Naming US metropolitan areas

[DCReid]

How does the US census/OMB define metro areas? Most have three cities, such as Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, but some just have one, like Pittsburgh, PA? Also, I thought the ones with 3 cities are the largest 3 cities, like Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland, but that does not always appear to be the case, such as Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford - Daytona Beach is part of the Orlando metro was the 2nd largest in 2010. I am just curious whether they will change metro names after the 2020 to reflect faster growing cities that because larger in some of the faster growing metros. I recall that Houston metro used to have Galveston in the name but it was taken out and The Woodlands was put in (I think). Will a metro like Dallas eventually have a new metro name like Dallas-Ft. Worth-Frisco or McKinney in 20-30 years if the outer burbs keep growing? W

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate...atistical_Area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_areas

[Yuri]

I hate the fact of placing Virginia Beach ahead Norfolk on the last updates. I just keep writing "Norfolk" only on my lists.

[Steely Dan]

It's a mystery to me.

In Chicagoland, both Aurora and Joliet are larger than Naperville and Elgin, but the latter get the top billing for some reason.

And ALL of them are relatively insignificant little towns compared to Chicago. None of them deserve top billing in the MSA name next to the only alpha dog in the region.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by DCReid

How does the US census/OMB define metro areas? Most have three cities, such as Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, but some just have one, like Pittsburgh, PA? Also, I thought the ones with 3 cities are the largest 3 cities, like Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland, but that does not always appear to be the case, such as Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford - Daytona Beach is part of the Orlando metro was the 2nd largest in 2010. I am just curious whether they will change metro names after the 2020 to reflect faster growing cities that because larger in some of the faster growing metros. I recall that Houston metro used to have Galveston in the name but it was taken out and The Woodlands was put in (I think). Will a metro like Dallas eventually have a new metro name like Dallas-Ft. Worth-Frisco or McKinney in 20-30 years if the outer burbs keep growing? W

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate...atistical_Area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_areas

About Houston you are correct about Galveston. The Census Bureau does some strage things intentionally or not and one is the way it selects anchor cities. You don't even have to be from Houston's MSA like me to know how fool hardy it is to include outright suburbs like The Woodlands and Baytown as anchor cities. Heck, neither is any more distinctive than places like Pearland and especially Sugar Land, which should be on there if any suburb.

I don't know what's so mundane about just calling it the Houston MSA, the city is the only anchor in the area by a mile. Only Galveston has a claim to being an anchor, it still having its own mini-MSA and distance from Houston. It is the only one, small as it may be, that rises to level of a city (in various ways) and not a suburb.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I hate the fact of placing Virginia Beach ahead Norfolk on the last updates. I just keep writing "Norfolk" only on my lists.

Those cities are crabs in a bucket anyways, can you really tell which one is the Alpha-male? What about Hampton?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

About Houston you are correct about Galveston. The Census Bureau does some strage things intentionally or not and one is the way it selects anchor cities. You don't even have to be from Houston's MSA like me to know how fool hardy it is to include outright suburbs like The Woodlands and Baytown as anchor cities. Heck, neither is any more distinctive than places like Pearland and especially Sugar Land, which should be on there if any suburb.

I don't know what's so mundane about just calling it the Houston MSA, the city is the only anchor in the area by a mile. Only Galveston has a claim to being an anchor, it still having its own mini-MSA and distance from Houston. It is the only one, small as it may be, that rises to level of a city (in various ways) and not a suburb.

Wasn't Houston's MSA referred to as "Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX MSA" back in the 90's?

I lived in TX back then, and always wondered why Brazoria - a city / county that isn't necessarily large, prominent nor familiar to most Texans - was included in Houston's MSA designation.

[ThePhun1]

They weren't so scientific back then. Brazoria is technically a municipality but the name is actually a reference to Brazoria County and more specifically of the mini-metro/area of Brazoria around Freeport. It, along with Galveston, used to be distinct from Houston, so the name "Houston-Galveston-Brazoria" was acurate as each anchor acted regionally and not as a truly connected metro area (particularly in the 80's-90's). I think Galveston was a distinct metro as recently as the 70's but if not the 60's.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Those cities are crabs in a bucket anyways, can you really tell which one is the Alpha-male? What about Hampton?

