American metropolitan areas?

people like the biggest possible number for the ego stroke, even if it might not make sense.

if you had one ruler that indicated you had a 5" dick, and another ruler that indicated you had a 9" dick, you would destroy the 5" ruler with fire and have the 9" ruler bronzed. the actual size of your dick would remain unchanged.

humans are obsessed with largeness, even when defined through dubious means.

[middeljohn]

^
In some cases using the CSA population doesn't make sense as there are vast distances in between. In the case of Toronto, using the GHS population does make sense because of it all being within 90 minutes of downtown and urban the entire stretch. People.commute across the entire region as if it was one giant city. Basically like SF-SJ-Oak

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Definitely disagree. Nashville looks and feels much bigger and richer, and in fact is much bigger and richer. They don't even seem close.

difference of opinion alert. theres noticebly more high end cars on the road around nashville, and an absurd level of exurban mcmansion development, but between the downtowns, and driving around the metro areas, nashville doesnt feel noticebly larger or more bustling than memphis (to me). downtown nashville might be a little busier, but there's not much of urban nashville outside of downtown. now do i think this is going to change? yes, but it's not there yet.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

^
In some cases using the CSA population doesn't make sense as there are vast distances in between. In the case of Toronto, using the GHS population does make sense because of it all being within 90 minutes of downtown and urban the entire stretch. People.commute across the entire region as if it was one giant city. Basically like SF-SJ-Oak

wow, you must have a 9" penis!

i'm impressed!

[TownGuy]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

people like the biggest possible number for the ego stroke, even if it might not make sense.

if you had one ruler that indicated you had a 5" dick, and another ruler that indicated you had a 9" dick, you would destroy the 5" ruler with fire and have the 9" ruler bronzed. the actual size of your dick would remain unchanged.

humans are obsessed with largeness, even when defined through dubious means.

The problem here is Toronto is measured by 5" dick ruler and US cities by the 9" dick ruler.

[Steely Dan]

^ the "golden horseshoe" IS toronto's 9" ruler, that's why it's always touted so heavily in these types of discussions.

"see you guys, i have a really big cock too! acknowledge the hugeness of my cock. acknowledge it goddamnit!"

[TownGuy]

I meant generally speaking Toronto is measured by the 5 incher and US cities by the 9. It always starts with someone saying Toronto is 5-6 million and Timbuktu in the US has 24 million or something ridiculous.

The Golden Horseshoe is the 9" ruler but the only fair way to compare US cities. Most people just roll their eyes though and go here come the Torontonians again makin shit up...

[LMich]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

^
In some cases using the CSA population doesn't make sense as there are vast distances in between.

I know we go through this ever couple of months or so, but you seem to be confused. A CSA and even an MSA, down here, isn't a spatial measurement of residential population sprawl, but a measurement of commuting patterns. Whether there is "vast distances in between" or not is almost irrelevant so long as people are making the commutes. Americans tend to tolerate some pretty intolerable commutes, if you ask me.

One can argue that a simple measuring of the population of a commute isn't enough to define a "metropolitan area" or region, or that the percentage thresholds for MSAs and CSAs are too low. But, this is what is being measured when we talk about these metropolitan areas and metropolitan regions in the United States. What is not being measured is how urbanized the area is between any particular commute.

[middeljohn]

Anyhow, if the golden horseshoe (8.9M) was in the States it would be the 5th most populous CSA after NY (23.8), LA (18.4), Chi (10.2), Wash (9.4).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

The Golden Horseshoe is the 9" ruler but the only fair way to compare US cities.

no it's not. instead of conflating things to absurd proportions in the name of equivalency, we could also chop american metro areas down to their proper size. the CSA as "metro area" is a farce, IMO. the MSA is also dubious, IMO. any measure that simply mashes counties together because some tiny percentage of people from county X commute to county Y is very, very silly to me.

give me the Urban Area size, ie. the contiguous built up area. that's as close a measure as we have when it comes to defining the size of a given human settlement. the CSA/MSA county-mashing game measures something else that i find less interesting.

i'm perfectly ok with admitting that i do not in fact possess a 9" penis.