New annual city estimates have come in and are available on the US Census Bureau's website, as of July 2011. Here's the link for all municipalities of 50,000 or more:
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/tables/SUB-EST2011-01.csv
Here's the link for each state's municipalities:
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/SUB-EST2011-3.html
One surprise for me is that Jackson is showing an increase. Also, cities such as Austin and Charlotte have had big increases in just one year's time. I wonder if there were some readjustments (challenges, annexations, etc.) in showing robust population growth, or if these cities are really growing that fast.
Related articles:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47992439/ns/today-money/t/cities-grow-more-suburbs-first-time-years/#
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/census_numbers_show_dallas_buc.php
After years and years of suburban growth, many cities have started a new trend of population gains bigger than the suburbs around them.
Everywhere except in Dallas, as the Observer article noted.
Plano is the 70th biggest city in the nation. That blows my mind.
Quote from: txstateends on June 30, 2012, 10:24:13 PM
Related articles:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47992439/ns/today-money/t/cities-grow-more-suburbs-first-time-years/#
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/census_numbers_show_dallas_buc.php
After years and years of suburban growth, many cities have started a new trend of population gains bigger than the suburbs around them.
Probably because people either moved back in with relatives or they can't sell their houses to get out. This trend won't last.
Quote from: Road Hog on July 01, 2012, 01:51:30 AM
Everywhere except in Dallas, as the Observer article noted.
Plano is the 70th biggest city in the nation. That blows my mind.
Your mind?? When my folks and I moved down from up north in the mid-1960s, it only had between 5 and 10,000 people. Almost all the town was east of US 75. That section of US 75 was only 6 years old when we moved. Our place was considered outside the city limits, so no city water--we had to have our own well water. It was *long distance* to call Dallas from Plano then. Allen would have been a blink-and-miss town back then if it weren't on the edge of US 75 itself; now it's getting a multi-million-$$$$$ high school football stadium. I often wonder what my dad, grandma and grandpa would think of what Plano has become. They'd probably need sedatives (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0016.gif) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0016.gif)
El Paso soon to pass up Detroit surprised me the most, but I wonder how these estimates were made. Did they make them based on the trends from 2000 to 2010? Look at building permits issued? Some of these really big jumps don't make sense.
Mesa is the 38th largest city, it's even larger than Atlanta or Miami.
Quote from: mukade on July 01, 2012, 08:39:28 AM
El Paso soon to pass up Detroit surprised me the most, but I wonder how these estimates were made. Did they make them based on the trends from 2000 to 2010? Look at building permits issued? Some of these really big jumps don't make sense.
I know one measure used is utility connections and disconnections.
#267, neat. Gained a little over 600. Not sure where though... maybe its all babies.
Im surprised that its larger than some of these other cities. Albany NY, Boulder CO, even Santa Monica. I guess they're talked about enough that it seems like they should be larger.
Not to mention only 9 cities with over a million.
Quote from: Chris on July 01, 2012, 08:54:39 AM
Mesa is the 38th largest city, it's even larger than Atlanta or Miami.
It is rather mind-blowing knowing that the historically big cities are now being passed by places like Mesa. Just a couple of decades ago, who'd thought Austin, Charlotte and Jacksonville would become larger than Wasington, Baltimore and Detroit?
Quote from: bulkyorled on July 01, 2012, 10:49:15 AM
Not to mention only 9 cities with over a million.
In the 80s, there were only six cities over a million. It also baffles me that the US has such a small number of "millionaire" cities. I realize that we don't have a population like China and India, but they have way more cities of a million or more.
^ How does China handle suburban areas - under the main central city government, or under many separate local governments?
Could the age of our countryhood be involved in this? It may be a juvenile thought, but it seems to make sense to me.
Also, I never knew Detroit had such a rapidly decreasing population! Also, a median family income of $31,000. Sad stuff.
BigMatt
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 01, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
^ How does China handle suburban areas - under the main central city government, or under many separate local governments?
