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.
^^^
For some of the cities on this Rand McNally list looks like CSA population and not contiguous urbanized area populations. This is what lists look like where there is no standardization in terms of how you measure metro population.
According to Rand McNally these were top 10 largest metro areas in North american in 2017.
1 New York United States 23,723,696
2 Mexico City Mexico 22,000,000
3 Los Angeles United States 17,500,000
4 Chicago United States 8,759,312
5 Washington United States 8,300,000
6 San Francisco United States 7,610,000
7 Boston United States 7,350,000
8 Philadelphia United States 7,300,000
9 Toronto Canada 7,165,061
10 Dallas United States 6,500.000
I disagree with using CSA as the "metropolitan area" of US cities. The US Census Bureau uses "Metropolitan Statistical Area" and "Combined Statistical Area" for a reason; the CSA is combined with other metros. The Los Angeles CSA includes Riverside-San Bernardino, which is far removed from LA. That LA "will surpass NYC in CSA population in the next decades", as one poster states above, is totally irrelevant. The CSA is a false yardstick for just about everything (except perhaps media reach). San Francisco's CSA includes San Jose, a metro area in its own right. New York's CSA includes parts of Pennsylvania, which is simply way out of NYC's urban sphere. Many people use CSA designations to bloat and "boost" their own city's stats. Thus, they have supporters in Los Angeles and San Francisco -- and (I suspect) Toronto with the GTHA.
@Fusion: "no standardization in terms of how you measure metro population." There certainly is in the US: the MSA. That is the figure that all American encyclopedias, almanacs, and other source books use for metro areas. Rand McNally, a mapping outfit, is off topic.
Last edited by masonbauknight; 03-27-2018 at 09:05 AM..
CSA is used by those on this forum, who want to boost their city. Otherwise, they espouse the use of MSA. City Proper gets no respect. Depends what suits each poster's goal the best.
It's interesting to look at which cities get the biggest theoretical "boost" in the jump from MSA to CSA stats. They're not all created equal.
Relative to its size, NYC doesn't get that big of a CSA boost. It goes from over 20 million to 23 million.
LA gets a bigger boost and adds over 5 million. So from 13 million to over 18 million.
Chicago gets very little boosting from the CSA calculation.
Boston almost doubles when you go from MSA to CSA.
Washington also gets a major boost but one can argue that that CSA is a true two-headed beast with Baltimore.
I agree -- good points. Many Angelenos on C-D love CSA stats for that reason: LA becomes competitive with New York as a "metro area." Except that Riverside-San Bernardino is a distinct "metro area" from LA, and Allentown, PA is simply not "metro New York" (except in someone's parallel universe).
I disagree with using CSA as the "metropolitan area" of US cities.
Those statistics that Angelino19 posted are not of CSAs, not at all - they don't even look like CSAs. They are Global Urban Agglomerations, which are an entirely different metric than MSAs and CSAs with entirely different factors and thresholds.
I suspect that he got the information from Wikipedia, the statistics on its page are both outdated (2015) and someone has edited New York's number to be greater than what it is (someone edited its CSA number in there).
Here is an updated list of Global Urban Agglomerations in North America, as of 2017/2018:
01. Mexico City: 22,600,000
02. New York: 22,200,000
03. Los Angeles: 17,700,000
04. Chicago: 9,750,000
05. Washington: 8,500,000
06. San Francisco: 7,800,000
07. Boston: 7,600,000
08. Philadelphia: 7,350,000
09. Toronto: 7,300,000
10. Dallas: 6,900,000
11. Houston: 6,500,000
12. Miami: 6,250,000
13. Atlanta: 5,700,000
14. Detroit: 5,700,000
It's a global metric that measures the population and built-up form of urban areas + urban clusters adjacent to urban areas but with uniform and contiguous development. Urban Agglomeration is an urban area + the urban clusters that surround it and/or secondary urban areas that have an intrinsic link into the first (as is the case with Baltimore into Washington).
Those statistics that Angelino19 posted are not of CSAs, not at all - they don't even look like CSAs. They are Global Urban Agglomerations, which are an entirely different metric than MSAs and CSAs with entirely different factors and thresholds.
I suspect that he got the information from Wikipedia, the statistics on its page are both outdated (2015) and someone has edited New York's number to be greater than what it is (someone edited its CSA number in there).
