Washington, D.C.'s CSA population numbers compared to other U.S. cities (living, centers)
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.
Then I guess you'll fall off the tree. I lived outside of Baltimore for five years. It's not an issue of treating Baltimore and DC as "distant, disconnected entities," but instead simply recognizing that Baltimore is not Ed McMahon to DC's Johnny Carson, or Oakland to DC's San Francisco. Oakland is across the East Bay from SF and part of the same MSA as SF; Baltimore is a greater distance from DC and the center of its own, substantial MSA. If people in Baltimore despise DC - and some do - one reason is the effort by some DC-area residents to suggest that Baltimore has now been reduced to basking in the reflected glory of DC.
Umm... I never said that, son. You perpetuate these debates by throwing childish lines like "reduced to basking in the reflected glory of DC", forcing me to explain that I never said that and keeping with your theme of trolling this forum looking for anyone who might find DC to be a nice place to live and - gasp - maybe even nicer than another place. ELITIST! You scream.
I said Baltimore is the traditional industrial center of our region in much the way Oakland is for the Bay area. If you think it is a bad thing to have helped build this nation into a global power rather than shuffle bureaucratic papers around like people do in DC, then that is your own bias and reflected glory of where you live. I certainly don't think that and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
In terms of statistical analysis, it's been well-documented for some time that enough people in eastern West Virginia commute to jobs in NoVa and DC to warrant the area's inclusion in the MSA. It's due in part to Loudoun County having adopted land-use policies designed to prevent additional development in Western Loudoun, which led to denser development further west in eastern West Virginia. That may raise interesting questions about land-use policy and "the law of unintended consequences," but it doesn't warrant taking pot shots at a group of people.
Perhaps you didn't read my post, but I wasn't taking any pot shots at a group of people. I said West Virginia commuters are a statistical fringe and that, by laws of physics, someone who can spend 3-4 hours in a car everyday has some extra time on their hands.
Quote:
Nice try, but fail. I'm fortunate enough at present to enjoy a commuter's trifecta: a very reasonable drive to work when I choose to drive all the way in, a short drive to a Metro station with parking, and a short walk to a bus stop. It may not be Margaritaville, but it doesn't give rise to a lot of angst, either. But I also realize that part of this was due to a combination of lucky timing, good fortune and hard work, and that others may confront different situations.
It's fine to make that argument on public policy grounds, and there's undoubtedly one to be made. Where I part company with you is that I'm less certain at any given time as to exactly what "we" want, because "we" includes a lot of people with different perspectives from mine or yours. The people who commute to NoVa or DC from West Virginia may have their own opinions on the desirability of their lifestyles: just as they do not deserve to be denigrated with a phrase like "fringe people with a lot of time on their hands," they do not need to be patronized by people in DC who assume that they would prefer to live in a smaller house if only they saw the light.
What I see in a lot of your posts is an apparent frustration that politics and public policy judgments are inherently messy and require the accommodation of a very wide variety of viewpoints. It leads to frequent snide remarks about "sprawl" communities and their residents and, at times, efforts to foist misleading narratives (such as the notion that DC is now largely a city of intact rowhouses full of "middle-class" families playing in lovely city parks) on others, in order to try and fast-forward into the present an urban future that may or may not occur.
I said nothing about your commute. I simply pointed out that you have said you live in a suburban, auto-dependent landscape and that is the lifestyle you choose to defend on here - every time anyone says anything remotely positive about a walkable community or remotely not positive about an auto-dependent one.
I never said they would prefer to "live in a smaller house if only they saw the light" (again - putting words in my mouth to spin yourself out of ever having to admit you're ever wrong). I said we don't have the luxury of everybody being able to live in huge homes on large properties far from services and employment centers anymore. That's just a fact, whether we're talking about protecting farmland or minimizing our infrastructure investments.
If you have a better word than sprawl, then suggest it. Please let WTOP know as well so they can change the title of their "Sprawl and Crawl Report". As it is, this phenomenon of auto-dependent suburban expansion is conventionally known as "urban sprawl". Just look at a satellite photo of any metro area to understand why.
I also never said an urban future, where somehow everybody lives in dense communities, is realistic or desirable. We need different choices for different needs. Right now, we have too much sprawl and not enough density for what the market demands, so it's important to make investments that balance that.
Now that I've removed all the words you jammed into my mouth, I'm going to get some mouthwash.
Umm... I never said that, son. You perpetuate these debates by throwing childish lines like "reduced to basking in the reflected glory of DC", forcing me to explain that I never said that and keeping with your theme of trolling this forum looking for anyone who might find DC to be a nice place to live and - gasp - maybe even nicer than another place. ELITIST! You scream.
I said Baltimore is the traditional industrial center of our region in much the way Oakland is for the Bay area. If you think it is a bad thing to have helped build this nation into a global power rather than shuffle bureaucratic papers around like people do in DC, then that is your own bias and reflected glory of where you live. I certainly don't think that and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
You raised the fact that many people in Baltimore don't like DC and your deeming the city to be an Oakland to DC's San Francisco is typical of the attitude that gives rise to such sentiments. You can try to explain away your suspect analogies, but it doesn't fly. Newark has a port, too, but it doesn't quite make Baltimore the Newark to DC's NYC any more than Baltimore is the Oakland to DC's San Francisco.