I am not sure about China, but Japan sometimes combines cities. Saitama (1,231,880), Higashi-Osaka (509,230), Nishi-Tokyo (197,366), and Kirishima (127,727) are some of the new cities created around 2001 when existing cities and towns merged. Personally, I think this would be a good thing for American cities to do.
American metro area populations compared to their anchor cities are all over the place: the city of Colorado Springs is 65% of the population of the metro area while the city of Atlanta is only 8% of its metro area.
The following are some cities that make up 45% or more of their respective metro areas:
- Colorado Springs (65.0)
- Albuquerque (61.5)
- Jacksonville (61.0)
- Fort Wayne (60.5)
- San Antonio (60.5)
- Louisville (56.7)
- Memphis (50.4)
- Indianapolis (47.2)
- Austin (46.0)
- Oklahoma City (45.3)
Not sure this is a predictor that cities are better or worse off than ones like Atlanta, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati.
Quote from: mukade on July 01, 2012, 09:18:54 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 01, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
^ How does China handle suburban areas - under the main central city government, or under many separate local governments?
I am not sure about China, but Japan sometimes combines cities. Saitama (1,231,880), Higashi-Osaka (509,230), Nishi-Tokyo (197,366), and Kirishima (127,727) are some of the new cities created around 2001 when existing cities and towns merged. Personally, I think this would be a good thing for American cities to do.
Fat chance. Some of us have never been a part of the larger city here, and want nothing to do with it.
I suppose it depends. The Chicago area is an example of a place with way too many municipalities. The city itself has some major problems - both crime and corruption-wise. Some Chicago suburbs do OK - others are deterioriating fairly quickly. Those that do well would never go for it so I don't see how it would work around Chicago.
Despite having its share of crime, Indianapolis is pretty healthy for a large midwest city. So using Indy and other Uni-gov cities as an example, assuming there is no corruption or financial mismanagement, this model is probably better than the excessive amount of suburbs around a central city which seems to result in the central city experiencing a lot of financial problems if not dying (in some cases).
Louisville is a recent Uni-gov city. In Indiana, Evansville and Fort Wayne have been considering it. It can happen here in the US.
I think China varies like US one internal city (Chungquing) I think includes all suburbs and rural area and claims 30 million. If Guangdong or Shanghi did that they would be something like 50 million.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/044003/fulltext/
World urban areas from Satellite
Quote from: mukade on July 01, 2012, 09:18:54 PM
The following are some cities that make up 45% or more of their respective metro areas:
- Colorado Springs (65.0)
- Albuquerque (61.5)
- Jacksonville (61.0)
- Fort Wayne (60.5)
- San Antonio (60.5)
- Louisville (56.7)
- Memphis (50.4)
- Indianapolis (47.2)
- Austin (46.0)
- Oklahoma City (45.3)
Expect Memphis' to share to fall below 50% sometime soon, as more people are trying to flee the city and as other areas around it (like Desoto County, MS) continue to boom.
Isn't most of Lexington, KY's metro residents living in the city?
A lot of those cities are newly-growing ones that never had the opportunity to develop expansion-choking suburbs close-in.
I figured Tennessee suburbs of Memphis would have an advantage because of no state income tax. I guess it depends where you work and not where you live.
Am I missing something or are the townships in NJ missing from those numbers?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 03, 2012, 12:56:42 AM
Am I missing something or are the townships in NJ missing from those numbers?
The link is to www.census.gov/popest/data/
cities/totals/2011/SUB-EST2011-3.html so that's a pretty good clue why you're not seeing townships. :)
Quote from: txstateends on July 01, 2012, 07:11:07 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on July 01, 2012, 01:51:30 AM
Everywhere except in Dallas, as the Observer article noted.
Plano is the 70th biggest city in the nation. That blows my mind.