Here is an updated list of Global Urban Agglomerations in North America, as of 2017/2018:
01. Mexico City: 22,600,000
02. New York: 22,200,000
03. Los Angeles: 17,700,000
04. Chicago: 9,750,000
05. Washington: 8,500,000
06. San Francisco: 7,800,000
07. Boston: 7,600,000
08. Philadelphia: 7,350,000
09. Toronto: 7,300,000
10. Dallas: 6,900,000
11. Houston: 6,500,000
12. Miami: 6,250,000
13. Atlanta: 5,700,000
14. Detroit: 5,700,000
It's a global metric that measures the population and built-up form of urban areas + urban clusters adjacent to urban areas but with uniform and contiguous development. Urban Agglomeration is an urban area + the urban clusters that surround it and/or secondary urban areas that have an intrinsic link into the first (as is the case with Baltimore into Washington).
Thanks for this clarification. Those mocking or lessening the order of these cities and populations as CSA's as a bogus measurement of some kind. Can now realize this list for what it is intended as being continuous. But I'm sure some may still claim a factor missed and call it less relevant .... because one city still will feel it's unfairly lower .... We shall see.
We should have realized Toronto would not be given a measurement as a CSA. As it is outside the US and Canada does not do an equal kind.
Thanks for this clarification. Those mocking or lessening the order of these cities and populations as CSA's as a bogus measurement of some kind. Can now realize this list for what it is intended as being continuous. But I'm sure some may still claim a factor missed and call it less relevant .... because one city still will feel it's unfairly lower .... We shall see.
We should have realized Toronto would not be given a measurement as a CSA. As it is outside the US and Canada does not do an equal kind.
The above chart's populations for NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston are based on the US Census Bureau's CSA. That's clear, as they're the same populations. For Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino was included in a mega "metro Los Angeles," while northern Pennsylvania was lumped with "metro New York." That's far-fetched wishful thinking. American source books, encyclopedias, and almanacs (World Almanac is one) must agree, as they always cite MSA populations at "metro areas." Toronto is similar, I suspect: In typical Canadian source books, Toronto's metro area is not usually the entire GTHA, which closely resembles an American CSA. City-Data is full of city boosters, and many do like the CSA for that reason.
I disagree with using CSA as the "metropolitan area" of US cities. The US Census Bureau uses "Metropolitan Statistical Area" and "Combined Statistical Area" for a reason; the CSA is combined with other metros. The Los Angeles CSA includes Riverside-San Bernardino, which is far removed from LA. That LA "will surpass NYC in CSA population in the next decades", as one poster states above, is totally irrelevant. The CSA is a false yardstick for just about everything (except perhaps media reach). San Francisco's CSA includes San Jose, a metro area in its own right. New York's CSA includes parts of Pennsylvania, which is simply way out of NYC's urban sphere. Many people use CSA designations to bloat and "boost" their own city's stats. Thus, they have supporters in Los Angeles and San Francisco -- and (I suspect) Toronto with the GTHA.
@Fusion: "no standardization in terms of how you measure metro population." There certainly is in the US: the MSA. That is the figure that all American encyclopedias, almanacs, and other source books use for metro areas. Rand McNally, a mapping outfit, is off topic.
The CSA of a region reflects cities and towns which are intrinsically connected, as with the LA region. The 125 mile stretch from northern Ventura county to south Orange County, crossing through LA City & County, is a continuum of connected cities and towns. The 70 mile stretch from LA International Airport (Pacific Ocean) east to Riverside is also a continuum of connected cities and towns. If you want an accurate picture of a city and it's environs, the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) of a city provides a more accurate picture for travelers or people looking to relocated to that area. In the vast 5 county interconnected region, referred to as greater Metro LA, there are several large cities, all of which are connected via more than 15 freeways and a regional transit train system called MetroLink. The largest cities in the aforementioned 5 county region are:
Los Angeles, LA County 4,050,000
Long Beach, LA County 480,000
Anaheim, Orange County 360,000
Santa Ana, Orange County 342,000
Riverside, Riverside County 330,000
Irvine, Orange County 270,000
San Bernardino, SB County 220,000
Oxnard, Ventura County 210,000
Glendale, LA County 202,000
Last edited by Angelino19; 03-27-2018 at 06:57 PM..
Demographia's Urban Areas just came out with the 2018 edition this week. Like all metrics, I take a good look at it annually.
Demographia's Urban Areas for North America in 2018:
01. New York: 21,575,000
02. Mexico City: 20,565,000
03. Los Angeles: 15,620,000
04. Chicago: 9,160,000
05. Boston: 7,315,000
06. Toronto: 6,635,000
07. Dallas/Fort Worth: 6,600,000
08. San Francisco Bay Area: 6,540,000
09. Houston: 6,285,000
10. Miami: 6,195,000
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not ok
Last edited by Yac; 04-06-2018 at 05:46 AM..
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.
Can now realize this list for what it is intended as being continuous. But I'm sure some may still claim a factor missed and call it less relevant .... because one city still will feel it's unfairly lower .... 