2015 AHS Redesign Paper 3

Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and 

Decisions for the 2015 American Housing 

Survey and Beyond

Shawn Bucholtz

December 2015

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 1

Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions for the 

2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to discuss strategies for selecting 

metropolitan area samples for the American Housing Survey 

(AHS) for 2015 and beyond and to detail the decision the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made 

regarding metropolitan area selection. This whitepaper is organized into five parts. Part 1 presents a history of metropolitan 

area selection. Part 2 discusses user needs and lessons learned 

from past surveys. Part 3 discusses how metropolitan areas can 

be categorized. Part 4 presents four metropolitan area selection 

strategies. Part 5 presents HUD’s decision regarding metropolitan area selection strategies for 2015 and beyond.

1. Metropolitan Area Sample 

Selection: 1974–2013 

This section discusses the purpose and history of selecting 

metropolitan areas for the AHS. 

1.1 Purpose of the AHS Longitudinal 

Samples

A survey that is conducted once can be used to produce crosssectional estimates. For instance, the 2011 AHS can be used to 

produce estimates of housing costs for 2011. A survey that is 

repeated can be used to make cross-sectional estimates of a given 

year and can be used to measure the change in cross-sectional 

estimates across the years for which it is repeated. For instance, the 

current AHS can be used to measure the change in median housing costs between 2009 and 2011. A good example of a repeated 

cross-sectional survey is the American Community Survey, or ACS.

From the beginning of the AHS in 1973, both the national and 

metropolitan area samples were intended to be a longitudinal.1

Specifically, the AHS was designed as a panel sample whereby 

the same housing units were surveyed during every survey 

cycle. For the national sample, the survey cycle was originally 

every year and then changed to every 2 years starting in the 

early 1980s. For the metropolitan area samples, the survey 

cycle was intended to be every 4 years.

The purpose of a longitudinal survey is to produce an estimate 

of characteristics that change within the unit of observation. 

In the case of the AHS, HUD conducts a longitudinal survey 

to measure lifecycle changes in the housing stock and well as 

changes in household dynamics. For instance, the longitudinal 

national AHS survey can be used produce estimates of housing 

unit-level tenure change (owner to renter and vice versa) and 

filtering of the housing stock. 

Of course, housing lifecycle changes happen slowly, and it is 

necessary to observe a housing unit over a long period of time 

(10 or more years) in order to detect changes of interest. In 

addition, not all respondents can or do chose to participate every 

time the survey is conducted, which reduces the ability to detect 

changes in a housing unit or its occupants. For these reasons, the 

AHS national sample size must be larger relative to what would 

be required if the AHS were a simple cross-sectional survey.

1.2 Relationship Between Budget, 

Sample Size, and Priority

At the start of each survey cycle, AHS managers must make a decision about which metropolitan areas to survey. Three things need 

to be taken into consideration when choosing metropolitan areas.

1. What is the overall budget?

2. What is the desired metropolitan area sample size?

3. What metropolitan areas have a higher priority, given HUD’s 

current needs and considering the historical inclusion of 

each metropolitan area in the survey?

For any given survey cycle, the overall budget available for 

metropolitan areas is fixed. Historically, AHS managers have 

determined the metropolitan sample size during various 

redesigns, then attempted to keep that sample size fixed while 

varying the number of metropolitan areas selected for a given 

year so as to fit within the budget. The standard in place in the 

1990s through 2013 was approximately 4,500, although there 

have been some large departures, including 2007 when the 

average sample size was about 2,700.

For a given budget and desired sample size, AHS managers 

then must select the specific metropolitan areas to survey.

1

 Oral history.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 2

1.3 AHS Metropolitan Area Samples 

History: Frequency and Sample 

Size

Most of the following historical overview is derived from the 

oral histories of Duane McGough and John Weichart, as well as 

AHS documentation and analysis of AHS data.

1974–1977

The AHS began in 1973 with a national sample. In 1974, metropolitan area samples we introduced. The original metropolitan area sample strategy was to sample 60 metropolitan areas2

once every 3 years (20 per year over a 3-year cycle). To implement this strategy, the 60 metropolitan areas were organized 

into three groups. Between 1974 and 1976, all 60 metropolitan 

areas were sampled (19 in 1974, 21 in 1975, and 20 in 1976). 

