Skip to main content

View Diary: Target Says, "We Won't Serve You" (265 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  wait a minute! (none)
    California only has "two" metro areas of over a million if you combine Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million city, 10.2 million county) with San Diego (pop 1.3 million city, 3 million county) even though they're 100 miles apart, with Long Beach (476 thousand), and all of Orange County (pop 3 million) in between!  Add 1.9 million of this in Riverside country.  That's like combining Trenton, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC into "one" metro area.

    The metro area of Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange county has 16 million people.  Yup, doesn't even include San Diego county (3 million, remember?).  

    San Francisco (pop 744 thousand, county is identical) and San Jose (pop 904 thousand, 1.7 million in Santa Clara County) are 60 miles apart.  There are suburbs in a continuous weave between the two cities (such as the entire county of San Mateo, 718 thousand), plus Oakland (397 thousand, and its county Alameda 1.5 million, and neighboring Contra Costa, 1 million ) across the Bay.  The metro area of the three cities has 7 million people.

    The San Francisco Bay Area is defined as the nine counties touching the Bay.  I don't know the formal definition of SF/O/SJ metro area, though.

    10 largest cities in California: (2003 est.): Los Angeles, 3,819,951; San Diego, 1,266,753; San Jose, 898,349; San Francisco, 751,682; Long Beach, 475,460; Fresno, 451,455; Sacramento, 445,335; Oakland, 398,844; Santa Ana, 342,510; Anaheim, 332,361.

    Fresno (city 451K, county 866K) and Sacramento (city 451K, county 1.4 million) aren't included in either metro area either.  Long Beach, Santa Ana and Anaheim are part of LA/Orange.

    Source:Infoplease Almanac,  cities, metro areas, Calif cities.  State of California website for population of California Counties.

    Anyway, my point is that there is no way you can define California as only having two major metropolitan areas.  And for that matter, doesn't Texas also have four (Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio)?  Hey, I bet New York has more than two as well...

    Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

    by madhaus on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:13:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  My source was the U.S. Census (none)
      I linked it in my original post.  The metro areas are not combined together in the extreme way you theorised.  L.A.Long Beach is #3 in the nation, San Francisco/Oakland is #6, those are your two "top twenties", and powerhouses though they are they are still your only two.  They have the San Diego metro as #21, just edged out by Kansas City, Missouri (sorry).  San Bernadino/Riverside comes in at #28, San Jose is #37, Sacramento is #48.  Looking at Texas, only Houston (#15) and Dallas (#18) make the top twenty--San Antonio's #33 and Austin doesn't make the list.  As for New York, they've got NYC #1 of course, and then Buffalo #14.  Their third-biggest metro area, Albany-Schenectady-Troy, is #36.

      So, again, while I'm not trying to claim Missouri is on a par with California, we /are a pretty big-league state, given that we have the #9 and #20 largest cities in America.  And that is reflected as well, btw, in our having two NFL and two MLB teams, something I think only the five states previously mentioned, plus Florida, can match (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm overlooking anyone--but since I remembered to include Florida, I think I've got it covered).

      -Alan

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (76)
  • Elections (45)
  • Environment (44)
  • Bernie Sanders (43)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Spam (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Culture (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Media (32)
  • Labor (28)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Congress (26)
  • Education (25)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site