OMB proposes raising the minimum population for metropolitan ares to 100,000
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:23:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  OMB proposes raising the minimum population for metropolitan ares to 100,000
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: OMB proposes raising the minimum population for metropolitan ares to 100,000  (Read 1478 times)
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 01, 2021, 05:36:28 PM »

Would result in the following metropolitan areas being reclassified as micropolitan areas:



They also announced that the delineation of New England city and town areas (NECTAs), NECTA divisions, and combined NECTAs should be discontinued.

Federal Register Notice
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2021, 05:40:29 PM »

Why are they discontinuing NECTAs? County lines make metros next to useless in New England.
Logged
Cokeland Saxton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,601
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -6.26

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2021, 05:43:11 PM »

San Angelo and Wichita Falls, TX have over 100k proper though. Why would they be reclassified?
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2021, 06:16:59 PM »

A lot of these counties have over 100k in population though.
Logged
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,729


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2021, 07:50:22 PM »

At some point you have to go on a case-by-case basis. Cheyenne and Lawrence pretty clearly should be called metropolitan areas. Mankato, maybe not so much.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2021, 02:26:02 AM »

Would result in the following metropolitan areas being reclassified as micropolitan areas:



They also announced that the delineation of New England city and town areas (NECTAs), NECTA divisions, and combined NECTAs should be discontinued.

Federal Register Notice
More of the supporting documentation is here. Be sure to click on View More Documents in the upper left corner.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2021-0001-0002

The reasoning behind the change appears to be specious. They note that the US population has increased by 2.2 since 1950, while the standard for metropolitan areas has been unchanged. But consistency would appear to be a useful characteristic for statistical definitions.

They also didn't appear to take into account programmatic effects of the change. It is the OMB and not the Census Bureau that sets standards for metropolitan areas and urban areas - the Census Bureau may provide advice and data collection, but they certainly don't suggest that the delineations be used in a certain away.

But the government does define programs based on metropolitan status. It doesn't make sense that the standard for qualifying for a certain grant should change. There is no apparent effort to see if there are secondary effects.

The review didn't appear to consider the effect on urbanized areas. Urbanized areas were defined prior to the 2000 Census and formed the core of metropolitan areas. Beginning with the 2000 Census, the Census bureau began delineating urban areas, based on density of settlement rather than political subdivisions, CDP, etc. Urban areas with a population greater than 50,000 were deemed urbanized areas, those with less than 50,000 population were deemed to be urban clusters. Urbanized areas could form the core of a Metropolitan Area. Urban clusters with a population greater than 10,000 could form the core of a Micropolitan Area.

Urbanized Areas delineated before 2000 formed the core of metropolitan areas, and were protected from being absorbed into another urbanized area. Divisions of urban areas that had grown together was often at the county line. Will urbanized areas continue to be protected?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2021, 03:00:49 AM »

San Angelo and Wichita Falls, TX have over 100k proper though. Why would they be reclassified?
They are classified based on the size of the urbanized area (and likely on the 2010 Census),

San Angelo UA was 92,984. But the city is estimated over 100,000 in 2019. The ACS estimate for the San Angelo UA 2015-19 was 99,269.

Wichita Falls UA was 99,437, but the city population was 104,553. The urbanized area is generally within the city limits with only a few areas outside. There may be some prisons in the city limits but not in the urbanized area.

Longview may also be saved.
Logged
Biden his time
Abdullah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,644
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2021, 10:03:11 AM »
« Edited: March 02, 2021, 10:23:55 AM by THE SPIRIT OF WAYNE MESSAM »

This is a good idea.

Cheyenne, Sebring, and Bismarck are too small to be deserving of the title "Metropolitan Statistical Area". Their urban areas are minuscule (76k, 63k, and 90k respectively) and their counties are also relatively tiny. Even if their counties were relatively large, though, it still shouldn't matter, because their counties would in that case be majority rural.

My suburb has more people than any one of those metros, and it's not even particularly big. There are three other suburbs in my county alone for which the same thing applies.

The only reason people care about Cheyenne and Bismarck is that they're capital cities. Otherwise, they'd be as relevant as Prescott, Arizona.
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2021, 04:58:32 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.

Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2021, 05:20:14 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.



Delaware, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia should all be in the same region. If some of them are moved to the Northeast, all of them should.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2021, 05:25:02 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.
No states should be counted as being in a different region than the one they are in now, period.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2021, 10:09:44 AM »
« Edited: March 06, 2021, 11:14:10 AM by muon2 »

The OMB is proposing raising the threshold for a Metropolitan Statistical Area from 50 K to 100K. 144 cities would be reclassified as Micropolitan Areas if the proposal is adopted.

