See I disagree with lumping Baltimore and Washington in one metro area. Having lived in DC you can see they are two seperate cities, they are two TV markets, and their not comuter exchangeable. The biggest drawback is DC metro is larger than Baltimore Metro, but Baltimore is larger than DC. When you combine them in a consolidated metro area it’s called Washington-Baltimore. This goes against the clear pattern of listing the larger city first.
You don’t here of St Paul Minneapolis. (of course now someone will say it but it isn’t really said.)
That’s a good point too, Markxxxxxxxxx.
It is kind of cheesy to lump these two cities together, but many resources do, such as Almanacs, etc…
Then again these same sources lump San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose together.
San Antonio has about 1.5 million in the metro area. This is pretty deceptive since it doesn’t really have any suburbs. It incorporates everything. Baltimore has less people in the city itself but its immediate metro area (not including DC where I currently live) is significantly bigger. I assume it is around 3 million. The fact that it is so much bigger can be evidenced by the presence of good public transportation. San Antonio only has buses for public transportation. Baltimore has light rail, buses, subway, and a train going to other cities if you work outside the area (like in DC). San Antonio does not even have a commuter train to Austin which is about 70 miles away. I know a significant number of people who would commute up there becuase the tech jobs pay so much more.
I understand that you are looking for cities that will have the official census status over 1 million. If this is an intellectual exercise that is all fine and good. I assume it is. However, if you want to truly consider how big a city is you should really take into consideration the metro area.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter