Talk:Great Lakes Megalopolis/Archive 1

Errors on Megalopolis map

I have always thought of Ottawa, and Montreal to be in the Great Lakes Megalopolis. The Regional Plan Association map doesn't depict this, yet others do. The Regional Plan Association map includes Cities as far away as St.Louis and Kanasa City yet doesn't include citiers which are actually on the Great Lakes ! The boundary shouldn't be based on solely the Regional Plan Associations definition and the article should reflect this. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick with the Regional Plan Association source for illustration and population comparision, which also includes Minneapolis - Saint Paul. A note was added to reflect the other source. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm let's not. Choosing one sources perception due to them having a nice map is absurd. The Regional Plan Associations idea of the mega region includes very little of the most densely populated area of Canada. Yet for some unknown and unexplained reasoning includes Topeka, Kansas ? Ottawa is less than 80 miles from the closest great lake, Lake Ontario. Yet Topeka is more than 460 miles from the closest great lake, Lake Michigan. It also doesn't included Syracuse which is almost on Lake Ontario. The ties between Ottawa, Montreal and the great lakes are vast. I don't think the Regional Plan Association has even the slightest comprehension of the relationship of the mega region north of the border. We should be using a collective of sources to define the area and stats. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But wait! We must consider that megapolis doesn't necessarily mean physical area and such. It may actually may be much more, like lifestyle, economy, and cultural. I think that what they were going for was Midwest Megapolis, not Great Lake Megapolis. They only changed the name to include Canadian metros. I think that this map was made for High Speed Rail and depends on definition weather the Southern Canadian Megapolis is part of the Great Lake Megapolis, the Northeast one, its own Megapolis, or the transition zone: Great Lake-Northeast Megapolis.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Quad-Cities

On the map, we see a small area circled on the Iowa-Illinois border around Davenport IA and Moline IL. That area is a small conglomeration called the Quad Cities, which consists of Davenport and Bettendorf, IA and Moline, East Moline, and Rock Island, IL (oddly enough, is actually five cities). According an article on this site [1], it has a population of about 379,000 people. Since it is illustrated on the map, I think it should be added into this article as well.

Man of the night (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dayton not included

By metropolitan area, Dayton should rank 18th on the list ahead of Toledo and Rochester.

Airrore (talk 08:57 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Made the necessary changes. Thanks for pointing it out! Texas141 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lansing, Michigan

Shouldn't Lansing, Michigan be included? The map shows that the Lansing-East Lansing metropolitan region is part of it, yet this page doesn't talk about it. So is it or isn't it included? :s Robster1983 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lansing, Michigan is a part of the Great Lakes Magalopolis area. But with an MSA population of only 447,728 (as of the 2000 census), its a little too small to be listed or mentioned in the article. The article should list metro areas of at least 500,000. I'm not even sure why the London, Ontario metropolitan area is even included considering its population is only 457,720. Its not really one of the more notable metros in the megalopolis. I hope this addresses your concern. If not, bring it up here. Texas141 (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We should include these metro areas to illustrate the population total for the region The last 5 add more than 2 million people to the total population and are significant. Its informative to see the population totals. They should be included. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I second the above. Why not drop it to 450,000 or maybe even 400,000?ThisguyYEAH (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Detroit-Windsor

