2017 Urban Area Estimates

[aderwent]

As of 2017 there are (an estimated) 46 Urban Areas in the United States with at least 1 million residents. The Missouri Census Data Center has lots of data tools. I used the 2017 ACS profiles data tool to calculate urban area changes since 2010.



Things that stand out:

Best Position Changes:

Austin (+5)
Raleigh (+5)
Orlando (+4)

Worst Position Changes:

San Juan (-4)
Cleveland (-4)
Kansas City (-3)
Milwaukee (-3)

Best Numerical Changes:

New York (+743,161)
Houston (+721,272)
Dallas (+686,042)

Worst Numerical Changes:

San Juan (-221,013)
Cleveland (-20,084)
Pittsburgh (+4,204)
Detroit (+4,774)

Best Percentage Changes:

Austin (+21.02%)
Raleigh (+17.76%)
Charlotte (+17.05%)
Orlando (+16.62%)

Worst Percentage Changes:

San Juan (-10.29%)
Cleveland (-1.13%)
Detroit (+0.13%)
Pittsburgh (+0.24%)
St. Louis (+0.37%)

• New York surpassed 19 million.
  
• Miami surpassed 6 million.
  
• Houston, Atlanta, and D.C. surpassed 5 million.
  
• Phoenix surpassed 4 million.
  
• San Diego surpassed 3 million.
  
• Las Vegas, Riverside, Portland, and San Antonio surpassed 2 million.
  
• San Juan dropped below 2 million.
  
• Nashville, Louisville, Raleigh, and Richmond joined the ranks of the 1 million+ club.

[aderwent]

One thing I do not know is if these are based solely on the 2010 Urban Areas or if they include estimates of tracts that'll be part of the 2020 Urban Areas. Also, when I get time tonight I will put the metro numbers to the side and see urban/metro and urban growth/metro growth.

[aderwent]

Well I found some time.




New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Pittsburgh Urban Areas have grown more than their metro areas. Interesting that Pittsburgh is the only one in that group that lost population in its metro area.

Cleveland lost more people from their urban area than their metro area.

Highest % of Urban Area to Metro Area:

Miami (98.95%)
Las Vegas (97.29%)
San Diego (95.97%)
New York (95.48%)
Los Angeles (95.28%)

Lowest % of Urban Area to Metro Area:

Riverside (45.86%)
Nashville (57.03%)
Charlotte (57.92%)

Highest % of Metro Growth that's Urban

New York (172.21%)
Los Angeles (110.62%)
Las Vegas (102.65%)
San Diego (101.93%)
Philadelphia (100.61%)

Lowest % of Metro Growth that's Urban

Detroit (18.76%)
St. Louis (44.17%)
Riverside (47.24%)
Nashville (49.74%)

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by aderwent

As of 2017 there are (an estimated) 46 Urban Areas in the United States with at least 1 million residents. The Missouri Census Data Center has lots of data tools. I used the 2017 ACS profiles data tool to calculate urban area changes since 2010.



Things that stand out:

Best Position Changes:

Austin (+5)
Raleigh (+5)
Orlando (+4)

Worst Position Changes:

San Juan (-4)
Cleveland (-4)
Kansas City (-3)
Milwaukee (-3)

Best Numerical Changes:

New York (+743,161)
Houston (+721,272)
Dallas (+686,042)

Worst Numerical Changes:

San Juan (-221,013)
Cleveland (-20,084)
Pittsburgh (+4,204)
Detroit (+4,774)

Best Percentage Changes:

Austin (+21.02%)
Raleigh (+17.76%)
Charlotte (+17.05%)
Orlando (+16.62%)

Worst Percentage Changes:

San Juan (-10.29%)
Cleveland (-1.13%)
Detroit (+0.13%)
Pittsburgh (+0.24%)
St. Louis (+0.37%)

• New York surpassed 19 million.
  
• Miami surpassed 6 million.
  