Perhaps you didn't read my post, but I wasn't taking any pot shots at a group of people. I said West Virginia commuters are a statistical fringe and that, by laws of physics, someone who can spend 3-4 hours in a car everyday has some extra time on their hands.
The exact phrase you used was "fringe people with a lot of time on their hands." It's obviously a deliberately insulting, condescending choice of words. For you to now pretend otherwise is flat-out ridiculous, particularly since you followed up that comment with the argument that such people merited the criticism because they make what you consider to be poor choices that are bad for the planet and promote further sprawl. And, you did so in the context of a discussion about the areas included in a CSA, when you suggested that areas of West Virginia where many residents commute to jobs in NoVa and DC should not be considered part of the same CSA as DC and closer-in suburbs. The thrust of the comment really could not have been clearer - these marginal people with time to burn make bad choices and should be voted off our important CSA island. Everything you've said on the subject since then has been damage control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
I said nothing about your commute. I simply pointed out that you have said you live in a suburban, auto-dependent landscape and that is the lifestyle you choose to defend on here - every time anyone says anything remotely positive about a walkable community or remotely not positive about an auto-dependent one.
Au contraire, I live in an auto-centric, but not auto-dependent, suburban landscape, with a range of commuting options that include public transportation. I choose to defend that lifestyle, as well as others that may be more or less car-focused, to the extent that they reflect a range of judgments made by rational people seeking to act in their best interests and the best interests of their families. If that means they decide to live in a city, that may be a reasonable decision. If that means they choose to live in a city and then exaggerate the number of middle-class families or minimize the challenges that some of the local schools may face, in an effort to encourage others to follow their own path, that's intellectually dishonest, contrary to C-D at its best, and fair game for comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
I also never said an urban future, where somehow everybody lives in dense communities, is realistic or desirable. We need different choices for different needs. Right now, we have too much sprawl and not enough density for what the market demands, so it's important to make investments that balance that.
Now that I've removed all the words you jammed into my mouth, I'm going to get some mouthwash.
I don't need to jam words in your mouth; your own words betray you. You pay lip service to the idea of choice, but then assert that the market is not functioning properly because it doesn't produce enough of what you consider desirable - more density. To date, at least in this area, there has been a healthy and sustained demand in both urban and suburban areas, which is why a place like Loudoun County now has the highest median incomes in the nation.
By the way, I read the Ehrenhalt book that you've plugged several times on C-D. As a travelogue of urban and suburban communities in the early 21st centuries, ranging from devastated rowhouse neighborhoods in Philadelphia to New Urbanist developments outside Denver and Portland, it's a quick, entertaining read. As a piece of social science or demographic forecasting, however, it's lightweight stuff that is short on analysis and heavy on wishful thinking that Americans now want, and will have the means, to live like 19th century European bourgeoisie (so long as they still have good Internet access).
I don't know. I'm not the biggest fan of the whole CSA thing. Baltimore is not a suburb of DC. Overall I think the MSA is a better indicator of a city's size. This still makes DC the 7th largest city in the country. Pretty impressive. We beat Atlanta so says wikipedia. Woohoo! However, to deny that the suburbs of DC and Baltimore aren't intermingled is silly. Many in Howard county commute to DC and her "vanilla" suburbs and vice versa. Just got heard from a headhunter about a gig in Columbia. Can't remember the last time a headhunter wanted to talk to me about a job in the District. It seems that jobs pay the same in the suburbs as the city. Which seems unfair since commuter costs are so much higher. Paying for my own parking? Gadzooks! It really was quite a shock.
I agree that CSAs really aren't that good a way to measure city size (haven't NYC and Philadelphia actually merged or are about to merge under the CSA measurement?), but I don't even think MSA is the best. I'd go with urbanised area, which the Census Bureau defines as all tracts with 1,000 people per square mile emanating from a core city. It's not bound by arbitrary county lines and is more exact to avoid non-built up areas.
It's definitely not fair to include Baltimore in the CSA. A lot of people who can't afford NYC move to Philly but that's its own area.
Sure, but Baltimore to Washington is about the same distance as Dallas to Ft. Worth. The sprawl on both sides almost touches, and we have Maryland's fairly strong planning laws to thank that it doesn't already touch. Tens of thousands of people cross-commute -- maybe not from Fredericksburg to Aberdeen, but certainly between Anne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George's counties. BWI serves equal numbers of DC-area travelers and Baltimore-area travelers, despite being much closer to the latter.
City pairs that are 100 miles apart (New York and Philadelphia, Chicago and Milwaukee, Los Angeles and San Diego) will have a hard time truly growing together, ruling out huge technological advances -- people's tolerance for commuting hits a fixed wall before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77
Until people started coming up with concepts such as CSAs and megalopolises, DC and Baltimore weren't even considered part of the same region and, even today, they are part of different MSAs.