The largest 12 metropolitan areas were split among the three 

groups and each had a sample size of approximately 15,000 

housing units. The remaining 48 metropolitan areas had a 

sample size of approximately 5,000 housing units.

The 1977 AHS marked the beginning of repeating the metropolitan area samples that were surveyed in 1974. All 19 metropolitan areas surveyed in 1974 were surveyed again in 1977. 

In addition, Madison, WI, which was previously surveyed in 

1975, was surveyed.

1978–1983

Due to budget cutbacks, beginning in 1978, the 60 metropolitan areas were redistributed into four groups of 15 metropolitan areas, with each group intended to be surveyed once every 

4 years. Each group had three large metropolitan areas and 12 

smaller metropolitan areas. From 1978 through 1981, each 

survey year included 15 metropolitan areas, but 1982 and 1983 

included only 12 and 13 metropolitan areas, respectively.

1984–1994

Beginning in 1984, HUD scaled back from 60 metropolitan 

areas to 44, with four groups of 11 metropolitan areas, each 

intended to be surveyed once every 4 years. Also, during 

a redesign in 1983, the metropolitan area sample size was 

reduced from 15,000 in the largest metropolitan areas and 

5,000 in the rest to 8,250 housing units in the largest areas and 

4,250 in the rest. Due to ongoing budget reductions, further 

reductions of sample size to 3,200 were implemented in certain 

years.

The AHS was generally able to stay on track with its strategy of 

surveying each of the 44 metropolitan areas once every 4 years. 

In 1992, 1993, and 1994, however, the AHS included only 8, 7, 

and 8 metropolitan areas, respectively. 

1995–2009

The AHS underwent a major redesign for the 1995 AHS. The 

AHS increased from 44 metropolitan areas to 47.3 One major 

change was drawing new metropolitan samples for more than 

one-half of the metropolitan areas. Another important change 

for the redesign was the inclusion of the “Big 6” metropolitan 

areas (Chicago, IL-IN-WI; Detroit, MI; Los Angeles, CA; New 

York, NY-NJ-PA; Northern New Jersey, NJ; and Philadelphia, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD) into the national sample.4 Finally, for the 

metropolitan areas outside of the Big 6, AHS managers adopted 

a strategy of surveying each of them once every 6 years.

Major budget reductions during this time period resulted 

in infrequent metropolitan samples. In fact, only the Big 6 

metropolitan areas, plus Seattle, WA, and Miami, FL, were 

surveyed more than twice. The sample sizes for the independent metropolitan area sample (that is, those not in the Big 6) 

averaged about 4,600 between 1995 and 2006. In the face of 

budget restrictions, however, HUD reduced the sample sizes for 

the independent metropolitan areas to approximately 2,600 for 

2007 and 2009.5 The sample sizes for the Big 6 metropolitan 

areas averaged about 2,500.6 Lastly, beginning in 2005, HUD 

and the U.S. Census Bureau decided to conduct the metropolitan AHS surveys in the same years (odd numbered years) as the 

national survey.

2011–2013

Spurred on by the publication of the National Academy of 

Sciences report and a substantial increase in budget, HUD 

returned to the “top 60” strategy of the late 1970s. Prior to the 

2

 This sample included most of the 60 largest metropolitan areas and a few fast-growing metropolitan areas that were not part of the 60 largest metropolitan areas.

3

 This increase was achieved by splitting San Francisco-Oakland, CA, into separate metropolitan areas, as well as adding Sacramento, CA, and Charlotte, NC-SC.

4

 Los Angeles was not included in the Big 6 in 2009 due to U.S. Census Bureau concerns over the AHS interfering with fieldwork on other Census Bureau surveys. 

Los Angeles was moved to 2011.

5

 The notable exception was New Orleans, LA, in 2009, which included a much larger sample so as to produce estimates of damage and recovery from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita.

6

 This number reflects the sum of the cases that were already part of the regular national sample, plus supplemental cases.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 3

2011 survey, HUD developed a list of 60 metropolitan areas. 

