METROPOLITAN AREA or CITY PROPER?

[webny99]

And because of that, I think what you've done here grossly misrepresents the usefulness of the metro area population. It doesn't mean you should throw out everything but the core city in your analyses and pretend all of a city's environs are part of that city. It simply means that you're looking at the area and its sphere of influence more holistically.

Can you say more about misrepresenting the population of the metro area? Of course, the list of cities by incorporation doesn't represent (correctly or otherwise) the population of anything, at all.

Right, I guess that particular point applied only to your first list, the one with Phoenix listed out nine times.
All I meant was that, of course when you're specifically looking at city population, metro area population isn't useful. It isn't even relevant which metro area the city happens to be in - Phoenix is completely irrelevant to Mesa's ranking as Arizona's third largest city, which is why it's nonsensical to override Mesa with Phoenix.

Nobody's suggesting that only one or the other can/should be used. The question is which you'd tend to defer to absent of any context. And this, of course, does not include anything that explicitly specifies which is being looked at.

Well, the question does actually specify which is being looked at, as it says "cities". But even assuming this isn't meant literally, then what I'm curious about is how one would be able to tell, in the absence of context, which context is appropriate to apply, always?

It does, and I noticed that after my previous post. I didn't assume it to be taken literally.

I think the point is that neither city population nor metro area population is always the more appropriate one to use - I don't think anyone has said such, and if they did, they probably didn't mean it to be taken literally.

[DTComposer]

If you're going to make a point about using/not using metropolitan areas, make sure you get your metropolitan areas right 

Good point...although while I didn't take a lot of time to be super accurate, I did place Riverside metro within the Los Angeles-Long Beach CSA, which I just abbreviated as "Los Angeles". (Which brings up the question: should you rank cities by metropolitan area, or by combined statistical area?) 

Ha ha, yes, good topic for a thread split.

Also, I am surprised to learn that #10, Laguna Woods, is in the Bay Area!

Per this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_California
#10 should be Oakley, beating out Laguna Woods by a couple of months.

EDIT: I see this list:
https://calafco.org/resources/incorporated-cities/california-cities-incorporation-date
Which has Laguna Woods listed 10th and Oakley 11th, but they are out of order based on the dates, so I see the confusion.

[DTComposer]

I personally like looking at city population over metro areas because there is an definite line in the sand with city population.  Metro areas and how everyone draws them changes constantly depending on how they want to skew the numbers. 

Who is "everyone"? MSAs are defined by the Census Bureau. Their data points are constant. And I would argue the "line in the sand" doesn't exist for cities, since many of them (especially in the South and West) gain significant population through annexation.

For example, Austin has annexed 42 square miles of land just since 1999, while San Francisco, hemmed in by water and other cities, hasn't grown since the 1800s.

Two things in Texas: San Marcos, TX is considered, sometimes, to be in the San Antonio MSA and the Austin MSA.  So how can I be both?

Can you cite a source where Hays County is included with San Antonio? Every list the Census Bureau has since they first considered Hays County "metropolitan" (1973) puts it with Austin.
https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/time-series/demo/metro-micro/historical-delineation-files.html

[Takumi]

Do you rank cities by METROPOLITAN AREA or CITY PROPER?

I rank cities by cities.

And of course, I rank metropolitan areas by metropolitan areas. They're separate ideas–there isn't an instance I can think of where I'd use one to rank the other. For example, if you asked me which is the most populous city in Kansas, I'd say Wichita rather than Kansas City. And similarly, I wouldn't tell you that Massachusetts' largest city is Cambridge, even though Cambridge is in the state's largest metro area.

Bringing it on topic, for the same reason I'd say that I-80 goes to Chicago and to New York, even though it goes neither to the city of Chicago nor the city of New York. Even though I use the name of a city to refer to a metro area, I'm still naming the metro area and not the city, just as when I say "Hampton Roads", I'm referring to the metro area of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, not to the city of Hampton Roads.

Not to be "that guy" , but Hampton Roads itself is a body of water, not a city. Hampton is the city.

[empirestate]

All I meant was that, of course when you're specifically looking at city population, metro area population isn't useful. It isn't even relevant which metro area the city happens to be in - Phoenix is completely irrelevant to Mesa's ranking as Arizona's third largest city, which is why it's nonsensical to override Mesa with Phoenix.

Exactly right–just the point I was trying to make by listing it that way.

I think the point is that neither city population nor metro area population is always the more appropriate one to use - I don't think anyone has said such, and if they did, they probably didn't mean it to be taken literally.

Yes, again. And some people have definitely said such–literally, or at least as a poll selection. Since I would also assume that these answers can't be meant literally, my question now is, what context is being applied that isn't present in the OP, nor stated in the answer?

But, to ask it that way is boring–illustrating the point with outrageous lists is more interesting and will probably engage more lively conversation. :-)

(Also: Nebraska.)

[webny99]

All I meant was that, of course when you're specifically looking at city population, metro area population isn't useful. It isn't even relevant which metro area the city happens to be in - Phoenix is completely irrelevant to Mesa's ranking as Arizona's third largest city, which is why it's nonsensical to override Mesa with Phoenix.

Exactly right–just the point I was trying to make by listing it that way.

Okay, if that was your point, I think we're on the same page, then. I interpreted the Phoenix post as a general criticism of using metro area population.

I think the point is that neither city population nor metro area population is always the more appropriate one to use - I don't think anyone has said such, and if they did, they probably didn't mean it to be taken literally.

Yes, again. And some people have definitely said such–literally, or at least as a poll selection. Since I would also assume that these answers can't be meant literally, my question now is, what context is being applied that isn't present in the OP, nor stated in the answer?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but if you're looking for a replacement for the word "city" that would eliminate the discussion of whether or not it should be taken literally, simply "urban area" could work.

Or how about this: Preferred measurement: city proper or metropolitan area?

[empirestate]

Okay, if that was your point, I think we're on the same page, then. I interpreted the Phoenix post as a general criticism of using metro area population.

Ah, no...it was illustration of the absurdity of using metro areas altogether as a substitute for cities, when cities are clearly what is being ranked. (And vice versa, of course.)

Yes, again. And some people have definitely said such–literally, or at least as a poll selection. Since I would also assume that these answers can't be meant literally, my question now is, what context is being applied that isn't present in the OP, nor stated in the answer?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but if you're looking for a replacement for the word "city" that would eliminate the discussion of whether or not it should be taken literally, simply "urban area" could work.

Or how about this: Preferred measurement: city proper or metropolitan area?
[/quote]

I don't think there's any doubt that the OP isn't to be taken literally. But if it is, then the answer must always be "cities", whereas if it isn't, it seems to me the answer should always be "both".

Therefore, an answer of "metro areas" suggests that the question being answered is an altogether different one–and if so, what is it? That would depend on what missing context is being applied by the answerer, and it could be different context for each different participant.