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.
Urbanized Area, but it isn't perfect either. L.A.'s true size is closer to 15 million. MSA and UA undersell its size, CSA oversells it.
The Bay Area ring, which is really one urban area, is around 5 million people. No measurement (UA, MSA, CSA) is 100% accurate for that city, to point where it doesn't crack the top 10 among largest MSAs, which is silly.
Looking at the numbers, DC and Dallas receive the largest bump from UA to MSA. Miami gets almost no bump.
San Francisco CSA is actually over 8 million, see Wikipedia.
Though to look at density I think weighted density is probably a better measure. This excludes non inhabited areas like parks, airports, mountians etc.
Though to look at density I think weighted density is probably a better measure. This excludes non inhabited areas like parks, airports, mountians etc.
Note the differences in density between NYC and LA radiating from the core - NYC (not surprisingly is far more compact out to about 15 miles from their centers (for this is city hall)
CSA is too large and outside of a few cases like Raleigh/Durham I cringe when people use it. Urbanized area is good for determining how big a city feels but not as accurate in determining the economic importance of a metro area. People living in exurban areas, usually not counted in urbanized areas, contribute to the economy of a MSA as well.
And yes Atlanata is notably low on both standard and weighted density
This Data is so old i can't take it seriously. All these cities urban populations have increased significantly ly in the past 15 years. But with that I may have been wrong on my stats. But my point was if the the Urban area is Seattle is High density while the Metro or CSA it drops off significantly.
This Data is so old i can't take it seriously. All these cities urban populations have increased significantly ly in the past 15 years. But with that I may have been wrong on my stats. But my point was if the the Urban area is Seattle is High density while the Metro or CSA it drops off significantly.
I don't think there is any one single measure that is good for determining/ranking city 'size'. Aside from official population metrics, things like media market, GDP, size of transportation hub, services & amenities, etc are also important.
I feel like population density, whether it be from urban area, metro area, city, county, or whatnot, can be misleading.
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.
