Tracking metropolitan America into the 21st century - Population ...

analysis in one large region, New York,and compare the region’s attributesunder the old and new systems. Wethen contrast demographic rankings ofmetropolitan areas using the MetroSAconcept to those provided by the oldMSAs and PMSAs.Local Choices and Changes—New YorkAs was the case under the old standards,the choice a user makes indefining a local area for study can significantlyaffect the results. For NewYork, there are now three ways todefine the metro area, rather than two(Finding C). Table 6 compares populationsizes and socio-economic attributesfor the former New York CMSAand PMSA with the new CSA, MetroSA,and Metropolitan Division containingNew York City. The formerCMSA and the current CSA are similarin size, while the former PMSA issimilar to the current metro division.Interestingly, the current MetroSA,the geography likely to be used mostoften, has no parallel in the old standards.Whereas the former PMSAcomprised only 44 percent of theCMSA’s population, the current MetroSAaccounts for 86 percent of theCSA. Even the smaller geographicalunit, the division, makes up more thanhalf of its CSA’s population.It is not surprising then, that thereare noticeable differences between theprofile of the “new” New York (MetroSA)and the “old” New York(PMSA). The MetroSA is wealthier,whiter, more educated, and has ahigher percentage of its population inmarried-couple households. These differencesreflect the new area’s reachinto the far suburbs of northern andcentral New Jersey, Long Island, andeven eastern Pennsylvania. By far, thegreatest disparity between the twometropolitan area definitions appearsin race and ethnicity attributes.The new MetroSA is majority non-Hispanic white (53 percent), while theold PMSA was only 40-percent white.National Changes—MetropolitanRankingsNew York presents one of the moreextreme examples of how the new classificationsystem may alter our understandingof who lives in particularmetropolitan areas. But significantchanges are also evident in other partsof the nation, where new metro areaswere created, expanded, or combined.The demographic consequences ofthe new system are apparent acrossthe nation’s largest metro areas, too.Table 7 presents rankings of old andnew metro areas (MSAs/PMSAs/NEC-MAs vs. MetroSAs) by population,income, and educational attributesusing Census 2000 data. One immediatelyapparent change is that New Yorkreplaces Los Angeles as the most populatedmetropolitan area in the country,with nearly 6 million more peoplethan its West Coast counterpart. Dallas,meanwhile, jumps from tenth tofifth, due to its combination with FortWorth. Although Detroit’s populationincreases slightly, its rank declinesfrom sixth to ninth. Miami makes itinto the top ten (from twenty-fourth),thanks to its new grouping with FortLauderdale and West Palm Beach,while Atlanta just misses the top ten,falling to eleventh in rank.The new system also alters rathersignificantly the list of wealthiestmetro areas, as measured by the shareof households with annual incomeabove $75,000. Formerly, half of thetop 12 metro areas were in the greaterNew York region, but since four ofthese are now incorporated into theNew York MetroSA, they leave roomfor other metro areas to move up thelist. Hartford and Anchorage, forinstance, now break into the top 15.Simultaneously, the combination offormer PMSAs into the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long IslandMetroSA moved New York up in thewealth rankings from fifty-one totwelve.On the share of adults with at leasta bachelor’s degree, many collegetowns are among the highest-rankedmetro areas under both the old andnew systems, but some ordering didchange. The Ann Arbor MetroSAretained only the one county from itsold PMSA that contains the Universityof Michigan, elevating it from nineteenthto second in the ranking. IowaCity, meanwhile, added anothercounty outside the University of Iowa,dropping it from second to eighth.Likewise, Bloomington, IN, and Madison,WI, each added two counties totheir metropolitan definitions, causingthem to fall out of the top 15. AndIthaca, NY, one of the 49 new metropolitanareas and home to CornellUniversity, now ranks third. Perhapsthe most notable change in the educationalrankings is the drop San Franciscotakes from fourth to fourteenth,due to its combination with Oakland.In summary, these examples demonstratethat the rules governing metropolitanarea definitions may greatlyinfluence our understanding of whichregions are biggest, richest, or brightest.Discussion and ImplicationsThe real-world implications ofthe new metropolitan classificationsdiscussed here haveyet to be realized, in large partbecause many individuals and organizationsare still relying on the old (andin some cases, even earlier) definitionsin research and practice. Brookings’own studies that use Census 2000data still employ the older definitionsthat were in effect at the time of thecensus. The slow pace at which thenew definitions are being put to usereflects in part OMB’s adoption ofnovel concepts like micropolitan statisticalareas, metropolitan divisions,and combined statistical areas. Revisionsduring the 1990s, by contrast,merely updated existing concepts withnew population data. In any case,whatever effects the new classificationshave, they are likely to occur16November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series