This list included the 47 from the 1995-to-2009 period and 

several new metropolitan areas.7

Although the budget in 2011 and 2013 was much bigger than 

in prior years, HUD was able to conduct only 29 metropolitan 

area surveys in 2011 and 25 metropolitan area surveys in 

2013.8 Each sample included about 4,500 housing units.

1.4 AHS Metropolitan Area Samples 

History: Prioritization

It is obvious from the prior subsection that the AHS has experienced major budget reductions since the 1970s, requiring 

HUD to develop priorities for metropolitan area selection. The 

budget reduction in 1978 caused HUD to reduce the frequency 

of metropolitan area samples from once every 3 years to once 

every 4 years. Further budget reductions in 1982 and 1983 

caused HUD to deviate from the planned schedule by not 

conducting surveys in Springfield, MA; Colorado Springs, CO; 

Las Vegas, NV; Omaha, NE-IA; and Raleigh, NC.

A major reprioritization occurred in 1984 when HUD scaled 

from 60 to 44 metropolitan areas and cut the sample sizes in 

half. The metropolitan areas listed previously were officially 

cut, as were Allentown, PA-NJ; Grand Rapids, MI; Louisville, 

KY-IN; Sacramento, CA; Honolulu, HI; Wichita, KS; Saginaw, 

MI; Madison, WI; Orlando, FL; Albany, NY. The Newark, NJPA, and Paterson, NJ metropolitan areas were combined into a 

“Northern New Jersey” area.

Between 1984 and 1994, HUD was not able to fully implement 

the strategy of surveying each of the 44 metropolitan areas 

once every 4 years. As previously mentioned, in 1992, 1993, 

and 1994, the AHS included only 8, 7, and 8 metropolitan 

areas, respectively. The net result was 23 metropolitan areas 

being surveyed three times during the 1984-to-1994 period 

(the expectation under a “once every 4 years” strategy) and 21 

metropolitan areas being surveyed twice during this period.

During the period of 1995 through 2009, budget reductions 

led to major fluctuations in the number of metropolitan areas 

surveyed. It is clear that HUD prioritized the six largest metropolitan areas through their integration with the national sample. 

HUD was never able to implement its strategy of surveying the 

remaining metropolitan areas once every 6 years, however. 

Moreover, in 2005, 2007, and 2009, HUD made the decision 

to reduce the metropolitan sample size from 4,500 to approximately 2,600, thereby enabling it to conduct more metropolitan 

area surveys.

In 2011, HUD reestablished the goal to survey 60 metropolitan 

areas once every 4 years (or every other survey cycle). The 

development of the list of 60 metropolitan areas was generally 

consistent with the 1970s—the 55 or so largest metropolitan 

areas, plus some faster growing areas.

2. HUD and AHS User 

Community Needs

This section discusses the various needs for metropolitan data 

and summarizes lessons learned from prior survey years. Many 

of the needs were identified during the 2015 AHS redesign 

process, including a redesign conference held in May 2013.

2.1 HUD Needs

AHS managers identified three constituencies within HUD: Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) headquarters 

economists, PD&R regional economists, and program managers 

and leadership within other HUD offices. AHS managers 

conducted information gathering meetings with each of these 

constituencies.

PD&R headquarters economists generally felt that emphasis 

should be placed on the very largest metropolitan areas, but 

whatever strategy was adopted needed to be flexible to accommodate point-in-time needs. Another idea that was submitted 

by PD&R headquarters economists was to develop a geographically and socioeconomically representative set of metropolitan 

areas that could be surveyed on a regular schedule (explored 

further in section 3). Finally, PD&R headquarters economists 

cited the need to develop constituencies for AHS products 

within metropolitan area governments and other local entities.

PD&R regional economists identified a number of smaller metropolitan areas for which HUD has not historically conducted 

7

 The original plan included disaggregating a handful of larger metropolitan areas into their respective metropolitan divisions, as well as adding some of the faster 

growing metropolitan areas just outside of the top 60, by population.

8

 In practice, HUD cut the Gary, IN; Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ; and Camden, NJ metropolitan divisions; aggregated the Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and West Palm Beach, 

FL metropolitan divisions into one metropolitan area; and aggregated the Edison-New Brunswick, NJ; Nassau-Suffolk, NY; and New York-White Plans, NY metropolitan divisions into two metropolitan areas. This latter change had the added advantage of keeping the AHS New York and Northern New Jersey metropolitan areas 

consistent with past surveys.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 4

the AHS. These areas included Raleigh, NC; Albany, NY; 

Greenville and Spartanburg, SC; Colorado Springs, CO; and 

Boise City, ID. PD&R regional economists also suggested conducting the AHS in areas with major (and recently active) oil 

and natural gas deposits, as these areas have presented unique 

housing challenges.

