Connecticut is about twice as densely populated as Florida, so if you're unhappy with how busy and overcrowded Florida has become, you're really gonna dislike pretty much anywhere the Bos-Wash corridor. At least in Florida you can go sit on one of the nicest beaches in the country to be unhappy about all the people.
Storrs/Mansfield could have been a major development by now, but the locals didn't want that. State flagship universities are major engines of growth almost everywhere. In my opinion, the state of Connecticut should have stepped in and driven a growth agenda to help the economy in eastern Connecticut. The opportunity for UConn to stimulate the local economy is still there.
That these "rules" have anything to do with college football is ridiculous.
Arizona is forced into density
Thus the density ratings...120,000 in basically a compact urban area...
Actually, "metro area" is a misleading term because the size widely varies from city to city. The better comparison is taking a consistent distances for every city so that you you are comparing apples to apples regardless of whether an area choose to roll all the surrounding communities into the city or whether, as in the case of Hartford, West Hartford etc. they chose to maintain separate municipalities.
As opposed to Willimantic, So Windham, North Windham and Windham Center, all under Windham, part of the Greater Willimantic Metropolitan region
No, development may be different, but distances are always the same since they are all defined terms. That's why it makes sense to use defined distances as a standard. That allows you to make apples to apples comparisons.
Different areas utilize distances in different ways for a variety of reasons. Metro areas are limiting and distortable, but so are straight up drawing circles around cities.
How is a set distance "distortable"? It is exactly the opposite. It is a constant. When you were doing a comparison you want to limit variables so that you can measure change in the specific variable your testing. In this case that variable would be location.
Because not all places are built the same. A 30-mile circle around Hartford would get into Springfield and the outskirts of the NYC and Boston CSAs. The same circle around Raleigh wouldn't get you to Hillsborough, Sanford, or Dunn (all which send a steady amount of commuters to Raleigh). Circles tells you how many live within an arbitrary distance from a center point, but not really touching how those people interact with the center point. MSAs have their own issues (see Raleigh being split from Durham). Both are flawed.
I have no doubt that both are imperfect measurements, but the question is which is "less than perfect." It really depends on what you're measuring, right? If you were looking at, say potential resident tax ramifications, then, yes, you would absolutely look at municipal boundaries . But generally the most telling approximation is the number of people within a certain distance to the municipality. That is particularly applicable to athletic teams since the question really is how many people can reasonably attend the game or are likely to support a team.
It gets even more complicated when you start discussing sports teams. The Whalers moved in part because of they were losing the turf war in a crowded marketplace, regardless of the number of people inside their circle. Have to look at a whole host of data and then figure out how best to interpret it.
Agree. You absolutely have to understand the competitions for viewers/fans within a given marketplace. But first, you have to define what that given marketplace is. That is another very distinct advantage UConn has since, for all practical purposes it really doesn't compete with other college teams for fans.
apnews.com
About to see 4 school-4 year players…great. /s
Ten largest cities in area on the US