Talk:List of United States metropolitan areas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of United States metropolitan areas redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New more accurate source

The 2007 World Almanac lists different rankings from those displayed here. For example, Kansas City has moved to 26 and Denver has moved down to 24. These changes should be listed in this wikipedia article. == Statistics Source? ==kyle is so kool Where did these stats come from, they do not seam right?

The MSAs are derived from the list here, kindly provided by the US Census. This is based on OMB's new list, put out in late 2003. It is not the same as the list that is still being used as the basis for most articles on MSAs on Wikipedia. The population figures were derived by me adding up the populations of each of the constituent parts of each MSA defined by OMB/the Census. Also, "seem" is spelled with two "e"'s. john k 05:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, check these sites out [1] and [2] they seem more correct.

The left map at your first site is, in fact, the basis for what I did. I did not used Combined Statistical Areas because those are not, in fact, metropolitan statistical areas. This list does exactly what it says it does - listing metropolitan statistical areas. I have no idea what demographia.com is, but it seems to be using the old definitions, which were made obsolete by the release of the 2003 ones. john k 06:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Actually, john, the Demographia study does in fact use the correct and updated info (it says so right under the header what it's based on, and I double-checked it.) CMSA's are not only MSA's, they are more accurate, and used by most media buyers and statisticians because they reflect better people's association, travel and hubs for cultural and geographical relationships. I don't know where you live but a good example is Boulder being included in the Denver MSA. It makes more geographical sense this way as Boulder is, for all practical purposes, a suburb of Denver and always has been less than 20 minutes away from the city limits of Denver which is quite small due to an annexation law. Now, St. Cloud being included in the Mpls/St. Paul CMSA is foolish, and the gov't needs to be more consistent there. You would need to add in Colorado Springs to Denver's MSA if you add in St. Cloud to Mpls. But it's all numbers.

The one statistic that is maddening is, for example, people taking a land mass and determining the size of a city. San Jose bragged about how it's larger than San Francisco. Well, when you limit the data by city limits only, then yes. San Jose is sprawl to the max. But it's not reality. Nor is Oklahoma City the 29th largest city in the country, as mis-reported in the Wall St. Journal today. By land mass? Fine. But it's a misnomer.

In terms of CMSAs, the fact is that they are not used any more. We now have MSAs, McSAs, and CSAs. The demographia study, if it is not using the old CMSAs, must be using the CSAs. Which are not defined as metropolitan areas by OMB, and which are combinations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. At any rate, this article is correct as it stands, because it says it is referring to metropolitan statistical areas, not vaguely defined "Metropolitan areas." I think what we need to do is have articles on each Combined Statistical Area, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Micropolitan Statistical Area in the coutnry, and possibly also on Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. We should have lists of all of them, as well - that is, essentially, we ought to reproduce what the census bureau has, with all its various categories, and without trying to assert anything beyond that these are census categories. That Spotsylvania County, Virginia is, by all definitions, within the "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metropolitan Statistical Area" is essentially absurd if it is meant to be a statement of anything besides the fact that this is how OMB defines it. Clearly, the Washington MSA has been artificially extended so as to save the government money on COLAs to federal employees. So it's POV to discuss metropolitan areas as anything but government statistical definitions used for various purposes. But we should have articles on all of them, and lists of all of them, to avoid this kind of dispute. john k 15:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Error

ERROR! ERROR! Roanoke, VA is missing and should be in between Huntington, WV and Green Bay. Please correct. -Amit

I have scrolled through the first 100 listings three times without finding my city, Tucson. Local rumors hold that 700 K - 1 M folk live here. The city seems roughly comparable to Salt Lake City. Am I missing something? --amr

It's at #52 with a population of ~950,000. --Polaron | Talk 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notice