Program managers and leadership in the various HUD offices 

generally cited a need for conducting metropolitan samples in 

the large metropolitan areas. 

2.2 AHS User Community Needs

The AHS user community expressed a similar sentiment as 

HUD users. They expressed a desire to continue with metropolitan samples in the largest metropolitan areas. Specifically, the 

Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University (JCHS) 

expressed a desire for a “consistent set” of metropolitan areas; 

that is, for HUD to ensure that some metropolitan areas are on 

a fixed survey schedule and are always given priority over other 

metropolitan areas. Also, AHS users in Portland, OR-WA, and 

Seattle, WA, expressed a desire to have their metropolitan areas 

surveyed on a consistent basis.

The AHS user community also identified several small metropolitan areas they would like HUD to sample in 2015. In 

particular, the National Center for Healthy Housing identified 

six metropolitan areas for which HUD has never conducted 

a metropolitan sample: Honolulu, HI; Albuquerque, NM; 

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA; Little Rock, AR; Boise City, ID; 

and Des Moines, IA. 

2.3 Neighborhood Samples

An idea put forth by several people at HUD and within the 

AHS user community was to conduct neighborhood samples for 

populations or locations of interest. HUD users mentioned this 

idea in the context of evaluating HUD investments made through 

programs such as Choice Neighborhoods. This idea was also mentioned in the context of exploring housing issues within the Asian 

and Pacific Islander communities located on the U.S. mainland.

These neighborhood samples do not have to be large. A sample 

of 300 to 500 should be sufficient to detect changes in neighborhood for most characteristics.

At this time, further research is needed to determine the usefulness 

of neighborhood samples in detecting programmatic impacts.

3. Developing a 

Representative Set 

of Metropolitan Areas

3.1 Overview

In addition to specific HUD and AHS user needs, there remains 

the general statutory charge to survey the largest 45 to 60 metropolitan areas, and HUD has generally adhered to this strategy 

while exercising some flexibility as needed.9 Restricting the 

metropolitan samples to the top 45 by population establishes 

a cutoff at New Orleans, LA, with a population of 1.2 million. 

Restricting the metropolitan samples to the top 60 by population establishes a cutoff at Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA, with 

a population of 895,000. Either cutoff leaves out some of the 

smaller but faster growing metropolitan areas in the south and 

west, including those impacted by oil and gas production.

One strategy that has not been explored with the AHS metropolitan samples is choosing a set of metropolitan areas that 

are representative of other metropolitan areas. For instance, 

it may not be necessary to have every fast-growing southern 

metropolitan area with 1 to 2 million people if a few of them 

are representative of the whole.

In fact, a small but robust literature explores commonalities 

between metropolitan areas and attempts to create groups or 

clusters of metropolitan areas that are similar in nature. Three 

of those attempts are summarized in the following sections.

3.2 Typologies of Sprawl: Investigating 

U.S. Metropolitan Land Use 

Patterns

Sarzynski et al. (2014a, 2014b) investigated metropolitan land 

use patterns with eye toward the measurement of sprawl. They 

evaluated 311 metropolitan areas based on four general factors.

1. Intensity: The intensity of residential and nonresidential 

land use overall.

2. Compactness: The degree to which development is concentrated and more intensively developed near the historical 

core as opposed to the periphery.

3. Mixing: The degree to which residential and nonresidential 

uses are integrated at a fine scale.

9

 The statute requiring HUD to conduct the AHS says that HUD should conduct a survey similar to what existed in 1981. At that time, the goal of the AHS was to 

survey the top 60 metropolitan areas.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 5

4. Core-dominance: The degree to which jobs are distributed 

in a monocentric pattern.

Using these four general factors, they identify four clusters of 

metropolitan areas.

1. Ascendants: These areas are, on average, large, young, and 

fast growing. This cluster includes “world cities” such as Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL-IN-WI; Los Angeles, CA; and Miami, 

FL. It also includes a few rust belt areas (Cleveland, OH, and 

Detroit, MI) and a few of the fast-growing southern (Fort 

Lauderdale and Miami, FL) and western (Las Vegas, NV; 

Phoenix, AZ; and Salt Lake City, UT) metropolitan areas.

2. Insulars: These areas are the smallest, youngest, and slowest growing. None had more than 1 million residents as of 

2000. Examples include Birmingham, AL; Albuquerque, 

NM; and Little Rock, AR.