• Houston, Atlanta, and D.C. surpassed 5 million.
  
• Phoenix surpassed 4 million.
  
• San Diego surpassed 3 million.
  
• Las Vegas, Riverside, Portland, and San Antonio surpassed 2 million.
  
• San Juan dropped below 2 million.
  
• Nashville, Louisville, Raleigh, and Richmond joined the ranks of the 1 million+ club.

What is Urban Area? how is that determined?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Well I found some time.

What you found says in 2017 San Francisco's "core city" population was 3.5 million. That's wrong by about a factor of 4. It was closer to 880,000.

So I don't know what to say about those numbers except it's hard to take them seriously.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

What you found says in 2017 San Francisco's "core city" population was 3.5 million. That's wrong by about a factor of 4. It was closer to 880,000.

So I don't know what to say about those numbers except it's hard to take them seriously.

That's the core city of the Urban Area. So not wrong at all. This is Urban Area populations. Much more relevant than arbitrary city limits.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by Obadno

What is Urban Area? how is that determined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_urban_area

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by aderwent

That's the core city of the Urban Area. So not wrong at all. This is Urban Area populations. Much more relevant than arbitrary city limits.

The figure I gave is for the City and County of SF. If a "core city" is not the city and it's not the metro and it's not the "urban area", what is it? I have no idea what they are talking about if niether of those. And I dount there figures from one city to another are comparable if it's arbitrary.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The figure I gave is for the City and County of SF. If a "core city" is not the city and it's not the metro and it's not the "urban area", what is it? I have no idea what they are talking about if niether of those. And I dount there figures from one city to another are comparable if it's arbitrary.

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

[edale]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The figure I gave is for the City and County of SF. If a "core city" is not the city and it's not the metro and it's not the "urban area", what is it? I have no idea what they are talking about if niether of those. And I dount there figures from one city to another are comparable if it's arbitrary.

Urban Area is a defined term with accompanying methodology, just like MSA, CSA, etc. It's a pretty common term/idea in planning and urban studies. I'm surprised someone who's posted regularly on this forum for a while has never heard of it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The figure I gave is for the City and County of SF. If a "core city" is not the city and it's not the metro and it's not the "urban area", what is it? I have no idea what they are talking about if niether of those. And I dount there figures from one city to another are comparable if it's arbitrary.

You are focused on the 47 sq miles of the City and County of SF that bans vapes and straws. He's is referring to SF's urban area which is much different and encompasses a much wider area. Houston proper is only about 2 million but according to that metric, it's about 5 million. Our metro area is something like 7 million.

[Ant131531]

I see Urban Areas as basically what the metro population would be if you trimmed off the exurbs and outer lying rural areas that just happen to be included in the MSA stats. Urban Area would basically be what the metro area actually feels like. Using my metro for example, Atlanta feels more like a 5 million metro than a 6 million one. An extra million people are caked on from outer lying counties that don't neccessarily feel like they're part of the Atlanta area.

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, the UA measure "trims the fat" from the CSA/MSA county mash-up game, and leaves us with the actual meat.

IMO, it provides a more accurate picture of the true size of an individual human settlement.

the geography/topography out in cali does make for some odd cleavings in so-cal and the bay area, but for most other places in the US, the UA is the best measure of a "city".



for instance, when we do the MSA county mash-up, we get very odd results like Kentland, IN belonging to chicago's MSA.

kentland, IN is surrounded by corn fields for at least 30 miles in all directions. it has NO business being included in a "metropolitan area".

but because it lies within newton county, and because the census bureau includes newton county in chicago's MSA, BOOM, kentland is now a chicagoland burb.

except that it's absolutely not a chicagoland burb in any way, shape, or form.

the UA definition appropriately trims away places like kentland.

[MonkeyRonin]

I think it's fair to say that San Jose should be included with San Francisco and Riverside with Los Angeles, but otherwise, these paint a much more accurate picture of urbanized populations than typical MSA/CSA measurements do.