The Census Bureau is proposing a change to the threshold for an Urban Area from 500 people per sq mi to 385 housing units per sq mi. That is roughly equivalent to 1000 people per sq mi.

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-bismarck-census-2020-north-dakota-sheboygan-ad77e15f0f8cd13b8e398d2ca8339ca7

I missed this thread initially, so I merged my thread onto this one. One extra thing in the article is the proposed Census Bureau change. It seems confusing to up the OMB urban area population threshold while changing the urban area definition to housing.
Logged
JGibson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,992
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.00, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2021, 05:45:48 PM »

I don't agree with bumping the metropolitan minimum to 100k. 75k would be a reasonable compromise.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2021, 05:59:54 PM »

I don't agree with bumping the metropolitan minimum to 100k. 75k would be a reasonable compromise.

Are there particular metros in the 75K - 100K range you think should not be dropped to micropolitan status? Note they will still be MSAs, just in the smaller category.

I see some in the article I wouldn't want to move, but they used 2010 data and many of those on their map have grown this decade. For example they show Twin Falls ID, but on closer inspection it had 99,987 in the urban area and has certainly picked up at least 13 people last decade.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2021, 07:26:40 PM »

I don't agree with bumping the metropolitan minimum to 100k. 75k would be a reasonable compromise.

Are there particular metros in the 75K - 100K range you think should not be dropped to micropolitan status? Note they will still be MSAs, just in the smaller category.

I see some in the article I wouldn't want to move, but they used 2010 data and many of those on their map have grown this decade. For example they show Twin Falls ID, but on closer inspection it had 99,987 in the urban area and has certainly picked up at least 13 people last decade.
They would still be Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA).

If they are abbreviated they are abbreviated as MSA and μSA. In the original proposal before the 2000 Census, there was a third class - mesopolitan. IIRC, it would have been in the range of 50,000 to 100,000. I think it may have been resistance to demotion at that time that my have led to that being dropped - though I think it was based on a claim of too much complexity.

M-politan M-politan M-politan
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2021, 07:35:13 PM »

RIP My Sweet Metropolitan Statistical Area Cry

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2021, 01:24:06 PM »

The OMB is proposing raising the threshold for a Metropolitan Statistical Area from 50 K to 100K. 144 cities would be reclassified as Micropolitan Areas if the proposal is adopted.

The Census Bureau is proposing a change to the threshold for an Urban Area from 500 people per sq mi to 385 housing units per sq mi. That is roughly equivalent to 1000 people per sq mi.

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-bismarck-census-2020-north-dakota-sheboygan-ad77e15f0f8cd13b8e398d2ca8339ca7

I missed this thread initially, so I merged my thread onto this one. One extra thing in the article is the proposed Census Bureau change. It seems confusing to up the OMB urban area population threshold while changing the urban area definition to housing.
Here is the federal register notice:

Urban Areas for the 2020 Census-Proposed Criteria

Worth noting is that the urban area classification is a Census Bureau standard, while the Core Based Statistical Area classification is an OMB standard, albeit with the data provided by the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau definition is more a land use characterization - an area of dense residential population, and associated urban land use (determined by impervious ground cover, such as buildings and parking lots).

The rationale for switching to Housing Units from Population is two-fold:

(1) It permits updating urban areas mid-census. The Census Bureau maintains a Master Address File (MAF) intended to represent every Housing Unit in the country. This is used as the sampling frame for the ACS, and is continuously (periodically?) updated, as the Census Bureau becomes aware of new housing developments such as from the USPS list of mailing addresses.

One of the purposes of the Update/Leave phase of the Census, was to field check housing units that likely no longer exist. For example, Audubon County, Iowa had two small Update/Leave areas. One was a trailer park that satellite imagery showed had been declining over the years, and now has a building covering much of the site.

You can't determine non-existence by mailing a form, and getting no response. That is indistinguishable from a vacant housing unit or one with a non-respondent. Of the roughly 60 million Housing Units for the Update Leave phase, 10 million were found to be non-existent. The Census Bureau had a strong hunch that they weren't. The 150 million housing units for the Census never made sense, given that the current estimate for the ACS is around 135 million.

Since the list of Housing Units is maintained on a continuing basis, Housing Unit density can be calculated to a census block level on a continuing basis. 385 HU/square mile is equivalent to 1000 Persons/square mile at the national average household size of 2.6 (1000/2.6 = 385). The Housing Unit basis might also be better for areas with seasonal populations.

