Talk:ChiPitts

message: Why are Dayton and Indianapolis included?  They seem to be rather distant from the central expanse of this area. john k 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd inclusions

message: At the time the ChiPitts concept was introduced, the assumption (projecting from the 1946-1960 growth patterns) was that this region was going to grow and consolidate (economically) like the BosWash corridor. The developments since the 1973-74 oil embargo, the post-Reagan weakening of unions and subsequent "runaway shops" phenomenon, etc., have made the idea less likely, as so many counties in this range lose population. At the time, nobody called us "The Rust Belt"; we were the industrial heartland of America. --Orange Mike 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly outmoded concept 

message: I have changed or redlinked some of the old links for this section, because the existing links were to the narrower central cities of the CSA, rather than to the broader geographical entities the CSA concept is designed to encompass. The Pittsburgh, etc. CSA covers much more than just the Pittsburgh MSA, and needs a separate article. I hope people with expertise in these areas will help me out. --Orange Mike 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined Statistical Areas

message: Based on this map, I would say that Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and probably Columbus are not continuous and should not be included. 
The most authoritative source would be Gottman's book, but it does not seem to be available online. --JWB 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this, like the "Odd inclusions" note, relates to my note above under "Possibly outmoded concept": the idea was that continued growth was going to glue these areas together. Under Gottman's original concept, Indy, Cinncy and Columbus were definitely part of the whole thing. (There's a great short summary of this and related ideas in the 1972 edition of the World Almanac, which contained the new U.S. census results.) --Orange Mike 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population density maps 

message: This article is terrible.  The term "Pitts" in ChiPitts is refering to Pittsburgh, PA, but there's no mention of the city until the 8th paragraph, and the highlighted area in the map doesn't even include Pittsburgh! It seems like ChiPitts and the Great Lakes Megalopolis might be two different ideas.  AstroZombieDC (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah.  You can blame  for that. three edits here plus the very poorly done change to the image produced what you see now.  Commons has the old version of the image at the same name.  I recommend deleting the en:wikipedia image (allowing the Commons image to show here) and reverting J intela's changes.  Powers T 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how to delete an image, but I've reverted the wikipedia image to an earlier version. You're welcome to work on the text. --JWB (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

text: User:LtPowers cleaned out all the J intela nonsense and restored the original information. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is terrible

message: I have redirected this article to BosWash where the subjects SanSan and ChiPitts are discussed as neologisms, terms used in the 1960s to describe theoretical future conditions of cities in the United States. This was done because this article consisted nearly entirely of original research and was very poorly sourced. Only recently has credit for the name of the article been given to the proper source. Other than that, it existed as a geography mishmash which was based on the speculations and assumptions of editors. For example the map featured in this article was not sourced and did not describe the area as it was originally defined. The article received in the range of 80 to 100 hits per day, so it should still exist as a redirect but as a redirect only. There is no such place as ChiPitts, it is merely a word coined to describe a possible future and no reliable sources were cited or even exist to show that it is used more than very rarely in any contexts other than discussions of the original essay where it first appeared. Allowing the article to continue to exist in the condition prior to this redirection could only serve to harm the reputation of Wikipedia as a serious compendium of knowledge, and would be a violation of the pillars of the project.
Editors who maintain an interest in the concept of megalopolises and urbanization are encouraged to see the articles Megapolitan Area and Megalopolis (city type) for possible areas of contribution. Those concerned about this redirection, please see the discussion at Talk:BosWash#Notification of intention to rewrite article and previous threads on that page which show the rationale for removal of the false geographic and demographic content there per consensus. Sswonk (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article redirected to BosWash