<p>DocT, unfortunately those figures are for municipal boundaries, not the urban area, which makes them basically meaningless. The reason why the Census Bureau’s urban/metro area figures are always used in comparisons instead of the ones you posted above is because municipal boundaries vary so greatly – some “cities” only cover 14 square miles while others cover hundreds or even thousands. If you are looking at “municipal” figures for the cities that cover tiny areas of land, particularly those in New England, the main reason why the numbers seem low is because proportionally a huge % of the population consists of college students with an income of $0 and because you basically cut out all of the suburban areas built after 1930, which are mostly middle-class.</p>
<p>The only comparisons that really compare apples to apples are found here: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4288812&postcount=9[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4288812&postcount=9</a></p>