afransen
Senior Member
Is MCA a defined term for US Census? I don't see it defined. I see Chicago MSA having a definition, but nothing larger than that.
|
|
|
- Thread starter CITY_LOVER
- Start date
elad
New Member
Sorry. I hadn't visited U.S. census for a while. In fact I meant CSA (combined census area of adjacent and connected metropolitan areas). NYC and LA areas around 20 millionish. The ones around 10 millionish are Chicago, DC-Baltimore, San Francisco, and then between 7-8 million are Boston, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia and Miami. Again all but NYC and LA could be surpassed by GGH by mid-century (7-8 million)
Northern Light
Superstar
Uhhh, 13 million is more than the entire State of Illinois, at 12.67 million; that's some serious adjacency.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
Toronto closing the gap with Los Angeles by population is quite plausible. If 2018-2019 population growth numbers stayed constant Greater Toronto-Hamilton would pass Los Angeles MSA in population by 2050. I'll use Greater Toronto-Hamilton (Toronto CMA + Hamilton CMA + Oshawa CMA) as it's the best catchment area to approximate a US MSA imo. Extrapolating out to 2050 is, of course, problematic as things rarely stay constant but it indicates what's possible and when.
Below is the population of each with the absolute change over the previous year in brackets. The statistical analysis shows that Los Angeles is very catchable and by mid-century. Los Angeles MSA is bordered by another 4,650,631 (2019) in Riverside MSA while Greater Toronto-Hamilton is bordered by roughly 2 million in the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Nonetheless, I suspect in 20 years people will be comparing Toronto to Los Angeles rather than Chicago. Greater Toronto-Hamilton could reel in New York MSA too although that would take a few decades longer.
Los Angeles MSA in 2019: 13,214,799 (-35,080)
Greater Toronto-Hamilton in 2019: 7,680,502 (+144,566)
-35,080 X 31 years = -1,087,480
+144,566 X 31 years = +4,481,546
Los Angeles MSA in 2050: 13,214,799 - 1,087,480 = 12,127,319
Greater Toronto-Hamilton in 2050: 7,680,502 + 4,481,546 = 12,162,048
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Totals: 2010-2019
This page features Vintage 2019 population estimates totals and components of change.www.census.gov
Population estimates, July 1, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2016 boundaries
Annual population estimates as of July 1st, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, single year of age, five-year age group and sex, based on the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2016.www150.statcan.gc.ca
1 year is too short a span to see a trend. Lot of ups and downs occur in some years. Seeing a trend over a longer period, such as a decade will be a better indicator.
Northern Light
Superstar
Overtaking L.A. is a long way away.
Moreover, important to say, I don't think that should be a goal per se.
However, in the same breath, I will add that southern California is likely to see very serious water shortages in the decades ahead (even w/o climate change, never mind with).
It seems that material growth is unlikely, and some shrink entirely plausible.
afransen
Senior Member
Greater Golden Horseshoe is similar population and area as Chicago CSA (within 10% on both counts). There is no equivalent of CSA defined in Canada, so it's a bit hard to say for certain, but it seems likely that Toronto is a lot closer to Chicago in population than you are suggesting.
afransen
Senior Member
You can see the change over the last decade here. Chicago actually shrank over that time and NYC was fairly stagnant.
Combined statistical area - Wikipedia
In 2041, the GGH is projected to have 14.5M people, if we extrapolate the growth rates of US CSAs, GGH would be clear third (and NYC and LA both 20M+), and Chicago will be eclipsed by a few other US cities as well.
salsa
Senior Member
And Manhattan will be underwater in a few decades due to climate change —> New Yorkers will move to Toronto as refugees —> Voila we’re number one!
[/s]
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Reading over the recent posts in this thread it struck me that regardless of your position on the subject now, with each passing month it becomes just that little bit harder to argue Toronto and neighbours (whatever you want to call it) isn’t a continuous urban conglomerate.
Northern Light
Superstar
Manhattan has a credible, if very expensive and disruptive plan to combat rising sea levels.
Mayor de Blasio Announces Resiliency Plan to Protect Lower Manhattan From Climate Change
Mayor de Blasio today released findings of a study that determined the City's comprehensive strategy for the LMCR project.
www1.nyc.gov
I don't think L.A. can address declining water supplies in the same fashion.
Though both will find that the solutions (which will be delivered, at least in part) will drive up the cost-of-living.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
Some of the nodes in GTA such as Hamilton and KW are quite old and they existed independent of Toronto and they are quite populous and quite far as well. That's why sometimes it feels hard to imagine that these are part of one larger metropolitan area. But once you start thinking that there are many commuters that travel daily to Toronto or other parts of GTA for work, then you start realizing that they are indeed part of one larger metropolitan area. Same can't be argued for London, for instance.
I am not sure about Chicagoland's satellite cities, if they too have similar large and old cities and far from the city centre.
I am not sure about Chicagoland's satellite cities, if they too have similar large and old cities and far from the city centre.
afransen
Senior Member
Well, desalination is improving with time. Water may get expensive in S Cali, but not so much that people can't live there.
mdu
Active Member
Looking through the area there are a lot of cities founded in the early 1900s. The problem is that they're no longer "satellite" cities, because they are part of the continuous built-up area now, jobs are very much fluid over the boundaries, and the individual cities are really not independent economies anymore. Aurora and Naperville would be good examples.
Gary probably used to be the best candidate. Economy based on the steel plants, until they shut down like half a decade ago. They're basically the Hamilton of Chicago except much much worse.
Last edited:
JasonParis
Moderator
I'm not sure why Orangeville is pulled out of its county on this map. The others make sense as they are single-tier.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Looking over Chicago and Toronto on google maps at the same macro scale you can see that Chicago is an urban centre at the core of a massive geographic catchment. It must have one of the largest urban and exurban and satellite catchment areas in the world extending out to cities like Kansas City, Indianapolis etc. Forget everything is big in Texas, everything is big in the Mid-West! That says nothing about densities etc. but I'm just talking about raw geography
I've been (a pandemic thing?) geeking out lately on reading about space but I think there's an interesting analogy between celestial systems and urban areas in the way that they form and exert forces on each other. Think solar systems with planetary systems and even binary stars (like binary city regions). In space the forces are gravitational in cities the forces that bind the areas together are physical, economic, and social.
I've been (a pandemic thing?) geeking out lately on reading about space but I think there's an interesting analogy between celestial systems and urban areas in the way that they form and exert forces on each other. Think solar systems with planetary systems and even binary stars (like binary city regions). In space the forces are gravitational in cities the forces that bind the areas together are physical, economic, and social.