Posted March 26, 201213 yr Last year I made a post about the new proposed urbanized area criteria. Must of that was approved except for one major exception when it comes to combining urban area's. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2000_2010uadif.pdf Merge qualifying territory from separately defined 2010 Census urban cores that share territory contained within the boundaries of the same Census 2000 urban area. Merge only occurs if an area is at risk of losing urbanized area or urban status and is preventable by the merge. So a combined Cleveland-Akron-Canton UA, Cincinnati-Middletown,Dayton, UA or Philadelphia NYC UA will not happen this time around. Akron UA 569,499 2010 pop 325 Sq Mi 1750 pop density Canton UA 279,245 2010 pop 166 Sq Mi 1678 pop density Cincinnati UA 1,624,827 2010 pop 788 Sq Mi 2063 pop density Cleveland UA 1,780,673 2010 pop 772 Sq Mi 2307 pop density Columbus UA 1,368,035 2010 pop 510 Sq Mi 2680 pop density Dayton UA 724,091 2010 pop 351 Sq Mi 2060 pop density Middletown UA 97,503 2010 pop 56 Sq Mi 1738 pop density Springfield UA 85,256 2010 pop 49 Sq Mi 1741 pop density Toledo UA 507,643 2010 pop 240 Sq Mi 2111 pop density Wheeling UA 81,249 2010 pop 47 Sq Mi 1728 pop density Youngstown UA 387,550 2010 pop 241 Sq Mi 1608 pop density http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua/ua_list_all.xls http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_UA_maps/imgs/UA2010_UAs_and_UCs_Map.pdf
March 26, 201213 yr It isn't surprising that Columbus is the "densest" UA but I AM surprised that Toledo's UA was smaller than Akron's (Toledo is quite compact, metropolitan-wise). "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 26, 201213 yr I'm not surprised since C-Bus's UA only covered 510 sq mi, compared to the 788 for Cincy and 772 for Cleveland. I would venture a guess (and that's all it would be) that if you cut Cleveland's or Cincy's UA down to the densest 510 sq mi within their respective designated areas, the density levels would be higher than C-Bus. Is there a graphic showing the geographic boundaries of the UA's for each city? I imagine, for Cleveland at least, there is a hard line separating parts of its UA from parts of Akron's. I would also think that the UA stretches disproporionately along the lake shoreline into Lorain and Lake counties. And I'm assuming that these statistics eliminate the large body of water to our north that makes up over half of Cleveland MSA's square mileage?
March 26, 201213 yr While it may be true Cincinnati and Cleveland's arbitrary 510 square miles may be "denser" than Columbus (I have no clue), it must also be concluded that the rest of the 260ish square miles left in those other two C's are more "sprawly" than Columbus' by this sort of UA definition. And yes, this UA definition eliminates large bodies of water (as they have no populated Census block). "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 26, 201213 yr It isn't surprising that Columbus is the "densest" UA but I AM surprised that Toledo's UA was smaller than Akron's (Toledo is quite compact, metropolitan-wise). I thought just the opposite, that it IS surprising that Columbus is the densist, considering most people seem to believe it's largely low-density sprawl.
March 26, 201213 yr I think that is the logical conclusion, as well as that the area's outside of Columbus' 510 are 'sprawly' to the point of not being included in the definition of its UA, whereas those same areas for Cincy and Cleveland are probably just barely bordering on what qualifies for a UA.
