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.
Metros are really hard to define. For instance, Northeast Ohio is nearly 5 million people, but Cleveland's metro is only 2.3. I think metros are pretty silly, but interesting for stats and demographics.
Metros are the best statistics to use when comparing places across jurisdictions. They can get a bit tricky when you have several sizable cities within a region, but typically that's where the CSA will make up for whatever might be lacking in the MSA. If someone feels that neither one of those accurately reflect the size of their city/metro/region, it's probably due to overinflation of the true size of the area.
Metros are more important but I must say that some cities metros are so much larger in land than others. So it would make sense that some of those cities have more people than other cities. I think metros can be really exaggerated.
Metros are more important but I must say that some cities metros are so much larger in land than others. So it would make sense that some of those cities have more people than other cities. I think metros can be really exaggerated.
Some can be larger in land for a number of reasons (relative isolation, county size, etc.), but that doesn't mean that the populations are exaggerated. If anything, most people claim that their metro populations are sold short.
I don't think all are exaggerated, but there are those few cities that claim to be in the millions and its several counties. I think it really depends on the population of the counties because anyone could take chunks of land and say a certain amount live there and include it as one and there are few places in the US that are just thoroughly urbanized. Plus vice versa, some metros have a small land area but are very large in population and are good with urbanity. It's just that to me, that says so much more.
Some can be larger in land for a number of reasons (relative isolation, county size, etc.), but that doesn't mean that the populations are exaggerated. If anything, most people claim that their metro populations are sold short.
...and metro boundaries are all decided by the Census Bureau; city boundaries are set by each individual city with various outside influences. Metro comparisons are much more logical than city comparisons.
you gotta go with metro. their wouldn't be a big metro unless it was a big urban area.
I used to live in South Florida aka Metro Miami and the city is about 400,000. Making it somewhere like 30 something biggest city in the U.S. However the metro is 5.5 million about 5th or 6th in the U.S.
I would like to know whats the biggest difference in city to metro?
But anyways you should be proud of wherever your from no matter the size.
I don't think all are exaggerated, but there are those few cities that claim to be in the millions and its several counties.
Which ones would those be? I know people have said this about Atlanta without realizing that so many counties are included in its MSA because Georgia has smaller counties on average. And it is the Census Bureau (or OMB) that determines what counties and how many counties are included in an MSA, so it's not the city itself "claiming to be in the millions." It's not a city-based PR stunt gone horribly awry as you seem to suggest.
I'm not saying anywhere is really horribly exaggerated. I just think metro areas can be a little off. How can there not be an exaggeration when it comes to population? Anywhere can say there is this many people in this much land and include it as one MSA. Just saying, but I still think metro is the most important.
I'm not saying anywhere is really horribly exaggerated. I just think metro areas can be a little off. How can there not be an exaggeration when it comes to population? Anywhere can say there is this many people in this much land and include it as one MSA. Just saying, but I still think metro is the most important.
Do you know how metro areas are determined? It's by commuting patterns. In the majority of cases, it's simple; counties surrounding the core county/counties are included in the metro if at least 25% of the workforce commutes to the core/counties for employment. It isn't an arbitrary determination like you're implying.
you gotta go with metro. their wouldn't be a big metro unless it was a big urban area.
I used to live in South Florida aka Metro Miami and the city is about 400,000. Making it somewhere like 30 something biggest city in the U.S. However the metro is 5.5 million about 5th or 6th in the U.S.
I would like to know whats the biggest difference in city to metro?
But anyways you should be proud of wherever your from no matter the size.
Miami may be the winner...
Miami
City population - 362,000
Metro (MSA) population - 5.4 million
% of MSA population in Miami city - 6.7%
Boston
City population - 609,000
Metro (CSA) population - 7.5 million
% of CSA population in Boston city - 8%
Atlanta
City population - 537,000
Metro (CSA) population - 5.7 million
% of CSA population in Atlanta city - 9.4%
San Francisco
City population - 808,000
Metro (CSA) population - 7.4 million
% of CSA population in San Francisco city - 10.9%
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.