This article is basically the same as United States metropolitan area. They should be merged. I suggest we make the top twenty five with the nicknames and special notes and put the rest of the list after that. I also think we should keep PR cities in their ranking position but use an asterisk or something, so that our ranking numbers match the Census numbers. DirectorStratton 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article should be merged, but the article on "Metropolitan areas by population" should be modified to incorporate CSAs rather than MSAs where applicable, with links to tables concerning both styles. After all, many MSAs were merged into CSAs in late 2004. The two articles should be linked with a clear explanation explaining the differences in each -- as such, the other article should not rely solely on MSA numbers as it does now. An example would be the SF Bay Area, which in 2004 was organized into a single CSA. However, San Diego is still organized in a single MSA; in the other article, I believe both should be listed with the CSA for places that have them (NYC, LA, SF, DC) and then the MSA where a CSA is not applicable (San Diego etc.). Catsonmars 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Catsonmars, the United States metropolitan area article needs heavy modification it essentially copied the list of "MSA" while under the name of "Metropolitan Area" which is very misleading. "MSA" is not the same as "Metropolitan Area". A ranking which include MSAs, CSAs, micropolitan area (each being use if necesarry in a particular region) better reflects of what we called "Metropolitab Area". In the MSA list Greater Los Angeles was broken into 3 MSAs while The San Francisco Bay Area was broken into 6 MSAs where in reality their CSAs are more acceptable defenition of their metro areas.

What a load of crap, but, if as you say, this is the new way the census bureau is NOW compiling the list, dont know what choice we have other than to write the bureau to see what lame governemnet entity came up with this load of crap.

To have the LA, San Fran and Boston (consolodated metro areas) population knocked down by SO many people, just leads to misrepresentation.

San Fran and LA particularly get hit. Come on, San Fran at only 4.1? Totatlly misrrepresents the area. LA deducted by OVER 4.5 million people? THis is at least one area I can speak of as I live there. THe San Berdo-Riverside area is connected to the Metro area like my leg is connected to my torso/ They get all LA radio-TV stattions, a majority drives to LA metro for work every day, when they pcik up their paper on the drive way, its the LA times. Go to any Dodger, Angel, Laker, Clipper, King, Duck, Bruin, Trojan games and try NOT to find a slew of people from that area. Far be it for ME to tell the census bureau what to do, but these numbers DO NOT represent the areas of the United States what so ever. Its a sham.

There is the Combined Statistical Area article where the metropolitan areas with sufficient cross-commuting are combined into a larger area. Polaron 13:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYC metro

Someone keeps removing Connecticut and adding Pennsylvania to the list of states included in the New York Metropolitan area. The Wikipedia article New York metropolitan area says that "Greater New York City is defined by the U.S. Census as the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Metropolitan Statistical area...." Pennsylvania is part of the New York-Newark-Bridgeport CSA, but that's not what's being listed here.

I am removing PA and re-adding CT to the list. If someone plans to revert it, please explain it here.

I have reverted your change. This article contains data from the census bureau, specifically the list of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). The Census bureau defines New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area as NY-NJ-PA. This is because "Newark-Union, NJ-PA" is part of the metropolitan area and no areas of CT are in this MSA. Note that we are not talking about CSAs, we are talking about MSAs. CSAs typically contain multiple MSAs (micro/metro areas). For example The Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV Combined Statistical Area includes the Baltimore MSA, the Hagerstown, MD MSA and the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA. If this was a list of CSAs by population, your change would be valid. But, it is not. --Gonknet 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors?

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA is on there twice. I think the larger one is supposed to be Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, cause I don't think it was on there. I'm not entirely sure about the substitution, but someone who has access to primary data should check it out.

You are correct. I have made the appropriate change. --Gonknet 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 2... now just a different two... numbers of around 100 and around 170.

You are also correct. Santa Rosa-Petaluma should be 102. --Gonknet 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate wikifying in list

The article is currently wikified according to each individual city and/or suburban region. It seems to me that it should be wikified to the whole metro area, like Chicagoland for Chicago and Greater Los Angeles Area for LA? Thoughts? --Simpsnut14 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article for the metro area exists then we should definitely link to that. But we should leave the displayed text to be the official census names. Polaron 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone split San Jose/Santa Clara Valley from San Francisco/Oakland and put Fremont in its stead? I really doubt the person responsible for this has been in the area, or let alone a good look at a satellite image. The Bay Area is SFC OAK and SJC and always will be ONE metro, no inane categorization will change that.

I agree with ya. See the comments below, under the heading The article should be named "Metropolitan STATISTICAL Area" and not simply "Metropolitan Area" 24.6.66.193 19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Errors for Portland Maine?

I noticed that the MSA of Portland ME is listed as having a population of 510, 791. This would mean the area would have almost a third of the population of the entire state. Is this correct? Please edit or confirm this statistic.

