Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've looked at those. They show mountains from above but I am looking for side views that give me a better idea of the rise and or fall of the landscape. Even topos that give me the actual elevation don't really give the the effect of what an area looks like since I don't have a good frame of reference. But thanks for your 'helpful?' suggestion anyway.
The "Birds-Eye" feature on Bing maps isn't bad if you zoom in close enough.
Comparing the state's two largest urban areas (Charlotte and Raleigh) shows some similarities and differences.
In 2000, Charlotte's urban area was 758,927. Today it's 1,249,442 for a growth rate of 64.6%
In 2000, Raleigh's urban area was 541,527. Today it's 884,891 for a growth rate of 63.4%
Charlotte's ppl/sm was 1745 in 2000. In 2010, its density decreased to 1685 ppl/sm
Raleigh's ppl/sm was 1695 in 2000. In 2010, its density increased to 1708 ppl/sm
Some thoughts:
1. Raleigh's urbanized area is significantly larger today than Charlotte's was in 2000.
2. While Raleigh's urbanized area very slightly increased its density by 13 ppl/sm and Charlotte's urban area decreased its density by 60 ppl/sm, both areas have a LONG way to go in creating a more densely populated metro that can be served better by anything other than a car.
3. Durham's urbanized area, while significantly smaller, is actually more densely populated than both Charlotte's and Raleigh's urbanized areas. This is probably attributed to the fact that both Charlotte and Raleigh are surrounded by significantly more "new suburban" development/towns at their edges. By city limits alone, Durham is significantly less densely populated than either Raleigh or Charlotte.
4. Both Charlotte and Raleigh are going to have to reign in the land grab expansion of their urban areas if they are going to appeal to the coming generations.
But the point is that an urban area isn't defined by the central city. If that were true then why is West Palm Beach in the same urban area as Miami? Why is Tacoma in the same urban area as Seattle? Why is Wilmington in the same urban area as Philadelphia? Hell why is Trenton not good enough for the Philadelphia UA, but Wilmington is? why are Mooreville and Statesville good to go for the Charlotte UA but Concord and Salisbury are not? Hell the Charlotte case is probably the craziest yet.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarheelhombre
Someone else from another forum:
Quote:
But the point is that an urban area isn't defined by the central city. If that were true then why is West Palm Beach in the same urban area as Miami? Why is Tacoma in the same urban area as Seattle? Why is Wilmington in the same urban area as Philadelphia? Hell why is Trenton not good enough for the Philadelphia UA, but Wilmington is? why are Mooreville and Statesville good to go for the Charlotte UA but Concord and Salisbury are not? Hell the Charlotte case is probably the craziest yet.
Concord, Gastonia, & Rock Hill all belong to Charlotte. They have their own spheres of influence, based on their size (over 50K) It's like solar systems within a galaxy.
The same sphere of influence thing is going in with the Philly metro, but you have to understand the situation with municipalitites in Delaware re: Wilmington. Camden rules the South Jersey suburbs, but, really, the locals ignore it. There are very good reasons why Trenton is not included.
Concord, Gastonia, & Rock Hill all belong to Charlotte. They have their own spheres of influence, based on their size (over 50K) It's like solar systems within a galaxy.
The same sphere of influence thing is going in with the Philly metro, but you have to understand the situation with municipalitites in Delaware re: Wilmington. Camden rules the South Jersey suburbs, but, really, the locals ignore it. There are very good reasons why Trenton is not included.
It's the same in the Triad and Triangle. Neither is considered one urban area although adjacent urbanized areas touch each other.
I've looked at those. They show mountains from above but I am looking for side views that give me a better idea of the rise and or fall of the landscape. Even topos that give me the actual elevation don't really give the the effect of what an area looks like since I don't have a good frame of reference. But thanks for your 'helpful?' suggestion anyway.
Another example of how screwy the MSA's are, look at the Greenville Metropolitan Statistical Area. It includes only two counties: Pitt (which includes Greenville) and Greene, an adjacent county to the southwest.
According to the wiki page, a MSA should have relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area.
How can you have the Greenville MSA without Martin County, Beaufort County etc.
There should be a Greenville CSA that includes:
*Greenville MSA
*Rocky Mount MSA
*New Bern μSA
*Wilson μSA
*Kinston μSA
*Washington μSA
*Martin County
Greenville's sphere of influence is in every adjacent county. So instead of a rightful CSA population of 651,824, we have a MSA population of 179,715.
Another example of how screwy the MSA's are, look at the Greenville Metropolitan Statistical Area. It includes only two counties: Pitt (which includes Greenville) and Greene, an adjacent county to the southwest.
According to the wiki page, a MSA should have relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area.
How can you have the Greenville MSA without Martin County, Beaufort County etc.
There should be a Greenville CSA that includes:
*Greenville MSA
*Rocky Mount MSA
*New Bern μSA
*Wilson μSA
*Kinston μSA
*Washington μSA
*Martin County
Greenville's sphere of influence is in every adjacent county. So instead of a rightful CSA population of 651,824, we have a MSA population of 179,715.
I think the reason none of those cities are included in a CSA with Greenville is that they were all pretty much the same size like 20yrs ago and currently most of the growth in the area is confined to Greenville-Pitt County and very little of it has spilled into Wilson, Kinston, or any of the surrounding counties. Also it's probably because the areas between all of those cities is still extremely rural.
Notice that in CSAs like Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham, the core cities have massive influence on the region as a whole. People in the outlying counties drive great distances to work in the core cities.
The CSA/MSA thing is mostly based on commuting. I know there are some people who commute from the other counties to work in Pitt County, but it's probably not significant enough yet to add them to a Greenville MSA or CSA. The counties still function mostly on their own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
