Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. LA 9.5 M
2. NY 9.3M
3. Chicago 8.2M
4. Boston 6.0M
5. Philadelphia 5.1M
6. Detroit 4.4M
7. Washington 4.2M
8. Houston 4.1M
9. Atlanta 4.1M
10. Dallas 3.5M
Top 10 after the change
1. New York 18.3M
2. LA 12.3M
3. Chicago 9.1M
4. Philadelphia 5.6M
5. DFW 5.1M
6. Miami 5.0M
7. Washington 4.7M
8. Houston 4.7M
9. Detroit 4.4M
10. Boston 4.3
Winners:
NY doubled its numbers and took over the number one slot.
Dallas nearly doubled its numbers and shot from number 10 to number 5
Miami jumped from 24th to 6th (Holy Cow)
Philadelphia moved up one spot
Losers:
Boston lost 2 million people and slipped from 4th to 10th
Detroit's numbers held stead but its ranking dropped from 6th to 9th
Atlanta gained people but still dropped from 9th to 12
Broke Even:
LA gained about 3M people but lost the number one spot
Chicago held the same spot
Houston Held the same spot
DC held the same spot
Take home message: never say this metro will never catch up to that one in your life time... you never know when the government is gonna cut one in half or double another's catchment area.
Do you think we are in for another change in standards? what metros do you think will be affected.
which metros do you think should be changed?
SF-oakland combined with SJ?
I for one would love to see cohesion at the census block and maintained denisty census blocks for sizing and get rid of counties as the barometer
Computers and data has more than caught up to be more specific and compare more equivelized units than arbitrary sizes associated with huge or small municipality. Let the cohesion and actual metrics drive the data not huge swaths of land that were nothing more than convienient. To me this would further make sense to use for congressional alignment and alow for seats to be drawn more out of similarities as opposed to historic lines on a map...
Umm, where did you get that 1st list? I agree with the second set, but the first set looks random and irrational.
New York was NEVER even close to falling to 2nd place as a metro. I don't think it's metro has been 9.3 million in about 100 years, regardless of how you mix up the counties. That 9.3 is barely over the city population, let alone just adding one or two counties on Long Island or over in Jersey - which would throw you well above 9.3.
The only thing I can gather is that it is old MSA designations - today there are a few MSAs in the greater NY area (NYC, Newark, West Chester, New haven etc.) I think Technically JC may actually be an MSA or was at one time a stand alone
why Dallas and FW are also seperated on the list - but just a guess really
I don't see how that's the old MSA designations. LA has never had a larger MSA than NY and this is the first list ever that I've seen that.
This I agree with - and also the Philly MSA was reduced not increased in 2000 - Atlantic and Mercer counties in NJ were considered part of the Philly MSA up until 2000 - this data shows Philly increasing - the new criteria employed by the census reduced not enlarged the population of Philadelphia between 1999 and 2000 - I agree this does not make a whole lot of sense...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
