It’s more useful for many purposes. You have oddball cities like St Louis where the city is really made up of a ton of small cities and towns—but treating them as separate would be misleading in many contexts.
In our midwestern city, we do live in the city limits proper. But if you drive straight from here to the city center, you’ll pass through at least two other towns before reaching it! There are probably seven or eight tiny to large towns in the same general direction as us, but which are closer to downtown than we are (some are just 5 minutes to downtown by car). And our school district is separate from the rest of the city (and shared by parts of some of those other towns)
Like 30% of the population of our metro area and probably 40% of the money is in another state! And many of them closer to downtown than us.
> That's a good point, I never saw the point of "metros" how they used them in Texas.
One role of that way of categorizing, even in less-atomized cities, is to capture the area that’s basically economically dependent on the city. Nobody (more or less) would live in those suburbs and exurbs if not for the presence of the city. It’s like looking at a lake’s drainage basin.
In our midwestern city, we do live in the city limits proper. But if you drive straight from here to the city center, you’ll pass through at least two other towns before reaching it! There are probably seven or eight tiny to large towns in the same general direction as us, but which are closer to downtown than we are (some are just 5 minutes to downtown by car). And our school district is separate from the rest of the city (and shared by parts of some of those other towns)
Like 30% of the population of our metro area and probably 40% of the money is in another state! And many of them closer to downtown than us.