The figure is correct (I rechecked the reference listed at the bottom of the article). Maine has a lot of rural territory and about half the state's entire population is concentrated in its two metropolitan areas (Portland, Bangor,and Augusta). Polaron | Talk 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Metro now has over 610,000 people in the metro area. Bangor and Augusta both have over 310,000 people in their metro areas combined.

2006 Statistics Are Now Available

Would appreciate if somebody would post them from Demographia.

Here They Are...

http://www.demographia.com/db-2005migintl.pdf

The article should be named "Metropolitan STATISTICAL Area" and not simply "Metropolitan Area"

US Census provided 2 definitions of "metropolitan area" these are the MSA and CSA. The list is only describing the more restrictive MSA (Metropolitan STATISTICAL area). This can be confusing since some "metropolitan areas" are not represented right if we claimed that this is the only definition of A metropolitan area.

Primary example is the San Francisco-San Jose Area. The US census still provides an official definition of the San Francisco Bay Area in thier CSA or combined statistical area. Which represents the area better than the MSA.

San Francisco and San Jose are both connected in every aspect. No gap of rural region between SF-Oakland all the way down to San Jose. They have the same Media Market. They share sports teams, etc., etc. To sum it up they function as one "metropolitan area".

I agree with posting the demographia.com list because it includes the ranking of primarily the CSAs BUT also including the MSAs that are not part of a CSA. Thus reflecting the "metro area" in US better.

-888

I second this, both the broader point and the given example. Let's label these stats what they are...government stats based on an inorganic division...and have another article about metro areas that gives people a more usable and more useful measure. I doubt that someone looking for "largest metro areas" wants technicalities from some U.S. gov't bureaucracy...they want to know what the largest conglomerations of urban development in the United States are.

This article lists the San Francisco metropolitan area as outside the top ten in the U.S. This is misleading and silly:

-Tens of thousands of people live in San Francisco, for example, but work in the San Jose area (silicon valley), and for some the reverse is true.

-Fremont, which is listed as part of the San Francisco region, is only about 10 miles from the outskirts of San Jose (and about 40 miles from San Francisco).

-Or try this: hail a cab outside of San Jose international airport and tell the driver you want to go to "the city." Chances are he'll drive you to San Francisco.

Taken together (and it is simply ridiculous to do otherwise) the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area is around 5.85 million and would rank #4 in the U.S.

71.198.78.37

Agreed. It's weird to separate San Jose from San Francisco, and then decide Fremont is a suburb of San Francisco. Without going over the bay, the drive between Oakland and San Francisco (through San Jose) is completely developed. I'm not sure how they decided these things. We as Wikipedia might be able to combine areas that are clearly associated with each other, and just used the census version for the original numbers. 171.71.37.28 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too, for the reasons already stated. I also agree with the suggested approach of combining areas that are contiguous and clearly part of one large urban area, and adding up the census population figures to arrive an an accurate and more "correct" result. Or maybe it's possible to simply use the "Combined Statistical Area" ("CSA") mentioned above and use that figure? 24.6.66.193 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV markets

The numbers in this table appear to be consistent with the numbers of TV markets. Any counter-examples?? Georgia guy 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Florida metro area

I had made a change to the name of the south florida metro area from Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach to Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach. This is what the entry for that metro area now describes it as, even noting this is now the name of the metro area. The change was reverted. Not sure why. The metro area's name changed because West Palm Beach is larger than Miami Beach. If anything else, it should be changed to simply the "South Florida Metro area"...

This change has not yet been officially implemented. It will be in the next iteration. In the meantime, we should use the current official name. --Polaron | Talk 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit-Warren-Livonia vs. Detroit-Warren-Flint

On the Metro Detroit page, it clearly states Detroit-Warren-Flint as the census area, and so I feel that should be used. Comments? --Jon Cates 05:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing "Combined Statistical Areas" with "Metropolitan Statistical Areas?" The former occur when one combines multiple MSAs. john k 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but wouldn't the Detroit metropolitan area constitute a far wider region than just Detroit-Warren-Livonia? I would think that the Downriver communities as well as the the suburbs to the north and east would be in it as well, although that is not the census area. All those areas certainly consider themselves part of the Detroit metropolitan area though.