Your mind?? When my folks and I moved down from up north in the mid-1960s, it only had between 5 and 10,000 people. Almost all the town was east of US 75. That section of US 75 was only 6 years old when we moved. Our place was considered outside the city limits, so no city water--we had to have our own well water. It was *long distance* to call Dallas from Plano then. Allen would have been a blink-and-miss town back then if it weren't on the edge of US 75 itself; now it's getting a multi-million-$$$$$ high school football stadium. I often wonder what my dad, grandma and grandpa would think of what Plano has become. They'd probably need sedatives (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0016.gif) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0016.gif)
Plano is pretty much built-out now. All the northern growth is in Frisco, Allen and McKinney, and Prosper is starting to take off. It's insane.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 03, 2012, 05:48:15 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 03, 2012, 12:56:42 AM
Am I missing something or are the townships in NJ missing from those numbers?
The link is to www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/SUB-EST2011-3.html so that's a pretty good clue why you're not seeing townships. :)
NJ townships are classified as "minor civil divisions" by the census. All other NJ entities are "incorporated places" (each with a corresponding null MCD). Those would include cities, boroughs, towns and villages. No practical difference in the daily life of New Jerseyans, but hey.
Quote from: mukade on July 01, 2012, 09:18:54 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 01, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
^ How does China handle suburban areas - under the main central city government, or under many separate local governments?
I am not sure about China, but Japan sometimes combines cities. Saitama (1,231,880), Higashi-Osaka (509,230), Nishi-Tokyo (197,366), and Kirishima (127,727) are some of the new cities created around 2001 when existing cities and towns merged. Personally, I think this would be a good thing for American cities to do.
American metro area populations compared to their anchor cities are all over the place: the city of Colorado Springs is 65% of the population of the metro area while the city of Atlanta is only 8% of its metro area.
The following are some cities that make up 45% or more of their respective metro areas:
- Colorado Springs (65.0)
- Albuquerque (61.5)
- Jacksonville (61.0)
- Fort Wayne (60.5)
- San Antonio (60.5)
- Louisville (56.7)
- Memphis (50.4)
- Indianapolis (47.2)
- Austin (46.0)
- Oklahoma City (45.3)
Not sure this is a predictor that cities are better or worse off than ones like Atlanta, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati.
Government already looks primarily at a city's Metropolitan Statistical Area for their statistical purposes. They show, for the most part, how big the city actually is. So, instead of Mesa, AZ being portrayed as a random large city, it's instead considered part of the much wider Phoenix metro. Austin, instead of being the 13th largest city, makes more sense in 34th place.
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2011/tables/CBSA-EST2011-01.csv
There are 51 MSAs with a population over 1 million.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 01, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
^ How does China handle suburban areas - under the main central city government, or under many separate local governments?
Varies. Chongqing, for instance, claims to be the most populous city in the world at 28,846,170. The actual met population is more like 6 or 7 - hardly small but nowhere near the size. The city itself covers 31,815 sq mi - mostly rural hinterland - a similar area to places like Maine, South Carolina, Portugal and the UAE.
Beijing and Shanghai also have a similar set up, but have larger met areas and less hinterland administered by them.
Most of the other large cities in China probably include the entire Met area plus some hinterland, but don't form provinces in their own right - a quick look on wikipedia suggest that while these cities are big, they also are inflated with places outside the metro area.
Don't forget that these large cities outside the countries formerly known as the First World are also huge due to a lack of planning regs stopping sprawling growth. Certainly if it wasn't for WW2 and the Green Belt Act, London would reach Birmingham and the South Coast as continuous urban area - the 30s sprawl would have just kept on going. As it is, people commute from cities like Leicester and Southampton (80-100 miles) daily into London.
Out of curiosity, I see that San Diego's metro area is now called San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos. Yet, Oceanside and Chula Vista, which are both larger than Carlsbad and San Marcos, are not mentioned. Why is that?
Also, I was looking at the populations of micropolitan areas and a few had over 100K people. Why weren't they designated as metro areas?
is Oceanside its own metro area?