Why can't you just combine Detroit Metro with Windsor Metro and make the entire thing complete. You do know Metropolitan areas are don't know any national borders. Now the census will never consider the one across the border since they are government owned. Windsor and Detroit is a continuous Urban Agglomeration. I will also suggest that you do the same with the both Niagaras since they both are a continuous Urban Area. But of course you must also either create a second chart or a side note of the different definitions of Metro Areas. e.g. Niagara Fall could be considered either 2 separate Niagaras, 1 big Niagara, or a metro area known as Buffalo-Niagara-St. Catherine's.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Office of Management and Budget works closely with the US Census Bureau and is the department that defines the boundries for metropolitan statistical areas. To determine if the Detroit and Windsor metros can be combined on this list, you must look to see of the OMB or the census bureau combine these metro areas in their statistical analysis projects. If not, the list will need to stay in it's current form. Since they each are already their own MSA, I doubt they can be combined. Even though they are so close together. If a credible source can be found that combines these areas for statistical analysis, then this list may be changed with the proper citation provided. Hope that helps! Texas141 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, MSA does not mean metropolitan area (nor CSA). They work for the government of USA therefore they will only create metros with US borders, even though it is not like that in reality. There is even a Wikipedia page on Detroit-Windsor, they must have references there. There are also people that combine Toledo and Detroit (not Windsor) into one metropolitan area. But that doesn't even make sense to include Toledo and Detroit but not Windsor and Detroit. Toledo and Detroit are close to each other; Windsor and Detroit are not even close, they are two halves of the same city.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, MSA stands for Metropolitan Statistical Area they are defined the way that they are and only the OMB can change that. I dont like it either how they decide what gets to be a metropolitan area and what does not. For example, Dayton is extremely close to Cincinnati but they have separate metropolitan areas. Akron, Ohio is close to Cleveland but they too are concitered their own metropolitan areas and are not combined. Until the OMB or U.S. Census bureau changes things and makes Detroit-Windsor an official metropolitan area, we unfortunatly cannot change it. I looked at the Detroit-Windsor page, and it is described as a region not an MSA or even a CSA for that matter. Sorry that we can't change anything at this time. I wish we could. Texas141 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what Urban Agglomeration is. It is a lot more accurate than MSA (which I did know the M stood for Metroplitan, it was quite obvious. CSA stands for Combined Statistical Area). Urban Agglomerations are continous URBAN areas. Metros are Urban areas and emmidiate surrounding rural area. By the Way, the population for metro Ottawa is inaccurate. I know it up to 1,451,415 but according to CMA (Census Metropolitan Area [Canadian]) it is around 1,130,761. I belive you should start updading the list and check regurarly.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding Montréal

Considering its really close to Ottawa which is in the Great Lakes Megalopolis and its not really far from the Great Lakes (its only around 170 mi from the nearest Great Lake, Ontario. For comparison Kansas City is around 420 mi from the nearest Great Lake, Lake Michigan). Montréal is related to the Great Lakes region due to the fact it is a major port on the Saint Lawrence River, and if you may or may not have known the Saint Lawrence is the only connection to the (Atlantic) ocean from the Great Lakes and is a very important part of the Great Lakes economy and region. I will consider Montréal however to be right on the boundary/transition zone of the Great Lakes Megalopolis due to the different lifestyle and culture beyond Montréal ( Québec the French speaking people of North America). Montreal however IS part of Québec and DOES speak French and has the Québecois culture (the actual transition zone between the Anglo-American and Canadian French regions is really supposed to be Ottawa - Gatineau BUT Montreal still has many mainstream Anglo-American cultural points simply because Montreal is a large metro, henceforth more has experienced globalization). In Canada however southern Ontario and Southern Quebec are one region only because of shared economy, physical and climatic relationships, and populations. The rest of Quebéc may or may not be part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis however Montréal for sure is part of it. It doesn't really matter if the map fits the article or not just remember this: the picture is supposed to fit the article, not the other way around. I don't encourage using another map though simply because there is no perfect map, only the closest to perfect as possible which is this map.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Yeah, I also updated Canadian Metros according to the site http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm which is a government census estimates site so it is official. I also edited the table to fit Montreal and I increased the total population of megalopolis from 54 million to 58 million to adjust to Montréal. I have no idea how to add the reference http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm so please do that for me and site it next to all the Canadian Metros. Thank you. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This whole concept is just a lot of nonsense. I could declare all of Europe to be a city, it probably has a population density comparable to this region. Or how about the whole world! Luwilt (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Major changes headed your way