3. Redevelopers: This cluster is more often located in the northeast. These metropolitan areas tend to be smaller, older, and 

whiter and to have declining central cities. Examples include 

Buffalo, NY; Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN; Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DEMD; Pittsburgh, PA; and Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV.

4. Cosmopolitans: This cluster includes, on average, the largest 

and oldest areas. These areas include Boston, MA-NH; New 

York, NY-NJ-PA; San Francisco, CA; and St. Louis, MO-IL. 

It is worth noting that the clustering methodology used by 

Sarzynski et al. is based heavily on land use patterns but still 

incorporates important aspects of housing density and housing 

location relative to employment location. 

3.3 Urban Institute: Expanding Access 

of Economic Opportunity in FastGrowth Metropolitan Areas

Pendall and Turner (2014) review the nation’s top 99 largest 

metropolitan areas along five key categories of economic opportunity.

1. Growth: Population growth (2000–2010) and changes in 

jobs (2007–2010).

2. Job quality: The percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (2005/2009 average); labor force participation 

(2005/2009 average); and average wage growth per job 

(2000–2010).

3. Cost of living: The hourly wage required to afford the 40th 

percentile apartment (2013).

4. Diversity: Percent foreign born (2005/2009), percent Black 

(2005/2009), percent Hispanic (2005/2009), and percent 

age 65 and over (2005/2009).

5. Access to opportunity: Black-White dissimilarity index 

(2005/2009), poverty rate (2012), ratio of 80th to 20th 

percentile household income (2005/2009), and the percentage of children born in the early 1980s to households in the 

lowest 20 percent of the income distribution who rose to the 

top 20 percent by 2010.

Using a clustering approach, the authors find nine clusters of 

metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, the authors don’t provide 

a description of each cluster. Instead, they name each cluster 

using the largest city within the cluster. The clusters were 

Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, McAllen, Memphis, New 

York, Riverside, and Tampa.

3.4 From Jurisdictional to Functional 

Analysis of Urban Cores and 

Suburbs

Cox (2014) builds upon previous research to develop a 

typology of functional areas within a larger metropolitan area. 

Whereas the two previously reviewed studies cluster metropolitan areas into groups, Cox breaks apart a metropolitan area into 

four functional areas based on housing age, density, and use of 

public transit, biking, or walking. His four function areas are—

1. Pre-auto urban core: In census urban areas; with high density of people; with 20 percent or more using public transportation, walking, or biking; and other area with median 

age of home before 1946. 

2. Early auto suburban: In census urban area, with median 

age of house between 1947 and 1979.

3. Later auto suburban: In census urban area, with median 

age of house 1980 or later. 

4. Auto exurban: Outside census urban area, or population 

density less than 250 persons per square mile, regardless of 

median age of home.

Cox’s results (partially shown in the following table) can be 

used to develop groups of metropolitan areas that have similar 

amounts of a particular function area. For instance, Austin, TX, 

and Atlanta, GA, have very similar percentage values for each 

of the four function areas. The same could be said for Boston, 

MA-NH, and Buffalo, NY.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 6

Table 1. Examples of Cox (2014) Metropolitan Area 

Typology

Metropolitan 

Area

Pre-Auto 

Urban Core

Early Auto 

Suburban

Later Auto 

Suburban

Auto 

Exurban

Atlanta, GA 0.5% 14.9% 70.7% 13.8%

Austin, TX 1.8% 15.7% 62.5% 20.0%

Baltimore, MD 16.2% 41.8% 19.9% 22.0%

Birmingham, AL 0.0% 42.1% 24.6% 33.3%

Boston, MA-NH 34.2% 49.7% 3.2% 12.9%

Buffalo, NY 28.8% 51.6% 3.1% 16.5%

3.5 Conclusion

Each of the three lines of research cited previously contains 

useful information for how metropolitan areas could be 

clustered for the AHS. Ideally, a clustering method specifically 

for use in selecting metropolitan areas for the AHS would use 

metrics that are related strongly to the reasons for conducting 

the AHS: housing cost, housing quality, and neighborhood 

assets. Housing quality tends to be closely correlated with the 

age of structures, and housing costs are a function of density 

and access to jobs. Age of structures is clearly part of the Cox 

methodology, while density and access to jobs are both part of 

Sarzynski et al. and Pendall and Turner. Neighborhood assets 

are not explicitly a part of any of the three lines of research, but 

perhaps correlated with the percentage of people using public 

transportation, walking, or biking.