Chula Vista - because nobody cares about it :-D
Quote from: golden eagle on July 04, 2012, 01:12:21 PM
Out of curiosity, I see that San Diego's metro area is now called San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos. Yet, Oceanside and Chula Vista, which are both larger than Carlsbad and San Marcos, are not mentioned. Why is that?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 01:25:44 PM
is Oceanside its own metro area?
Metropolitan areas use counties as their building blocks, so all of San Diego County is one metro area. Of course, using counties is fundamentally flawed, since those boundaries don't reflect patterns of development. Classic example: Blythe, CA is part of the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area.
As to the naming, the Census Bureau has some formula for choosing what they call "Principal Cities" (of which up to three may be used in a metro area's title) that involve employment numbers as well as population, so the largest cities population-wise may not always be in the title.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 04, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
Metropolitan areas use counties as their building blocks
Except for New England
Quote
Of course, using counties is fundamentally flawed, since those boundaries don't reflect patterns of development. Classic example: Blythe, CA is part of the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area.
In the case of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, I do agree with you there. However, most other American counties are not nearly as big. Just imagine if Riverside and San Bernardino counties were a part of L.A.'s metro area, it could be possibly be the largest in the world with over 31,000 square miles (closer to 34K if you want to throw in Orange County).
QuoteAs to the naming, the Census Bureau has some formula for choosing what they call "Principal Cities" (of which up to three may be used in a metro area's title) that involve employment numbers as well as population, so the largest cities population-wise may not always be in the title.
In a way, that does make sense. Atlanta's metro area is officially called Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. Both the Marietta and Sandy Springs area do have a large number of jobs (particularly Alpharetta, north of Sandy Springs).
My hometown of Corpus Christi, Texas is the same size as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.....furthermore, we're larger than pro-sports cities of Orlando, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Salt Lake, Newark, and Green Bay.
The third largest city in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex -- and the seventh largest city in Texas -- is Arlington, which is larger than seven, yes that's right, seven NFL cities alone not counting cities labeled on other pro-sports teams.
Austin and Fort Worth are the largest cities in the nation that are not themselves explicitly labeled on a pro-sports team.
Can San Jose, CA ever top the 1 million mark? When I think of the Bay Area, it's usually San Francisco, then Oakland, then San Jose, and everything else there.
The latest estimates show San Jose getting closer to a million, at 967K, up from 945K in 2010. If the trend continues at the current pace, then there could be a million by next year. Had the dot-com bubble not busted, maybe San Jose could've already been there.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 01, 2012, 11:00:46 AM
Quote from: Chris on July 01, 2012, 08:54:39 AM
Mesa is the 38th largest city, it's even larger than Atlanta or Miami.
It is rather mind-blowing knowing that the historically big cities are now being passed by places like Mesa. Just a couple of decades ago, who'd thought Austin, Charlotte and Jacksonville would become larger than Wasington, Baltimore and Detroit?
I have a dictionary my dad gave me - it was printed in 1967. Here are the top 20 cities:
New York - 7,781,984
Chicago - 3,550,404
Los Angeles - 2,479,015
Philadelphia - 2,002,512
Detroit - 1,670,144
Baltimore - 939,024
Houston - 938,219
Cleveland - 876,050
Washington, DC - 763,956
St. Louis - 750,026
Milwaukee - 741,324
San Francisco - 740,316
Boston - 697,197
Dallas - 679,684
New Orleans - 627,525
Pittsburgh - 604,332
San Antonio - 587,718
San Diego - 573,224
Buffalo - 532,759
Other cities of note, in no particular order:
Charlotte - 201,564
Columbus - 471,316
Nashville - 170,874
Memphis - 497,524
Phoenix - 439,170
Salt Lake City - 189,454
Austin :-o - 186,545
El Paso - 276,687
Oklahoma City - 324,253
edit: San Jose - 204,196, Corpus Christi - 167,690.
Georgia is listed as having 3,943,000 people, Arizona 1,302,000, Texas 9,580,000.
