Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
^ from that map, it looks like PA will lose the most MSAs (9) if this change goes through.
Looking at my home state, IL would lose four MSAs:
Carbondale
Danville
Decatur
Kankakee
|
It makes sense to me. This isn't Canada, where having 99,000 people makes you a Top 45 metro.
We have 356 metros over 100,000. I don't think anyone considers Mankato an urban city, or Gettysburg or Lima, Ohio. We have a different concept of urban here.
I'd go a step farther and create a middle category for cities in the 100-500k range. When I think of a "metropolitan" city, I don't think of Houma, Louisiana (208k), Saint Cloud, MN (202k), or Hattiesburg, MS (169k).
Make the 100-500k range something like "minor agglomeration" and leave "metropolitan" for the bigger 500k metros.
We also have 53 metros over 1 million, so maybe add a distinction once a city hits that threshhold (aka "large metropolitan areas") and 5 million could be ("national metropolitan areas") or something fancy sounding.
The British use "city" status as a sign of prestige, so we should reserve different titles for cities that achieve different benchmarks. There's no reason why New York (19,216,182 people) and Walla Walla (60,760) should be categorized the same.