Absent a quantitative assessment based on specific AHS needs, 

a qualitative combination of the aforementioned three methods 

may help in creating a representative selection of metropolitan 

areas to survey.

4. Metropolitan Area 

Selection Strategies

There are a number of options for selecting metropolitan areas 

for 2015 and forward. Four options are presented in the following sections.

4.1 Option 1: National Sample and 

Top 60 Metropolitan Areas, Sampled 

Once Every 4 Years

The first option is the status quo. This option reflects what has 

been HUD’s historic goal for the AHS. For 2015, 30 of the top 

60 metropolitan areas would be surveyed. In 2017, the other 

30 would be surveyed.

While this option maintains the status quo, it is not necessarily 

flexible. More to the point, it does not provide a metropolitan area 

prioritization strategy that could be implemented if budget reductions require conducting less than 30 metropolitan area surveys. 

4.2 Option 2: Integrate National 

Sample and Next 45 Largest 

Metropolitan Areas

This option includes permanently integrating into the national 

sample a sufficiently large metropolitan area sample for each of the 

15 largest metropolitan areas, by population.10 Metropolitan 

area samples would be drawn for the remaining top 45 

metropolitan areas, and they would be sampled either once every 

4 years (22/23 per survey cycle) or once every 6 years (15 per 

survey cycle). 

10 The 15 largest metropolitan areas, by population, include approximately one-third of all U.S. residents.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 7

Table 2. Top 15 Largest Metropolitan Areas, by 2013 

Population

Rank Metropolitan Statistical 

Area Name

2013 

Population

1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 19,949,502

2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 13,131,431 

3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 9,537,289 

4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,810,913 

5 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 6,313,158 

6 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,034,678 

7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,949,859 

8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 5,828,191 

9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 5,522,942 

10 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 4,684,299 

11 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 4,516,276 

12 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 4,398,762 

13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 4,380,878 

14 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 4,294,983 

15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,610,105 

This option is consistent with the original intent of the metropolitan area samples. In addition, this option provides two advantages over option 1. First, this option ensures that a consistent set 

of the 15 largest metropolitan area samples will be part of every 

survey cycle—a preference expressed by some of the larger AHS 

users. Second, integrating the top 15 metropolitan areas into the 

national sample provides cost savings compared with having 

them as separate samples. The cost savings is achieved because 

fully one-third of a representative national sample is already in 

the top 15 metropolitan areas, because the top 15 metropolitan 

areas represent one-third of the population. As such, HUD need 

only add the amount of sample necessary to bump up each 

metropolitan area’s total sample to 3,000. 

4.3 Option 3: Integrated National 

Sample and Selection of 

Metropolitan Areas Based 

on Point-in-Time Criteria

This option includes integrating into the national sample a 

sufficiently large metropolitan area sample for each of the 15 

largest metropolitan areas, by population. 

The selection of additional metropolitan area samples for any 

given year would be based on criteria established at that point 

in time and would not necessarily be restricted to the next 45 

largest metropolitan areas. Criteria may include fast-growing 

metropolitan areas; metropolitan areas that recently experienced 

a major disaster; or rural areas of the country where energy 

production has dramatically increased the demand for housing, 

leading to a loss of affordable housing for rural residents.

It is worth noting that HUD has historically exercised some 

flexibility in choosing metropolitan areas that were outside of 

the 45 or 60 largest, although they have generally stuck with 

the largest metropolitan areas.

4.4 Option 4: 

• National Sample with Big 15 Integration.

• A secondary group of the “Next 20” large Metropolitan 

Areas representative of the largest 50 metropolitan areas, 

surveyed every 4 years (10 every 2 years).

• A third group of metropolitan areas based on point-intime selection criteria.

After the top 15, the next 20 largest metropolitan areas represent 

a slightly skewed cross-section of larger metropolitan area types, 

given the clustering research cited previously. For the Sarzynski 

clusters, Cosmopolitans make up one-half of the next 20 largest 

metropolitan areas, but this skewing is to be expected as the Cosmopolitan group includes the larger and older metropolitan areas. 