Hell, might as well add the biggest metros as well:
New York - 10,694,633
Los Angeles-Long Beach - 6,742,696
Chicago - 6,220,913
Philadelphia - 4,342,897
Detroit - 3,762,360
San Francisco-Oakland - 2,783,359
Boston - 2,589,301
Pittsburgh - 2,405,435
St. Louis - 2,060,103
Washington, DC - 2,001,897
Cleveland - 1,796,595
Baltimore - 1,727,023
Newark - 1,689,420
Minneapolis-St. Paul - 1,482,030
Buffalo - 1,306,957
Houston - 1,243,158
Milwaukee - 1,194,290
Paterson-Clifton-Passaic - 1,186,873
Seattle - 1,107,213
Dallas - 1,083,601
Cincinnati - 1,071,624
Kansas City - 1,039,493
San Diego - 1,033,011
Atlanta - 1,017,188
These are ALL the metros over one million.
I'd like to know how they defined some of those metro areas back then. Some of the populations seem low even for 1967. Like Dallas for instance-since Ft. Worth isn't mentioned, it must not include Tarrant County.
Haven't Dallas and Fort Worth always been considered separate metros? I'm guessing Dallas' metro may've only included Dallas County and perhaps one other county or two. In 1960, Dallas County had a population of just over 950K; it jumped to over 1.3 million by 1970. Of course, a lot of metros weren't as physically large then as they do now, like Atlanta.
I didn't realize Baltimore was as close to a million people as it was. It is rather startling to see how far down some cities have fallen, especially Detroit. From a city that was approaching two million to now that's close to falling below 700K...wow!
One thing of note: Nashville's huge population rise in the 60s is as a result of them merging with Davidson County (minus a few independent cities that didn't merge).
You might be right re: Fort Worth. It was listed as having 356,268 people. Added with Dallas, that's 1.03 million...not much room there for the rest of Dallas County!
The one thing that blows my mind is how some metros today have more people than the entire state did back then.
Even now, Atlanta's metro makes up more than half of Georgia's population. There aren't too many states than can say that. Nevada and Delaware can. Perhaps, a couple of others too.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 06:50:53 PM
Even now, Atlanta's metro makes up more than half of Georgia's population. There aren't too many states than can say that. Nevada and Delaware can. Perhaps, a couple of others too.
Arizona probably too.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 04:37:32 PM
Haven't Dallas and Fort Worth always been considered separate metros? I'm guessing Dallas' metro may've only included Dallas County and perhaps one other county or two. In 1960, Dallas County had a population of just over 950K; it jumped to over 1.3 million by 1970. Of course, a lot of metros weren't as physically large then as they do now, like Atlanta.
The census bureau currently defines Dallas-Ft. Worth as one metropolitan area. But I don't know how long that designation has been around.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on July 07, 2012, 10:41:50 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 04:37:32 PM
Haven't Dallas and Fort Worth always been considered separate metros? I'm guessing Dallas' metro may've only included Dallas County and perhaps one other county or two. In 1960, Dallas County had a population of just over 950K; it jumped to over 1.3 million by 1970. Of course, a lot of metros weren't as physically large then as they do now, like Atlanta.
The census bureau currently defines Dallas-Ft. Worth as one metropolitan area. But I don't know how long that designation has been around.
http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/pastmetro.html
Looks like they were combined beginning with the 1970 census.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 06:50:53 PM
Even now, Atlanta's metro makes up more than half of Georgia's population. There aren't too many states than can say that. Nevada and Delaware can. Perhaps, a couple of others too.
New York, most famously. (I don't know exactly how the NYC metro population breaks down by state, but it's certainly very close to half the state's population.)
Quote from: empirestate on July 08, 2012, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 06:50:53 PM
Even now, Atlanta's metro makes up more than half of Georgia's population. There aren't too many states than can say that. Nevada and Delaware can. Perhaps, a couple of others too.