That's immaterial. The word "megalopolis" is almost a century old; cities have changed immensely in that time (not least due to mass motorization), and Washington has changed more than most.
What CSA boundaries suggest is that a metropolitan area exists as economic agglomerations -- principally of labor, but also of firms. Of course they're artificial constructs and often have what sound like arbitrary boundaries, but a lot of thought goes into them -- much more thought than on thousands of these threads.
From a personal perspective, you could also consider agglomerations in a different way: what would you consider traveling within your region for? A blind date? A recreational day trip -- to a museum, a festival, a concert, a particularly challenging river or climb? A specialist shop or service -- a doctor, an ethnic market, a used bookstore? I'd give no more thought to going to Baltimore for these than to, say, Leesburg (guess which is closer), but I would think very carefully about going the 100 miles to Richmond for any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
I don't know. I'm not the biggest fan of the whole CSA thing. Baltimore is not a suburb of DC.
Grouping the two does not say that, and I think that's much of the confusion here. What it says is that they are both poles within a larger, interrelated, interdependent area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoking66
I agree that CSAs really aren't that good a way to measure city size... I'd go with urbanised area, which the Census Bureau defines as all tracts with 1,000 people per square mile emanating from a core city
And how do you draw boundaries between urbanized areas that cover the entire distance between core cities? I've biked between Baltimore and DC along three different routes, and can assure you that the intervening area is thoroughly "urbanized." There are precious few private farms in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
At some point, we have to draw the line and say we've built out enough.
I agree. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with the interrelatedness (or lack thereof) between Baltimore and Washington. I'd say that increasing those connections would improve matters for both: Washington has jobs and needs housing, Baltimore has housing but needs jobs. Several simple but expensive fixes could really improve transit travel times within Maryland, and the state would be well-advised to undertake at least a few of them.
That's immaterial. The word "megalopolis" is almost a century old; cities have changed immensely in that time (not least due to mass motorization), and Washington has changed more than most.
What CSA boundaries suggest is that a metropolitan area exists as economic agglomerations -- principally of labor, but also of firms. Of course they're artificial constructs and often have what sound like arbitrary boundaries, but a lot of thought goes into them -- much more thought than on thousands of these threads.
From a personal perspective, you could also consider agglomerations in a different way: what would you consider traveling within your region for? A blind date? A recreational day trip -- to a museum, a festival, a concert, a particularly challenging river or climb? A specialist shop or service -- a doctor, an ethnic market, a used bookstore? I'd give no more thought to going to Baltimore for these than to, say, Leesburg (guess which is closer), but I would think very carefully about going the 100 miles to Richmond for any of them.
.
I'm not taking issue with the utility of CSAs. However, even insofar as Baltimore and DC are now part of a common one, Baltimore's relationship to DC, given its size, once-diverse economy and status as the heart of its own metropolitan area, does not make for a very compelling analogy to the relationship between Oakland and San Francisco, in my opinion.
I personally make more excursions to Richmond (and Leesburg) than to Baltimore, at least since the Nationals came to town and my kids made it clear they preferred barbecue to crabs.
I agree that CSAs really aren't that good a way to measure city size (haven't NYC and Philadelphia actually merged or are about to merge under the CSA measurement?), but I don't even think MSA is the best. I'd go with urbanised area, which the Census Bureau defines as all tracts with 1,000 people per square mile emanating from a core city. It's not bound by arbitrary county lines and is more exact to avoid non-built up areas.
I agree...to an extent. There are parts of Fairfax county that have fewer than 1000 people per square mile like in Great Falls and Clifton, yet most would say those places are still part of the DC area. I think using the county lines helps clear up confusion.
And how do you draw boundaries between urbanized areas that cover the entire distance between core cities? I've biked between Baltimore and DC along three different routes, and can assure you that the intervening area is thoroughly "urbanized." There are precious few private farms in between.
Then it's the DC-Baltimore urban area, which is very different than the DC MSA and Baltimore MSA as well as the DC-Baltimore CSA. I have no problem with the "urban area" concept because it's using a standardised measurement that can change each census or estimate rather than drawing randomised boundaries due to county lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
I agree...to an extent. There are parts of Fairfax county that have fewer than 1000 people per square mile like in Great Falls and Clifton, yet most would say those places are still part of the DC area. I think using the county lines helps clear up confusion.
Urban area and region aren't mutually exclusive; they are used to measure different concepts. I believe that urban area encompasses the scope of a city's extent/sprawl the best, but that doesn't always mean it's the best tool for every need. If you needed a list of every town with commuter ties to DC, then urban area wouldn't necessarily work.
I'm still not sure how reducing everything to population density improves matters much. Sure, county geography is definitely not granular enough (particularly in the West), but plenty of urbanized areas blur together even though they definitely have distinct centers -- the Triangle/Triad, for instance, or the definite continuum of urban influence across New Jersey. A "DC-Baltimore urban area" also doesn't address the complaint here that the CSA is an artificial construct. (Which, of course, it is, but what isn't?)
Different areas also might have different density threshholds. I've been to rural areas in China with higher population densities than most American big cities.
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.
