Least dense official metropolitan area?

[Swede]

This other thread (Waning for decades, England’s big cities are growing fast again) got me thinking about how metros are counted differently in different countries, which lead me to the two questions:
1. Which is the least dense officially designated metro area?
2. Which is the least dense officially designated metro area with over a million residents?

By "official" I mean that it has to have either a metro-area governing body or be designated as such by national authorities.


For starters metro Stockholm (my city), official metro being defined as the whole of Stockholm's County:
322 ppl/sqkm!

/source: wiki for the land area, Statistics Sweden www.scb.se for pop number from 2012-03-31


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT:
List time! Cities/metro specifically mentioned so far (40 first posts) in the thread. 'cept for Chicago - couldn't find the MSA data!

metros over 1M

 Metro         | density (per sqkm) |  metro population
Oklahoma City          80.1                 1 252 987
Phoenix               111.08                4 192 887
St. Louis             131.47                2 812 896  
Jacksonville          153                   1 345 596
Bordeaux              199                   1 114 857
Toulouse              226                   1 218 166
Atlanta               243                   5 300 000
Miami                 315                   5 564 635
Stockholm             322                   2 099 619
Boston                366                   4 522 858
LA                  1 024.7                12 828 837

metros under 1M

 Metro         | density (per sqkm) |  metro population
Flagstaff               2.7                   134 421
Anchorage               7                     380 821
Tuscon                 41.2                   980 263

yeah, I know km ain't what most Americans use. But it's about time you learned!

[ColDayMan]

I'm sure Anchorage Metropolitan Area is up there with a population density of 14 per square mile for a metro of 380,821.

[ChiSoxRox]

For 5+ million metro areas, I don't know of anything that could pass Atlanta:

5.3 million in the MSA by 2010 numbers, for a density of 243 people per square kilometer (630 per square mile)!

[PLANSIT]

This is another of those Urban Area debates, as many western (U.S.) have giant counties that make up their MSA. It can skew results.

Although I'm sure a city like OKC is high up on any list.

Population  
Total 	             1,322,459 (2010 Census)
Density 	     208.0/sq. mi. 
                     80.1/km²

Area 	             6,359 sq. mi.
                     16,512 km²

[SHiRO]

Los Angeles (more specifically San Bernardino county) takes up a huge space most of which is desert. Not sure if we should include it though since it is so obvious that it doesn't reflect the "true" density of the area.

[M II A II R II K]

I'd say it's probably Jacksonville with like 800 square miles of territory with sparse population in it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Los Angeles (more specifically San Bernardino county) takes up a huge space most of which is desert. Not sure if we should include it though since it is so obvious that it doesn't reflect the "true" density of the area.

San Bernadino County is not in Los Angeles's MSA, only the CSA.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

I'd say it's probably Jacksonville with like 800 square miles of territory with sparse population in it.

Jacksonville

Population  	
Total 	            1,345,596
Density 	    397/sq. mi. 
                    153/km²
Area 	            3,698 sq. mi.
                    9,577 km²

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

San Bernadino County is not in Los Angeles's MSA, only the CSA.

Much to the dismay of the people from LA (and rightfully so).

[Centropolis]

Western midwest metros often are lower due to geographically massive MSAs, in addition to sprawl. lots of super-commuters from areas that have no economic engine to speak of. boeing has little commuter vans that go 100 miles out and back everyday.


http://stlworkforce.org/wp-content/u...plSurveyed.png

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Much to the dismay of the people from LA (and rightfully so).

Honestly, I don't think anybody cares or thinks about whether SB county is or isn't in our MSA, let alone know what a MSA actually is .

[SHiRO]

The people from LA on this forum...

[plinko]

Flagstaff, Arizona...134,000 people in 18,661 sq.mi. (7.2 ppsm)

For over a million? Tucson is damn close with 989,000 people in 9,189 sq. mi. (107.69 ppsm)

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by plinko

Flagstaff, Arizona...134,000 people in 18,661 sq.mi. (7.2 ppsm)

For over a million? Tucson is damn close with 989,000 people in 9,189 sq. mi. (107.69 ppsm)

Err, what!?

How on earth do they figure an MSA area of 9,000 square miles for Tucson? Or Flagstaff, which is even more ridiculous..

Are they including every empty mountain range in the vicinity? By comparison, the MSA for Phoenix is listed at around 6,000 square miles. But, the built area of Atlanta covers probably at least 6x the built area of Tucson, looking at Googlemap views from the same elevation.

I just must not understand the "nuances" of how you figure area of an MSA...

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

This is another of those Urban Area debates, as many western (U.S.) have giant counties that make up their MSA. It can skew results.

Although I'm sure a city like OKC is high up on any list.

Population  
Total 	             1,322,459 (2010 Census)
Density 	     208.0/sq. mi. 
                     80.1/km²

Area 	             6,359 sq. mi.
                     16,512 km²

having been there, it's interesting to think about the blighted areas near the outskirts that have nearly been reclaimed by nature

-

[Swede]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

This is another of those Urban Area debates, as many western (U.S.) have giant counties that make up their MSA. It can skew results.

That's kinda the idea This thread is specifically not about the "real-life" urban/suburban spreads or commuter belts, it is specifically about official metro areas.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by LSyd

having been there, it's interesting to think about the blighted areas near the outskirts that have nearly been reclaimed by nature

-

you talkin' bout like strips of development built in the late 50s/60s/70s on the service roads of interstates - stuff like that? i've seen quite a bit of that kind of blight in missouri/oklahoma. it would make for an interesting thread if i had a good camera.

[brickell]

MSA borders coincide with county borders. Works in most of the east, but less so out west (and in South Florida) where huge counties cover pretty sparse areas.

[Minato Ku]

Bordeaux metropolitan area has a density of 199 inhabitants by km².
It is the least dense metropolitan area over 1 million inhabitants in France.

Bordeaux
1,114,857 inhabitants, 5,610 km².

Bordeaux metro is all the orange area.

It is is not well visible in this map but Libourne is not part of Bordeaux metro area, despite its proximity.
Libourne has its own metropolitan area.

Why Bordeaux metro is so big for its size ? The reason is simple, this region is empty outside of Bordeaux.
So the people who live in little rural towns around have no other choise that working in Bordeaux.
On the oposite, in part where a signifiant "city" is close to Bordeaux, the metro spread less.
Libourne is the good exemple. even if Libourne metro has only 36,150 inhabitants, only 3% of Bordeaux size but it is big enouth to be its own metro.
Shiro.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by brickell

MSA borders coincide with county borders. Works in most of the east, but less so out west (and in South Florida) where huge counties cover pretty sparse areas.

Thus Everglades National Park being part of Miami's metro.