New York, most famously. (I don't know exactly how the NYC metro population breaks down by state, but it's certainly very close to half the state's population.)
Illinois as well.
If you combine New York with Nassau-Suffolk and the counties immediately north of NYC, it would take up over more than half the state. Really, NYC and Nassau-Suffolk can make that up just by themselves.
Food for thought: All of New Jersey is part of a metro area.
Rhode Island also.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on July 08, 2012, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: empirestate on July 08, 2012, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 06:50:53 PM
Even now, Atlanta's metro makes up more than half of Georgia's population. There aren't too many states than can say that. Nevada and Delaware can. Perhaps, a couple of others too.
New York, most famously. (I don't know exactly how the NYC metro population breaks down by state, but it's certainly very close to half the state's population.)
Illinois as well.
Illinois is about 3/4 of the population in just seven counties in NE Illinois (Cook, DuPage, Lake, Will, Kane, McHenry, and Kendall).
Metro Phoenix makes up 2/3 of Arizona's population.
The Wasatch Front (which is really three metropolitan areas in one enormous urban area) comprises eighty percent of Utah's population.
Washington contains all of D.C.'s population.
A bit off-topic, some Canadians cities in the Prairies also got a rise in population. For Calgary, the population was 403319 and jumped to 2011 to 1096833 in 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Calgary
Quote from: 6a on July 07, 2012, 02:24:12 PM
Hell, might as well add the biggest metros as well:
New York - 10,694,633
Los Angeles-Long Beach - 6,742,696
Chicago - 6,220,913
Philadelphia - 4,342,897
Detroit - 3,762,360
San Francisco-Oakland - 2,783,359
Boston - 2,589,301
Pittsburgh - 2,405,435
St. Louis - 2,060,103
Washington, DC - 2,001,897
Cleveland - 1,796,595
Baltimore - 1,727,023
Newark - 1,689,420
Minneapolis-St. Paul - 1,482,030
Buffalo - 1,306,957
Houston - 1,243,158
Milwaukee - 1,194,290
Paterson-Clifton-Passaic - 1,186,873
Seattle - 1,107,213
Dallas - 1,083,601
Cincinnati - 1,071,624
Kansas City - 1,039,493
San Diego - 1,033,011
Atlanta - 1,017,188
These are ALL the metros over one million.
It's amazing that the Metroplex and Greater Houston are essentially the size of Greater LA and Chicagoland 45 years ago
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 09, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
A bit off-topic, some Canadians cities in the Prairies also got a rise in population. For Calgary, the population was 403319 and jumped to 2011 to 1096833 in 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Calgary
Alberta's going through a huge energy industry boom nowadays. On a smaller scale some of the northern U.S. states are also not doing bad after the stagnation in the past decades.
Has anyone tried ranking the states by population anisotropy (i.e., percentage of the state's population in the largest metropolitan area or largest continuous built-up area, whichever yields the largest population)?
Quote from: golden eagle on July 07, 2012, 06:50:53 PM
There aren't too many states than can say that.
Quote from: Chris on July 09, 2012, 08:31:55 AM
Washington contains all of D.C.'s population.
I'm not sure anybody was doubting that a substantial percentage of capital districts could say that. ;-)
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 09, 2012, 04:46:52 PM
Has anyone tried ranking the states by population anisotropy (i.e., percentage of the state's population in the largest metropolitan area or largest continuous built-up area, whichever yields the largest population)?
I started to do that, but a good number of those metro areas crossed state lines, so I'd have to find the figures for the portions within that state (which I'm pretty sure the Census Bureau has somewhere without having to break it down by counties). I may do some digging later.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 09, 2012, 04:46:52 PM
Has anyone tried ranking the states by population anisotropy (i.e., percentage of the state's population in the largest metropolitan area or largest continuous built-up area, whichever yields the largest population)?
I thought about doing that, though I was going to do it by the percentage of people per state in metro areas.
Cities growing faster than suburbs (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/nation/la-na-census-cities-20120628)