All of the communities identified in the Downriver article are in Wayne County and are thus included in the Detroit-Warren-Livonia MSA. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be Detroit-Flint-Ann Arbor metropolitan statistical area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxbombers93 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large inaccuracies

I went to the US Census site, and there are some huge differences between the current estimate and what is printed in this article. Albuquerque is listed with a population of 790000+, but the census guys say only 494,236. Some clarification and consistency please.

Yes -- the population of the actual city of Albuquerque is 494,236, but if you include the rest of the metro area, it's 790000+. --Node 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area

How would this article fit into the list? Perhaps link the number? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't traditionally had articles on metropolitan statistical areas. i'd say just replace all the current links with a link to that page. john k 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire category of them: Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this article should probably be in that category. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, who knew? Although it should be noted that some, at least, of those articles are about vaguely defined "metropolitan areas," and not about the MSAs as the census defines them. john k 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane-Coeur d'Alene?

Right now, Spokane is listed at 107 with a population of 440,706. Coeur d'Alene is listed at 287 with a population of 127,688. I think that it should be changed to Spokane-Coeur d'Alene, because the two cities' city centers are only 30 miles apart. Though that may seem alot, its because its the CITY CENTERS. Theres is a lot of urban area between the two. The two cities more or less function as one, since a lot of people commute between the two for work.

So ya, that's what I think. how about you guys? Jdubman 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how close they are--it matters how the Census Bureau defines the metropolitan statistical area.--Velvet elvis81 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what velvet elvis said,cause if not,then all of Puerto Rico would be 1 metropolitan area

Puerto Rico Metropolitan Areas

Where are they?The US Census counts them so why aren't they on the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoricuaPR (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Las he añadido :-) --Node 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Puerto Rico census statistical areas and the Table of United States primary census statistical areas#Puerto_Rico. --Buaidh 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando

Please review the ranking for Metro Orlando. You have listed Orlando as the 28th Largest Metro. However, it is necessary for you to include all of the Seven County Region (Orange,Osceola, Lake, Brevard, Seminole,Polk and Volusis) for Central Florida which includes: Orlando, Daytona, Melbourne. This is what was done for South Florida: Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. Comparing Apples to Apples, Central Florida is home to 3.6 Million residents, Projected to be 4 Million in 2010. This would make us, according to your Calculation, the 15th Largest Metro. If you include the I-4 Corridor: Daytona, Orlando and Tampa Bay, we then become a Megalopolis of nearly 7 Million People. However, 3.6 Million is more reflective. Please use as a Reference: The Orlando Sentinel- U.S Census Data for 2005, Sentinel Research.

Thanks,

Andrae Dariso —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adari220 (talk • contribs)

Please see here for 2006 data. The Census Bureau is still the best source, better than a local newspaper. Ufwuct 08:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think Orlando should include Daytona and the Space Coast. Miami includes Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach beacuse it is actuall y part of the area, and dont have there own metro areas. Unlike Daytona Beach which is in itself its own metro area with nearly 600,000 people, and Titusville-Melbourne-Palm Bay has 550,00 people in its metro area. Orlando is its own metro with around 2,000,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxbombers93 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 (July 1st) estimates now available

The July 1, 2006 estimates are now available at census.gov. This and this will be helpful to anyone willing to update the entire list. Ufwuct 08:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas

Number 31 should really be Las Vegas-North Las Vegas-Henderson. Henderson is the 2nd largest city in the state. I'm not even sure Paradise is an incorporated town. I do believe it's just part of Clark County and not part of Vegas in and of itself.Amoeba.x 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bend, or???

Bend Oregon: 149K? Not even close. someone should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.94.221 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bend Actually has 150,000 people in the metro area.

PA in NYC area?

Why is Pennsylvania and not Connecticut listed as being part of the NYC metropolitan area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.127.228 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it every time i change something, i come back later and it is changed back?

I keep changing the cities of the metro areas(after i look them up at [www.Emporis.com] i come back later and someone changed it back. For example i changed Richmond metro to Richmond-Petersburg, I changed Las Vegas-Paradise to Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, I changed Jacksonville to Jacksonville-Orange Park-Arlington, I came back a few minutes later, (after i saved it)and it was reset back to what i changed from. Why does this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxbombers93 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSAs have official names that are designated by the Office of Management and Budget. Emporis is not the authority responsible for defining and naming MSAs. --Polaron | Talk 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the one changing it though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxbombers93 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]