Within this list, there are some possibilities for creating a (perhaps) 

less skewed representation across the Sarzynski clusters and 

the Urban Institute clusters. Note that the current distribution 

includes 10 Cosmopolitans, 7 Ascendants, and 2 Redevelopers. 

(Tampa, FL, the 18th largest metropolitan area, is not included in 

a Sarzynski cluster.)

One option is to replace a few members of this list with 

members just outside this list that are all classified as Redevelopers: #36 (Nashville, TN), #38 (Providence, RI-MA) and #39 

(Milwaukee, WI). They could potentially replace—

• Kansas City, MO-KS, which is in the same combined 

Sarzynski/Urban Institute cluster (Cosmopolitan and 

Chicago) as Minneapolis, MN-WI, and St. Louis, MO-IL. 
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 8

• Sacramento, CA, which is in the same combined Sarzynski/

Urban Institute/Cox group (Cosmopolitan/Houston/very low 

pre-auto urban core) as Denver, CO, and Austin, TX, and 

which is one of several metropolitan areas in California that 

fall into the top 60 by population.11

• Columbus, OH, which is in the same combined Sarzynski/

Urban Institute/Cox group (Ascendants, Chicago, and five percent Pre-Auto urban core) as Indianapolis, IN (or vice-versa).

Exercising this option would yield a distribution of 8 Cosmopolitans, 6 Ascendants, and 5 Redevelopers—a perhaps better 

representation across the Sarzynski clusters. Lastly, recall that 

the fourth Sarzynski cluster, Insulars, includes much smaller 

metropolitan areas. The largest of these areas, Birmingham, AL, 

is ranked 49th in total population as of 2013.

For 2015 point-in-time criteria, it is likely worth considering 

adding the lists of metropolitan areas submitted by HUD regional 

economists and the National Center for Healthy Housing, as well 

as those that are newly in the top 60 but have never been part of 

the AHS (Salt Lake City, UT, for instance). Together, these lists 

include 15 metropolitan areas. 

Table 3. Next 20 Largest Metropolitan Areas and Their Values for Three Metropolitan Area Typologies

Ranka Metropolitan Statistical 

Area Name

2013 

Population

Sarzynski 

Clusters

Urban Institute 

Clusters

Cox % Pre-Auto 

Urban Core

16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3,459,146 Cosmopolitans Chicago 13

17 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 3,211,252 Cosmopolitans New York 1

18 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,870,569 None Tampa 0

19 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,810,056 Cosmopolitans Chicago 12

20 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 2,770,738 Cosmopolitans Baltimore 16

21 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 2,697,476 Cosmopolitans Houston 3

22 Pittsburgh, PA 2,360,867 Redevelopers Tampa 16

23 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 2,335,358 Ascendants Houston 0

24 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 2,314,554 Cosmopolitans Portland 10

25 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 2,277,550 Cosmopolitans Riverside 0

26 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 2,267,846 Ascendants Houston 0

27 Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA 2,215,770 Cosmopolitans Houston 2

28 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2,137,406 Redevelopers Chicago 10

29 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 2,064,725 Ascendants Chicago 22

30 Kansas City, MO-KS 2,054,473 Cosmopolitans Chicago 5

31 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 2,027,868 Ascendants Houston 2

32 Columbus, OH 1,967,066 Ascendants Chicago 5

33 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 1,953,961 Ascendants Chicago 5

34 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,919,641 Ascendants New York 0

35 Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,883,051 Cosmopolitans Houston 2

a

 Of the 20 metropolitan areas on this list, 12 were surveyed in 2011 and 8 were surveyed in 2013.

11 The National Center for Healthy Housing commented that the AHS should consider dropping a few of the metropolitan areas in California due to the high number 

already in the top 60 by population.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 9

5. Metropolitan Area 

Selection Decision

This section describes the metropolitan area selection strategy 

chosen by HUD for 2015 and beyond.

5.1 Incorporating Lessons Learned

As detailed in section 1, because of major fluctuations in budget during the 1990s and 2000s, AHS managers were unable 

to adopt a set schedule of metropolitan area surveys. Although 

budgets grew substantially in 2011 and 2013, there is no 

guarantee those budget levels will continue into the future. As 

such, HUD felt it was important to choose a strategy that could 

endure budget fluctuations without substantially diminishing 

the quality of the survey.