March 26, 201213 yr Well, perception and reality are always at odds. Anybody can look at a satelite image of Metro Columbus and see it's pretty continuous with abrupt ends around the Big Darby Watershed, etc. Cincinnati and Cleveland are clearly a bit more sprawly. Columbus just has the fact that it's "new" to being a major city and thus "new major city = new development = sprawl," which in this case, it isn't. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 26, 201213 yr I think that is the logical conclusion, as well as that the area's outside of Columbus' 510 are 'sprawly' to the point of not being included in the definition of its UA, whereas those same areas for Cincy and Cleveland are probably just barely bordering on what qualifies for a UA. The great thing about UA's is that it doesn't include exurban areas of cities. All 3C's have endless exurban areas yet UA's show what would be considered "a suburb" by most standards. Though I disagree in seeing a difference between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland in regards to barely qualifying for UA's. All three aren't quite anomalies. What is likely happening is topographical patterns (at least for Cincinnati and Dayton) spreading out the usage of land versus a more clean-slate Columbus which doesn't really have hills or valleys to separate towns. That's why you'll see Miami as America's 4th largest UA. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 26, 201213 yr Some interesting stuff in there. The Boston UA is a bit puzzling. Bigger than the LA UA, and 1/3 as dense. Also Pittsburgh has a smaller population, larger area, and obviously a lower density than Cleveland. Although I think Pittsburgh metro is considerably bigger than Cleveland's.
March 27, 201213 yr I think that is the logical conclusion, as well as that the area's outside of Columbus' 510 are 'sprawly' to the point of not being included in the definition of its UA, whereas those same areas for Cincy and Cleveland are probably just barely bordering on what qualifies for a UA. The great thing about UA's is that it doesn't include exurban areas of cities. All 3C's have endless exurban areas yet UA's show what would be considered "a suburb" by most standards. Though I disagree in seeing a difference between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland in regards to barely qualifying for UA's. All three aren't quite anomalies. What is likely happening is topographical patterns (at least for Cincinnati and Dayton) spreading out the usage of land versus a more clean-slate Columbus which doesn't really have hills or valleys to separate towns. That's why you'll see Miami as America's 4th largest UA. Urban Area is really topographically shaped. Franklin County is far more 'full' than Hamilton (which is basically squeezed in its eastern third).
March 27, 201213 yr What is the purpose of MSAs, 'urbanized areas" or any other defined region? To keep urban forum posters busy. :) Just kidding. Probably it came about because the traditional definition of "cities" as the area within municipal boundaries didn't make sense anymore. No one wanted to see their city "shrinking" when it was just spreading out into the suburbs at a lower density. Columbus just has the fact that it's "new" to being a major city and thus "new major city = new development = sprawl," which in this case, it isn't. Could it also be that "new" cities don't have as much vacant, unused, or abandoned land use as old cities?
March 27, 201213 yr That information is useful for many reasons, not just our useless debates. It's valuable information in determining the appropriation of funds from the federal government.
March 27, 201213 yr I think that is the logical conclusion, as well as that the area's outside of Columbus' 510 are 'sprawly' to the point of not being included in the definition of its UA, whereas those same areas for Cincy and Cleveland are probably just barely bordering on what qualifies for a UA. The great thing about UA's is that it doesn't include exurban areas of cities. All 3C's have endless exurban areas yet UA's show what would be considered "a suburb" by most standards. Though I disagree in seeing a difference between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland in regards to barely qualifying for UA's. All three aren't quite anomalies. What is likely happening is topographical patterns (at least for Cincinnati and Dayton) spreading out the usage of land versus a more clean-slate Columbus which doesn't really have hills or valleys to separate towns. That's why you'll see Miami as America's 4th largest UA. Urban Area is really topographically shaped. Franklin County is far more 'full' than Hamilton (which is basically squeezed in its eastern third). Sure, but we all know Cincinnati sprawls far beyond Hamilton County. Metro Columbus is mostly Franklin County and southern Delaware (with a little Licking and Fairfield). Could it also be that "new" cities don't have as much vacant, unused, or abandoned land use as old cities? I wouldn't say that for the case of Columbus. Columbus certainly has huge zones of light-industry. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 27, 201213 yr I think of Columbus as being more "unwalkable sprawly" than "low density sprawly". There are a lot of dense condo complexes surrounded by 7 lane highways.
March 27, 201213 yr Here is a beta map. It will be updated later in the spring for 2010 urban area's. http://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb/default.htm
Create an account or sign in to comment