We
have converted our 2000 urbanized area boundaries and examined them in
ArcView. It appears that our urbanized area has shrunk in many areas
compared with the 1990 Census urbanized area. There are declines
particularly around less occupied areas (we have a lot of marshes here in
Charleston) adjacent to and surrounded by urban areas. Some changes are
harder to explain, particularly in rapidly developing parts of our region that
moved from being "urban" to "rural" by Census definition.
This
came as somewhat of a surprise to us. We had calculated our boundaries
based on the draft regs published last year, and the final ones look
dramatically different for our region.
Could
anyone give a basic explanation of the change in philosophy between designating
the 1990 and 2000 boundaries? As the region's MPO, we need
a good explanation (suitable for the layperson) to tell our local
folks, particularly in areas that have much more growth than they did 10 years
ago but are now called "rural."
Thanks.
Haila R. Maze, AICP
Senior Planner
Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of
Governments
5290 Rivers Avenue,
Suite 400
North Charleston,
SC 29406
(843)
529-0400
(843) 529-0305
fax
The UA Census 2000
TIGER/Line files are now available at:
Bob
LaMacchia
Geography
Division
U. S. Census
Bureau