North American Agglomerations (United States, Canada, Mexico), 2016 (living, best, better)

[Trafalgar Law]

The areas over 2 million.

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.

[pointer212]

Is this the same metric as UA Urban Area's? I think that is really the best metric to go by.

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by pointer212

Is this the same metric as UA Urban Area's? I think that is really the best metric to go by.

Nah, this metric (the agglomeration) is like the CSA equivalent for urbanized areas.

I'll explain it better;

You know what Combined Statistical Area (CSA) is to Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). CSA is basically an expansion of the MSA, it is the core MSA and all adjacent MSAs and micropolitan areas that meet the more lax 15% commuter threshold (down from the 25% commuter thresholds used to create MSAs).

In the same vein, the Global Agglomeration is that to the Urban Area (UA). Global Agglomerations are the core Urban Areas (UAs) and all adjacent urban areas or urban clusters that maintain some ties combined into one.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric

Nah, this metric (the agglomeration) is like the CSA equivalent for urbanized areas.

I'll explain it better;

You know what Combined Statistical Area (CSA) is to Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). CSA is basically an expansion of the MSA, it is the core MSA and all adjacent MSAs and micropolitan areas that meet the more lax 15% commuter threshold (down from the 25% commuter thresholds used to create MSAs).

In the same vein, the Global Agglomeration is that to the Urban Area (UA). Global Agglomerations are the core Urban Areas (UAs) and all adjacent urban areas or urban clusters that maintain some ties combined into one.

This is another data set from the link I posted from another thread. This is a really good and interesting resource.

[Atticman]

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.

[MrKnight]

Interesting, a lot of Southeastern cities have made significant gains, this further solidifies the theory that people are flocking to Southeast US and Florida in droves..

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Atticman

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.

People from all over the Bay Area say they live in SF when traveling abroad.

[tocoto]

Originally Posted by Atticman

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.

Do people from Ft. Worth say they are from Dallas? Probably not. Are they living in the same urban agglomeration? Yes.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by Atticman

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.

Actually, I am not convinced that this is true. What I really like about the data from the link to these agglomerations is that one can actually see the outline of the land masses associated with them. Zoom into a city on the map. For many cities, you will see a spider web effect from the core that most likely follows heavily travelled transportation corridors that have been developed along the path to outlying towns and adjacent cities. Charlotte and Orlando are two good examples of this type of agglomeration boundary. The reach of the urban/populated footprint tethers the outliers to the core. In some case, the outlying cities/towns are physically disconnected from the main urban boundary. There are many examples of this in the link where the outlying development is disconnected from the main mass of the urban footprint, indicating that the largely undeveloped land between the urban masses isn't being counted. You can see these disconnections in many urban areas in the Southeast including Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, Jacksonville, etc. I suppose that, as the areas between the urban masses develop, those too will be included in the data at a future date. In most if not all cases, these agglomerations are less than the primary census area population (either MSA or CSA).
What these masses do not tell us is how developed they are in regard to density other than that they meet a minimum density metric to be included. While one can see an overall metric based on total land area and total population, it would also be interesting to see a more detailed heat map of the those boundaries showing variations in the density.

[YIMBY]

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.