Absolutely. Norfolk is, without a doubt, the hub of the region. It has the only real functioning downtown business district, it has the largest amount of traditional urbanity, and it has the largest navy base in the world...and it is the most central city in the region.

[Yuri]

Forgot about San Francisco, that were recently renamed San Jose-San Francisco. To me it's just San Francisco metro area.

[ThePhun1]

What a joke, San Jose is technically larger but is not the alpha in the relationship.

[iheartthed]

Apparently, the first city is the largest urban core, and the following two cities are chosen based on some calculation of population and employment sizes:

NAMING CONVENTIONS
Statistical areas are named after the city the OMB defines as the "principal city," namely the administrative entity which forms the largest urban core. "Atlantic City, NJ MSA" is a typical MSA name. The area includes a single county, Atlantic County, NJ. Under OMB rules, however, additional cities may also qualify for the "principle" designation based on population and employment size measures. The names of up to the top three principal cities are included in the name of the MSA including the state abbreviations in which the cities and component counties are located. An example is "Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA." The three principle cities shown are in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, but the state of MD is shown as well because Cecil County, MD is part of this metro region. This particular MSA is also divided into three Metropolitan Divisions, namely Camden, NJ, Philadelphia, PA, and Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ. Thus the divisions are named after "principal cities." Sometimes, however, division names are based on county rather than on principal city names.

https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/met...-area-msa.html

[chris08876]

I think they need to reduce the size of U.S. metro's or even CSA's. It really low balls the density. Some metros have vast amounts of unincorporated land or land that folks don't live on that is factored into the total square-miles. Sometimes topography can play a great role (like mountains). In some cases, can really impact density calculations. Not necessarily a population reduction, but just reducing the redundant land that doesn't help density figures.

Density is just a sticky point for me. U.S. metros due to their size give a false impression.

[ThePhun1]

The current system is far from perfect but works well. All areas have to fit in somewhere and if anything, cities' impact is understated as their sphere of influence can spread out hundreds of miles.

A better solution is for urban area to be used to better convey a city's size than MSA or CSA. But like comparing land size in maps, it's all distorted and the size will be (mis)represented by which measure you use to determine an area's/city's population.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

What a joke, San Jose is technically larger but is not the alpha in the relationship.

Right. In my opinion Oakland has more importance over San Jose. Besides tech what else does San Jose offer in that region?

[MolsonExport]

What about the Okotoks-Airdrie-Cochrane-Calgary megalopolis?

[Dariusb]

Secondary question: Do you think concerning the US government's definition of metro areas should they continue to use the system they currently have, keep it and just amend it or use some other system like they do in England or Canada?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Secondary question: Do you think concerning the US government's definition of metro areas should they continue to use the system they currently have, keep it and just amend it or use some other system like they do in England or Canada?

The US system is my favourite. Simple, straighforward and definitions are always been revisited and updated.

Most countries don't even have a standard system to define metro areas.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Right. In my opinion Oakland has more importance over San Jose. Besides tech what else does San Jose offer in that region?

I think at this point, SJ is far more relevant than Oakland. The economic output and innovation coming out of San Jose and surrounding communities has global implications.

[bossabreezes]

San Francisco is always going to be the most relevant of the three major Bay Area cities. I think vernacularly it'll always being known as ''The Bay'' or ''San Francisco Bay Area'', but for Census purposes ''San Francisco- San José' makes most sense emotionally, but since SJ technically is larger it makes sense it's been places in front of SF in the census tract's title.

[Yuri]

San Jose is a San Francisco suburb. It only exist by the virtue of San Francisco urban core sprawling southwards.

If Brooklyn becomes an independent city, I certainly don't expect to call New York by a bizarre Brooklyn-Queens-New York-Newark MSA or whatever the name.