Before anyone starts doing any major projects, I must warn that i am going to transform this page and upgrade it to the next level so to speak. I am currently working on a better table which can be seen here. I am going to add many more sections such as Transportation, High Speed Rail, Secondary Cities, & Etymology. i do not know much about this place even though I live there: Toronto. I need the help of everybody to pitch in and to tell how this region works together; what do they all have in common, how are they dependent on the Great Lakes, or not, etc. I will also be working on sections that already exist so don't do any major edits that you are going to put a lot of work on since it is probably going to get lost, thank you. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please use population totals included in the present table if making enhancements, populations are carefully researched and updated so we don't have to keep re-adding them. And please keep the list complete for comparison purposes, so it doesn't cause continuous adding and readding. For the U.S. we are using CSA population totals since this is a megaregion. Not sure we need double population columns to show 2000/2001 totals, its redundant. Current population estimates are what is relevant and the new U.S. Census totals will be ready soon. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed in some census lists such as the Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas, the 2000 populations are used to show the growth of detriment of a populous. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More reason that redundancy is not needed. This topic is the Megalopolis.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Growth in populations isn't redundant, it allows people to see trends in growth that led to the area being called a 'megalopolis' in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.189.86 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a future growth article, not a historical census topic. There are other articles for historical census data. There are future growth projections for these areas that would be relevant which include immigration.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The definition I have decided on was the to include all the American Cities included in the top image, and all the Canadian cities located on the bottom image.

Regional Plan Association map.

Quebec City – Windsor Corridor

I have also decided to include ALL metropolitan areas. No limit. The only limit is the one between American Metropolitan Areas and American Micropolitan Areas(that means I will include only Metros, no Micros). As for Canada I will only include the ones found on this list that are in the Corridor: this list. I have no idea why they chose it, probably not because it is close to the Great Lakes but because they all share a common life style. It was only named Great Lakes Megalopolis since that was the most recognizable landforms to recognize it by. I think that even though the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Iowa are in the Midwest, they are not necessarily part of the same region due to different lifestyles. These states, along with the Canadian Prairies and other states are actually part of the Great Plains region of North America(I have also excluded the Corn Belt). In Canada i included Québec Cities all the way to Québec City because of the Saint Lawrence River, a major part of the Great Lakes - Saint Lawrence Seaway System. Their lives is dependent on the river and their ports that exchange goods from the Atlantic Ocean and the Great lakes. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your choice on definition and am glad you're going to get the article up to speed. I will be glad to lend my assistance. I am quite familiar with the Twin Cities and Saint Louis area if that is to any benefit. I like your table by the way, the only thing I might suggest is merging the two? However I realized that half of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor is not in the above map. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not done. I still have to include a whole lot of cities. The other table is actually for the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. I only did it so I can know the order. You have a good eye but if you check out the archives you can see there was a heated battle to weather include Quebec. I have decided to include the Quebec half by reasons explained above. You must remember however that the map above shows American Megalopolises and pay little or no attention to Canada. If you you check out the map carefully you can see its main focus is the US. As I have said before: the image is supposed to go with the article, not the other way around. I will not adapt the entire article just to go along with the image. It was the best we could find. If its not perfect too bad. Be sure to mention this however in the definition section. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I had no idea about the archives. But Quebec should be included, at least the southern half shown on the image. Also, another thing to figure is whether the urban area really stretches, for the most part, continuously from Milwaukee to Quebec City. I'll wait for you to start before I make any major edits as this was your plan that you began. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the Canadian cities.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with most of the edits, using language like "The definition I have decided on" and "I have also decided to" should be avoided. Especially after saying "i do not know much about this place". Someone with little to no knowledge of the area shouldn't be making up definitions. It's a group project, and a collaborate effort. Two small corrections to the edits should be done. 1) The map of the Quebec - Windsor corridor is irrelevant to this article. It only shows a portion of the megalopolis and a map of Ohio would be just as relevant. 2) I think the flags need to be removed per WP:MOSFLAG. But other than that, it looks good. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think now it is the time to point it out that I never intended to do it entirely on my own. At first I was alone and I knew I couldn't do it. I am 14, quite ahead for my age actually, but I still do not know much. This is why I went to the Urban Planning Project to advertise this article and say 'Hey, I have been left alone with this article and I don't know what to do". I clearly stated that this was my opinion so that people can prove me wrong or contradict what I say. This is exactly the point for why I said "The definition I have decided on," so people can say yes, like 08OceanBeach SD did, or say no like UrbanNerd did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisguyYEAH (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, looks like the present article has the area defined correctly and it looks good. Also agree that the map of Quebec city Windsor corridor is not necessarily needed for this article. Perhaps the flags are overdone. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point I am trying to make is to make the table look good. I really like the flags since it really adds to the table but I am finding it problematic as many city flags are not free use and when I get to the smaller cities they would not have flags. As for the national flags it is a good idea because: it distinguishes which city is from which country. If you have to look at the state/province to know what country it is in, that's OK however the entire point of this article is to inform people about the Great Lakes Megalopolis, if they didn't want to be informed (you will learn at least one thing when reading this) they wouldn't be reading this. If informing people is the goal, then we must let people learn of all knowledge levels. Even people who know absolutely nothing about settlements, and countries need to learn too. Many people will probably not know which subnational entity is in what country, there may be even people that don't know what the two-letter postal code even means: E.g. MI, ON, OH, IL, QC. But having the national flag is a whole lot more basic than a two letter code. If you don't even know that than I have no idea how they found this article in the first place. Anyways, I assure you UrbanNerd and talk taht I have read the WP:MOSFLAG rules for posting flag icons and I assure you it's nothing national, however this may need to be discussed further. As an attempt to make it a little less national I added icons next to each city to get the idea that I was not putting up the flags to advertise a nation but to simply make it look good. Even if the image is unavailable I simply use the state flag.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The flags do improve the appearance and identification. I would lean towards keeping the flags.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Population 2000

