back
14 comments
Is dividing up the bay area really that meaningful? Seems like every article does a different division. Why is San Mateo county, or parts there of, sometimes grouped with San Francisco and sometimes with Silicon Valley? I generally consider most of San Mateo the same continuous sprawl with Silicon Valley and San Francisco somewhat separate. Is Facebook really a San Francisco company rather than a Silicon Valley one? Or Sun before it? Where does Oakland end and Silicon Valley start? Fremont? Milpitas? I would generally prefer the entire by area considered as one population center unless the division is really, really meaningful and not just an excuse to fudge the data a little bit...
The divisions used in the article are Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), which are defined by the Census Bureau. According to the standards they use for delineating MSAs (metropolitan areas containing a core city of at least 50k inhabitants) and µSAs (metro areas with a core city of between 10k and 50k inhabitants): http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fed...

Two adjacent CBSAs will merge to form one CBSA if the central county or counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the central county or counties (as a group) of the other CBSA using the measures and thresholds stated in 3(a) and 3(b) above.

[CBSA is the umbrella term for MSAs and µSAs]

3(a) and 3(b) are:

A county qualifies as an outlying county of a CBSA if it meets the following commuting requirements: (a) At least 25 percent of the workers living in the county work in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or (b) At least 25 percent of the employment in the county is accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties of the CBSA.

So it sounds like if 25% of San Francisco County residents work in Santa Clara County, or 25% of SF jobs are taken by Santa Clara County residents, they would merge the two MSAs. Presumably this is not the case, and thus the MSAs are separate.

The Census does have a higher-order concept called a "Combined Statistical Area". The whole Bay Area is lumped into one CSA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose-San_Francisco-Oakland,....

It's the difference between a census "combined statistical area" and "metropolitan statistical area". The CSA combines all the metro/micro statistical areas in a general area. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose-San_Francisco-Oakland,... .
What's odd is that the Bay Area's "metropolitan statistical areas" in the article don't align with those listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistica...

The wiki page suggests that these are based on social and employment connections that are inferred in part from commute patterns.

Perhaps the pairing of SF and San Mateo reflects growing social and economic links between the Peninsula and SF in a way that eclipses SF and San Mateo's historical affinities with Oakland and San Jose respectively.

Gerrymander's Corollary: Any spot in the country can be considered part of one of the best performing regions of 2014, given judicious division of territory.
Denver, Boulder, Greeley, and Fort Collins, Colorado all made the top 20 with separate entries. They're all along a 60 mile stretch of the front range.

I find Greeley particularly surprising. It's mostly known for the afternoon smell due to the stockyards (cattle) in town. My best guess is it's due to the fracking-powered oil boom in the area.

I noticed the same thing. Denver specifically has seen signifiant growth over the last few years, with downtown real-estate prices rising rapidly. It will be interesting to watch how the potrepreneur money effects these trends moving forward.
Those areas are also growing rapidly. Shortage of available housing is causing chaos in the real estate market. Houses are selling same day they are posted. I see new communities being built left and right.
"I find Greeley particularly surprising."

Agreed. How is it a "large" city ?

No way - I am very surprised to see Lubbock that high. I suppose people are taking a liking to the flat cotton fields and occasional dirt storm? I live here, just uncertain how the city performed that well.
Oil.
Interestingly enough, I just moved from the top-performing small metro to the top performing large metro.

While national articles like this are quick to attribute Fargo-Moorhead's success to energy, I'm a little more skeptical. The region's economy was seeing good growth even before the oil boom, mostly driven by a strong agriculture economy and lots of higher education. Oil has no doubt been a bit of a catalyst, but I think the region would be seeing prosperity even without it.

Great to see Lubbock, TX on here!
yay Nashville! Affordable, centrally located, and has okay food.