(2) The Census Bureau is intending to fuzz population counts, including for PL 94-171 data, for reasons of privacy disclosure. Since actual population counts will not be released, density can not be calculated in a transparent fashion at the census block level.

And in any event, an accurate population count is only determined at the Census.



The proposal would eliminate the distinction between urbanized areas and urban clusters. Prior to 2000, only urbanized areas, those with populations greater than 50,000 population were defined. Places (both incorporated and CDP) with more than 2500 person were classified as urban.

In 2000, the Census Bureau switched to an automated procedure based on population density that disregarded any political boundaries, and applied it to the entire country.

All areas were termed "urban areas". The name "urbanized area" was retained for those over 50,000 population that largely corresponded to the 1990 and earlier areas. The newly determined smaller areas, with population between 2500 and 50,000 were termed "urban clusters".

The 2020 proposal would eliminate the distinction. From a statistical perspective there is no reason for a distinction. Any programs based on the terminology distinction, would be better based on the actual size distinction.



Densely populated areas with populations less than 4,000 housing units/10,000 persons will no longer be considered urban areas, and the population will no longer be classified as urban.

This is more consistent with modern sensibilities as to what is urban, and also matched the OMB threshold for what constitutes the core of a micropolitan area.

It is a difference from long-standing Census Bureau practice. OTOH, the Census Bureau has also long characterized cities by population classes (more than 1,000,000, more than 100,000 etc.). In addition, the Census Bureau publishes detailed demographic information and estimates for all incorporated places.



The 2020 proposal would reduce the "jump" limit to 1.5 miles. Currently, urban areas may jump across non-residential areas for a distance of 2.5 miles, to reflect discontinuous development along highways which are part of the urban population.

Before 2000, the jump limit was 1.5 miles, even though urban areas were defined differently. The 2.5 mile limit was adopted perhaps out of concern that an automated process might produce bunches of urban clusters that were treated as independent of the nearby city even though they functionally were not. In 2010, the Census Bureau considered a return to the 1.5 mile threshold, but the response was equivocal. It appears that the Census Bureau is simply going back to what they wanted to do in 2010.

Linking census blocks will no longer be required. Urban areas may thus become discontinuous, but this would reflect actual land use.

The "hop" limit would remain at 0.5 miles. An urban area may only have one jump along a highway, but may have unlimited hops. These too may now be discontinuous.

Urban areas may continue to cross water and wetlands for distances up to five miles.



Indentations in urban area boundaries surrounded by urban areas would no longer be closed. Previously it was believed that these areas would:

(1) Become developed;
(2) Had non-residential urban uses; or
(3) Would make maps neater.

It turns out that these areas have not developed - and if they did, they would be included in the urban area. The Census Bureau has switched to a standard based on impervious ground cover (parking lots and buildings) to detect non-residential land usage. This is based on more recently available satellite imagery. Maps can be zoomed in or out. Larger scale cartographic applications can simplify boundaries.

Fully enclosed enclaves of less than 5 square miles would continue to be included.



The 385 HU/square mile would be used for the entire delineation process. Presently, an initial core of at least 1000 persons per square mile of at least 1000 persons is used to define the initial urban area. Extensions are only required to have a density of 500 persons per square mile.

I doubt the change will have much impact. Suburban areas with 1/4 acre lots have a population density of around 6700 persons/square mile. Even one acre lots produces blocks with about 1700 persons/square mile.



Blocks with group quarters adjacent to a densely populated residential area will be included in the urban area. Since there are no housing units associated with group quarters, the housing unit density can not be calculated.

I had wondered whether an artificial HU density could be calculated, but it might not be required. Larger facilities (100+) would qualify unless they were on a relatively large plot of land. Smaller facilities (20-) may qualify based on other Housing Units on the same census block. And for practical purposes, group quarters near urban areas are actually part of the urban landscape.

Truly isolated group quarters such as prisons won't qualify as reaching the 10,000 population threshold.



It is proposed that agglomerations of urban territory be merged or separated based on commuting patterns. Currently, urbanized area can absorb urban clusters, or urban clusters can merge. When two existing urbanized areas meet, they are separated at an isthmus of development or near the county line associated with their metropolitan areas.

The current separation is not based on current objective criteria, but is based on previous analysis which may not reflect current reality.

If 50% of the smaller urban areas workers work in the larger urban area, and 50% of the jobs in the smaller area are filled by workers from the larger area, the two urban areas will be merged. Essentially, the smaller area no longer maintains a separate identity.