Another lesson learned is, when faced with survey reductions, 

HUD and the AHS user community have a preference for 

a consistent set of the larger metropolitan areas. For HUD’s 

perspective, having a consistent set of larger metropolitan areas 

helps build a permanent constituency for survey data products. 

The decision of which metropolitan sample to survey for 2015 

(and beyond) was certainly a balancing act of adhering to the 

AHS statute, meeting the needs of the HUD and AHS data users, and building additional customers for AHS data. 

5.2 Decision on Metropolitan Area 

Sample Size

As part of the 2015 AHS redesign process, HUD developed a 

sample size goal for each selected metropolitan area. This goal 

is— 

For the metropolitan area as a whole, a 2-year change of 10 percent in median monthly housing costs will have a standard error 

of 5 percent. 

HUD and the Census Bureau have determined that a sample 

size of 3,000 housing units will achieve this standard. More 

information about the determination of the national and metropolitan area sample sizes can be found in the paper Sample 

Sizes Determination and Decisions for the 2015 American Housing 

Survey and Beyond.

5.3 Selection Strategy

HUD determined that option 4 provided the most benefit to 

HUD and AHS users, while maintaining the flexibility to accommodate budget changes and point-in-time needs. 

HUD evaluated numerous options for the “Next 20” group. 

While HUD generally implemented the strategy of picking a 

less skewed representation across the Sarzynski and Urban 

Institute clusters, HUD also tried to balance regional considerations and HUD-specific needs. HUD settled on the following 

“Next 20” group:

Table 4. Final List of AHS “Next 20” Metropolitan Areas

Ranka Metropolitan Statistical 

Area Name

2013 

Population

Planned 

Survey Year

16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, 

MN-WI 

 3,459,146 2017

18 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,870,569 2017

20 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 2,770,738 2017

21 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 2,697,476 2015

22 Pittsburgh, PA 2,360,867 2015

24 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, 

OR-WA 

 2,314,554 2015

25 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 2,277,550 2017

28 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2,128,603 2015

29 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 2,064,725 2015

30 Kansas City, MO-KS 2,038,724 2015

31 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 2,027,868 2017

34 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,919,641 2017

39 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,566,981 2015

41 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,377,850 2015

42 Oklahoma City, OK 1,296,565 2017

44 Richmond, VA 1,231,980 2017

45 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 1,227,096 2015

47 Raleigh, NC 1,188,564 2015

48 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,136,650 2017

51 Rochester, NY 1,082,284 2017

a

 Of the 20 metropolitan areas on this list, 12 were surveyed in 2011 and 8 were 

surveyed in 2013.
Metropolitan Area Selection Strategies and Decisions 

for the 2015 American Housing Survey and Beyond

2015 AHS Redesign Series 10

5.4 Implementing the Selection 

Strategy During Budget Reductions

Given this history of AHS funding, it is likely that HUD will 

not always be able to implement the metropolitan area survey 

strategy detailed in this paper. In the event of insufficient funding, HUD will make the following sample reductions.

First, fully fund the integrated national sample. In the event of 

insufficient funding for the integrated national sample, HUD 

will not seek to eliminate any of the top 15 metropolitan areas 

that are integrated into the national sample a whole. Rather, 

the entire integrated national sample would be reduced by a 

percentage necessary to fit within the budget.

Second, if additional funding remains, fund up to 10 metropolitan areas selected from the “Next 20” group of metropolitan 

areas, plus any of the “Next 20” that were schedule to be 

conducted in the prior survey cycle but were not conducted 

due to budget reductions. 

Third, if additional funding remains, fund as many additional 

metropolitan areas based on point-in-time criteria.

References

Cox, Wendell. 2014. “From Jurisdictional to Functional Analysis of Urban Cores and Suburbs.” http://www.newgeography.

com/content/004349-from-jurisdictional-functional-analysisurban-cores-suburbs.

Pendall, Rolf, and Margery Austin Turner. 2014. Expanding Access to Economic Opportunity in Fast-Growth Metropolitan Areas. 

Urban Institute White Paper. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Sarzynski, Andrea, George Galster, and Lisa Stack. 2014a. 

“Typologies of Sprawl: Investigating United States Metropolitan 

Land Use Patters,” Urban Geography 35 (1): 48–70.

———. 2014b. “Evolving United States Metropolitan Land Use 

Patterns,” Urban Geography 35 (1): 25–47.