Let's not let this get off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX
Metro does not mean urbanized area.The metro includes outlying non built up areas as well.
|
I have to agree with this. For instance, Caldwell County is included in Austin's metro area, but it's anything but built up and/or urbanized. I'm not sure I've even set foot in Caldwell County. lol
Metro populations is a much better measure of cities. Look at Round Rock, Texas, Austin's largest suburb. Let's compare it to Galveston. As of 2005 the estimated population for Round Rock was 86,316. It has already passed Galveston's population by nearly 30,000 people. Galveston that same year had an estimated 57,466 people. Anyway, I dare anyone to say that Round Rock is as urban or built up as Galveston, let alone larger. Galveston, even though it is a tiny dot on the map, is a very urban city with buildings that are way over 100 years old. Galveston is full of beautiful old neighborhoods full of huge old houses. Round Rock likely couldn't boast either of those. Metro numbers don't lie, city population numbers are always skewed.
Also city limit sizes vary wildly. One city might be hundreds of square miles while another might be just a few square miles while they might both have the same city population. Now which one is more urban? Obviously the one with the smaller city limit size. A good example of this is Boston and Oklahoma City. Boston's city limits is 48 square miles and they have 590,763 people in the city. Oklahoma City has 621 square miles and has 541,500 people. However, Oklahoma City's metro population is only 1,266,445 people, while Boston has 4,455,217 people. Boston and metro is obviously larger than Oklahoma City.
This issue shouldn't even have to come up with you guys, we're all supposed to know about this stuff, more so than your average Joe walking down the street.