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.
This is getting a bit ridiculous. MSA, CSA, urban areas, consolidated urban areas, agglomerations, administrative areas, conglomerations, urban population of municipalities, etc... All these definitions of population measurement are being intermingled and tossed around to the point where it's meaningless.
I see it the other way. The more data sources and varying points of view help tell the entire story better than one data source or point of view. Usually people want to rest on the single point of view that tells the story that aligns with them. Having a variety of sources builds a clearer story about the truth.
Here on City-Data, my take is the more data the better.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
I see it the other way. The more data sources and varying points of view help tell the entire story better than one data source or point of view. Usually people want to rest on the single point of view that tells the story that aligns with them. Having a variety of sources builds a clearer story about the truth.
Here on City-Data, my take is the more data the better.
Exactly, you take a little bit from each metric and somewhere down the middle you get a much clearer picture of the various population stories across the country/continent. No single metric has proven to give a perfect explanation of this.
North American Agglomerations (United States, Canada, Mexico), 2016 01. Mexico City, Mexico: 22,100,000
02. New York, United States: 22,000,000
03. Los Angeles, United States: 17,600,000
04. Chicago, United States: 9,800,000
05. Washington, United States: 8,350,000
06. San Francisco, United States: 7,600,000
07. Boston, United States: 7,350,000
08. Philadelphia, United States: 7,300,000
09. Toronto, Canada: 7,100,000
10. Dallas, United States: 6,550,000
11. Houston, United States: 6,200,000
12. Miami, United States: 6,100,000
13. Detroit, United States-Canada: 5,700,000
14. Atlanta, United States: 5,500,000
15. Guadalajara, Mexico: 4,975,000
16. Monterrey, Mexico: 4,650,000
17. Phoenix, United States: 4,325,000
18. Montreal, Canada: 4,100,000
19. Seattle, United States: 4,075,000
20. Tampa, United States: 4,025,000
21. Denver, United States: 3,525,000
22. San Diego, United States: 3,275,000
23. Cleveland, United States: 3,075,000
24. Orlando, United States: 3,075,000
25. Minneapolis, United States: 3,050,000
26. Puebla, Mexico: 2,975,000
27. Cincinnati, United States: 2,725,000
28. Vancouver, Canada: 2,500,000
29. Saint Louis, United States: 2,350,000
30. Salt Lake City, United States: 2,300,000
31. Charlotte, United States: 2,275,000
32. Portland, United States: 2,275,000
33. San Juan, United States: 2,150,000
34. Toluca, Mexico: 2,150,000
35. Las Vegas, United States: 2,075,000
36. Pittsburgh, United States: 2,075,000
37. San Antonio, United States: 2,050,000
Discuss.
The U.S Census took SF out of the equation and put San Jose as the head of the Bay Area.
These sorts of agglomerations are not really indicative of true city size and feel since they often include large swaths of undeveloped land between the main city and outlying suburbs and satellites, and even nearby quite sizeable and distinct urban centres are swallowed up and all but disappear by name becoming part of the larger neighbouring city's "consolidated metro".
For example, on this list Baltimore, Providence and San Jose -- all large metros of their own -- cease to exist. Would any people who live in those cities say that they live in Washington, Boston and San Fransisco? No.
Agree.
Baltimore is big city in it's own rite.
A person WOULD say "I'm from San Jose" ....not SFO.
And that's the problem....some cities are geographically close,
especially in the US, skewing the stats.
Someone mentioned that people from all over the Bay Area say they are from SF when abroad. I went to college in Santa Barbara and people from all over the Bay Area would say they were from SF (including people from San Jose)..
Someone mentioned that people from all over the Bay Area say they are from SF when abroad. I went to college in Santa Barbara and people from all over the Bay Area would say they were from SF (including people from San Jose)..
Does SF have more name recognition than San Jose? Much easier to say "I'm from SF" than go through this conversation:
"Where are you from?"
"San Jose, CA"
"Where is that?"
"About an hour south of San Francisco"
"OH, I know where SF is!"
At least two people are saying that people would say San Jose.. and another person just said "The U.S Census took SF out of the equation and put San Jose as the head of the Bay Area."
EDIT: Although, SJ is a bigger name than it was even 10+ years ago (but mainly on forums and in circles like this one). And in my experience, these days most people say 'the Bay' or 'the Bay Area' when the answer is not SF. Those two terms are also infinitely more popular than they were last century.
Last edited by RadicalAtheist; 09-08-2016 at 01:20 PM..
7.7 M urban population for Boston is absurd. Same thing they have 1.7M for Hartford.
Is it really? The Boston CSA has 8.2 million, and this seems like the CSA definition but slightly more tailored so that it only includes urban and urban-adjacent areas. You can see a map of the areas around Boston that were included if you follow the link that the OP posted.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 02-16-2019 at 04:52 PM..
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.