[dc_denizen]

Always good to remind people that city limits are not a good metric

Look how low San Antonio ranks, vs a ranking based on city limits alone.

[EricPost]

The urbanized areas require continuous and contiguous areas of urban areas. When you have breaks in these, it results in the urban area ending and another urban area starting.

Thus San Jose and Riverside.

The addition of say Kentland into Chicago Metro is a quirk. Metropolitan areas in the US have a requirement to include the entire county. This can result in oddities like the Reno Metro area bordering Idaho. But since the vast majority of the Washoe County population is no where near Idaho it isn't a huge deal.

But sometimes it can be. For instance North Port in Florida, it is just over the county line in Sarasota County it is now the principle city because it's larger than Sarasota, even though it's more geared toward Bradenton.

Also remember Metro Area do not take into consideration central cities. In Kentland IN for example. Metro areas mean at least it is socially and economically integrated, not with the central city but a county that is integrated with the central city.

In the above example, everyone will agree Lake County IN, is socially and economically connected to Chicago (Cook Co). So So Kentland (Newton Co) is definitely connected to Lake County IN, both socially and economically, therefore it does make sense to place it in the metro area.

Because Chicago's influence is extending thru Cook Co to Lake Co even if Chicago is removed, you want to look at the whole puzzle.

This is why Kenosha is part of Chicago Metro but Kenosha isn't connected to Chicago really, but it's very integrated with Lake County IL. Much more so than any Wisconsin county. Kenosha isn't even in Chicago's TV media market.

Other countries have similar problems. India often lists Mumbai as the largest metro, simply because in India, metro areas cannot cross state (or union territory lines). But if you allow this crossing one sees Delhi easily passes Mumbai in population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by EricPost

Metropolitan areas in the US have a requirement to include the entire county.

and that is their major failing IMO.

the county is far too large of an entity to measure individual cities with, thus MSA/CSA in reality becomes more of a regional measure, not a metro area measure.

it's not that MSA/CSA are unimportant delineations overall, they're just not very good at depicting the size of a given human settlement, ignoring municipal borders.

the UA comes a million miles closer to that mark IMO (california weirdness notwithstanding), and it's precisely because it works at the finer grain of the census tract, instead of just mashing entire counties together wholesale.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and that is their major failing IMO.

the county is far too large of an entity to measure individual cities with, thus MSA/CSA in reality becomes more of a regional measure, not a metro area measure.

it's not that MSA/CSA are unimportant delineations overall, they're just not very good at depicting the size of a given human settlement, ignoring municipal borders.

the UA comes a million miles closer to that mark IMO (california weirdness notwithstanding), and it's precisely because it works at the finer grain of the census tract, instead of just mashing entire counties together wholesale.

Agreed, UA better encapsulates what most non-city nerds would think of if you asked them what the metro area of their city is. It measures areas with more of a cultural connection to the core city than strictly economic.

For instance, I was just in Covington, KY, directly across the river from Cincinnati, and if nobody told me I would have just assumed I was still in Cincinnati.

Although, using Chicago as an example because I know it the best, it's still not perfect. I believe towns like Elburn are included in the UA which is a bit of a stretch, although not as crazy as Kentland.

EDIT: For those interested, here is a cool map I just came across while trying to figure out the exact borders of Chicago's Urban Area. It gives you exact borders as determined by the census, population density, and total area, plus general population demographics. Just zoom out and click on whatever city you're interested in seeing. Pretty cool: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...rbanized-area/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

EDIT: For those interested, here is a cool map I just came across while trying to figure out the exact borders of Chicago's Urban Area. It gives you exact borders as determined by the census, population density, and total area, plus general population demographics. Just zoom out and click on whatever city you're interested in seeing. Pretty cool: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...rbanized-area/

oooohhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

that's a very useful site!

thanks for posting.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oooohhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

that's a very useful site!

thanks for posting.

Yeah, great link! Very useful indeed!