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

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'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?

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).

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is the purpose of MSAs, 'urbanized areas" or any other defined region?

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).

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?

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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