Otherwise the boundaries can be adjusted.

If I understand the process, commuting basins are determined and smaller urban areas can be expanded to include territory commuting towards them.
Logged
Buffalo Mayor Young Kim
LVScreenssuck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,456


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2021, 07:17:18 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.


Can we also split out the Midwest and Plains, I知 sick of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas cluttering up Midwest stats.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2021, 07:22:03 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.


Can we also split out the Midwest and Plains, I知 sick of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas cluttering up Midwest stats.

But they're Midwestern states, much as Maryland and Delaware are profoundly southern.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2021, 07:38:53 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.


Can we also split out the Midwest and Plains, I知 sick of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas cluttering up Midwest stats.

But they're Midwestern states,
Yes.

much as Maryland and Delaware are profoundly southern.
NO!
Logged
Buffalo Mayor Young Kim
LVScreenssuck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,456


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2021, 10:15:19 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.


Can we also split out the Midwest and Plains, I知 sick of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas cluttering up Midwest stats.

But they're Midwestern states,
Yes.

Well, Midwest needs to mean something, and it traditionally was used as a replacement for the Northwest (as in Northwest Territory) once we got an actual northwest. It痴 ok to throw in Iowa and maybe Missouri in because eastern Iowa and St. Louis are fairly well plugged into the old industrial heartland, but once your hitting Omaha and Kansas City, we are talking about an entirely different ecosystem from say Michigan. They really need their own word instead of using Midwest just mean anywhere flat without beaches.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2021, 10:18:59 PM »

I largely approve of this in order to declutter our absurdly high number of metropolitan areas as currently defined, but eliminating NECTA definitions is nonsensical unless the OMB is planning on inventing a tighter set of parameters to measure New England urban areas.

Since they are revisiting their definitional categories, I would also highly recommend the OMB join the rest of us in the 21st century and reclassify Maryland and Delaware (and DC) for the Census Bureau as no longer being Southern states.


Can we also split out the Midwest and Plains, I知 sick of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas cluttering up Midwest stats.

But they're Midwestern states,
Yes.

Well, Midwest needs to mean something, and it traditionally was used as a replacement for the Northwest (as in Northwest Territory) once we got an actual northwest. It痴 ok to throw in Iowa and maybe Missouri in because eastern Iowa and St. Louis are fairly well plugged into the old industrial heartland, but once your hitting Omaha and Kansas City, we are talking about an entirely different ecosystem from say Michigan. They really need their own word instead of using Midwest just mean anywhere flat without beaches.

I get your point, but that applies to every region. The idea that Colorado or Wyoming are "Western" seems a bit odd from the West Coast, and Key West has a somewhat different appearance than Bowling Green. Obviously there are subregions, but splitting America into the "big four" regions is going to inevitably result in awkward pairings. And as detached as Omaha may be from the Great Lakes, it certainly doesn't belong with any of the other three regions.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2021, 11:52:44 AM »


Why?
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2021, 12:00:53 PM »


Because they're culturally, demographically, and geographically Northeastern. I mean, c'mon Delaware is mostly a suburb of Philadelphia. And DC and Baltimore are literally defining components of the Northeast Corridor. The South begins somewhere well into Virginia.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2021, 12:31:13 PM »


Because they're culturally, demographically, and geographically Northeastern. I mean, c'mon Delaware is mostly a suburb of Philadelphia. And DC and Baltimore are literally defining components of the Northeast Corridor. The South begins somewhere well into Virginia.

There are plenty of metros which cross-cross geographic regions--Louisville crosses between the South and Midwest and NYC is in the Mid-Atlantic (or whatever you want to call NY/NJ/PA) and New England. Maryland, Delaware, DC, and Virginia can be part of the Acela corridor and still be Southern.

The thing is that Maryland and Delaware, in most functional respects, look like Southern states. They have large rural Black communities in non-montane areas, they have weak municipalities and strong counties, they have large swaths of Black suburbia, and they both have a history of rural Democratic support similar to the solid south.

Excluding the DC area, Maryland and Delaware both vote basically like downstate Virginia or North Carolina--Baltimore is an older southern city so it's a little unconventional, but it doesn't vote too differently from New Orleans if you exclude the areas also under DC influence. And of course the DC area itself is basically sui generis--if Nashville or Mobile were home to the federal government and bureaucracy, they would vote similarly and have a similarly placeless culture. However, in terms of urban structure and layout, DC is very Southern--it's often remarked that Prince George's County has its closest urban parallel to the majority Black and middle-class suburbia of metro Atlanta, and this isn't a coincidence.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.