Can anyone find the population of Canadian CMA for the year 2000? ThisguyYEAH (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Canada does the census every ten years like they do here. But here is a list with 2001 data. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada does a Census every 5 years. So there is no year 2000 data. There is 1996, 2001, 2006, and soon 2011 data. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More reason to just simply list the current population estimate. This is not a really a census topic.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Though to some it may be useful to see the growth or decline of respective areas. I find its addition useful and cite its potential usefulness in many other population articles. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a future growth article, not a historical census topic. There are other articles for historical census data. There are future growth projections for these areas that would be relevant which include immigration.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Then add them! The only reason I added past population, THE ONLY REASON, was to calculate their growth rate. please do find me their growth rates! And also get this article on track, though it is on the High importance list, this place is quite. I can hear a pin drop. ThisguyYEAH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestions, can plan to add the future population projections, and can probably develop a general definition based on the studies.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What will be the Definition?

This space is to used as a discussion as to which definition we will use. Please do not start until we get at least 10 people, and at least 5 people that know about the Great Lakes Megalopolis, Megalopolises in general, or any of the Metropolitan areas that are considered to be in the Great Lakes Megalopolis. You may however start posting any hypothesis that you may have.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The definition presented including the continuous urban area and commuting populous. Such as the metropolitan areas defined by America 2050. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The studied definitions are presented in the topic. This article presents studied definitions and doesn't create its own definition per se. There is some flexibility to the study of future growth and planning. Can probably develop a general definition based on the studies. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Populations are conflicting

I am getting all these population datas that is becoming a pain to sort out.

American MSA for 2009 and 2000:

• Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas

American CMA 2009 and 2000:

• Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas

American Primary Census Statistical Areas for 2009 and 2000:

• Table of United States primary census statistical areas

Canada CMA 2009:

• http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm

ThisguyYEAH (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question or are you simply stating something? In the U.S., metropolitan areas can either be primary census statistical areas (ex. San Diego metropolitan area) or part of a larger metropolitan area (ex. Los Angeles metropolitan area) known as a combined statistical area (ex. Greater Los Angeles Area). For this article, I suggest we use the metropolitan areas; as it shows all of the components of the megalopolis. Metropolitan area data will be the same as the primary census statistical data, though they're will be more since it shows the metro areas of a CSA. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not the problem. The real problem is matching them with the projected populations.

• http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/state_data.html
• http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/cenhi1.html
• http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/default_an.htm

The problem with the sites listed above is that they either don't give a population estimate, or they are at different dates. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the projected populations are not going to be the same from every source, since they are projected by the sources and data of multiple sources. Therefore I would say it best to use census data for existing populations. In the issue of projected populations, use data from the census or multiple sources as some articles do; though it would only be wise to included projected populations under the most reliable source(s). 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Montreal and Ottawa are part of this megapolis is simply absurd. They are hundreds of miles from the eastern edge of Toronto. This error can be seen on the map where circles for Ottawa and Montreal are shown far to the east of the region. These cities should be removed from the list. I have not changed the article but it should be fixed. 65.244.37.61 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then check out the second map :P

ThisguyYEAH (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix Graph

Columbus, OH, has a greater population than Cleveland, OH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.141.138 (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)