Several years ago, I created a topic asking what constitutes a major city. In that topic, factors such as pro sports teams, major airports and newspaper circulations were mentioned. Now, I want know what criteria needs to be met to just simply be a big city. I'm sure the criteria isn't as stringent as being a major city. There would need to be a population minimum, but how much? In that case, can a suburb be a big city, and would they need to have a downtown with high-rise buildings? What others must there be to qualify?
Depends on your background. For example, I would consider Davenport (pop. 100K, 300K metro) to be a big city. However, my friends from Minneapolis, Louisville, and Chicago would not.
In my world, the word 'city' means an urban environment whereas 'town' means more of a 'suburban' environment. A major city IMO meets the following criteria:
* Population: Minimum 200k
* Many built up areas
* Some sort of CBD / Downtown
* Efficient transit system throughout the city
* May have an efficient street grid system (does not necessarily mean numbered streets)
Examples of major cities: Newark, Jersey City, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Orlando, Ontario, London, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc..
In some states, "city" has a legally distinct definition from "town", and it need not be tied to population. The town of Hempstead, New York has more people than every city in the state except one (you know which one). Indeed, it is twentyfold more populous than either of the cities it shares a county with.
In New York's case, it is decided merely by how the municipality chooses to incorporate. Any town could instantly be come a city or vice versa if it saw fit to.
Or look at it another way, maybe any metro area with a million people or more is 'big'. I think the US has over 50 of those.
Big 3 would be New York, Chicago, and LA, top 10 ads Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc.
Omaha metro is just shy of a million and is IIRC around #60 or so in DMA size.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 06, 2014, 12:05:23 AM
In some states, "city" has a legally distinct definition from "town", and it need not be tied to population. The town of Hempstead, New York has more people than every city in the state except one (you know which one). Indeed, it is twentyfold more populous than either of the cities it shares a county with.
See: City of the Town of Watertown, Mass.
QuoteIn New York's case, it is decided merely by how the municipality chooses to incorporate. Any town could instantly be come a city or vice versa if it saw fit to.
Yes, but...
Do cities in New York contain the annoying municipal oddity "village"? Towns do.
To me, big cities are 50,000+. Yes, I come from a small-to-medium town.
100000+, and not within 15 miles of one with at least twice its population (because then it would be a suburb).
QuoteIn some states, "city" has a legally distinct definition from "town", and it need not be tied to population.
Then you have states such as Minnesota where any incorporated municipality is, by definition, a city. Regardless of whether its population is 5 or 50,000. Minnesota's smallest-populated city is Funkley, at 5. Tenney, MN (the previous record-holder at 4 after the 2000 Census) dissolved in 2011.
Quote100000+, and not within 15 miles of one with at least twice its population (because then it would be a suburb).
By this definition, Norfolk would be a suburb of Virginia Beach. Please try again...
I don't think high-rise buildings should be a consideration. I think most Americans outside of New York and LA would regard Washington, DC, as a big city, but it doesn't have any high-rises. Of course, I suppose you could say "it would except there's a law banning them."
Quote from: golden eagle on March 05, 2014, 11:26:20 PM
Now, I want know what criteria needs to be met to just simply be a big city.
To me, it's entirely subjective, based on what one is used to.
Someone living in Amish Country, PA, would consider Lancaster to be a big city.
Someone living in New York City may consider Boston to be a punny little village (and will add in Red Sox Suck any chance they get).
Atlantic City, NJ and Ocean City, NJ, are vastly different 'cities'.
Ocean City, NJ & Ocean City, MD are vastly different 'cities'.
The town of The Villages, FL is growing very quickly, with over 50,000 residents recorded on the 2010 census, and a population approaching 100,000 when you consider everyone who has a 2nd home in The Villages. Yet, it's not even an official town, even though one could argue it has its downtowns (the Squares) and it's suburbs (the individual communities of homes).
The point being...can population be used as a guideline for the definition of "A Big City"? Nah.
So...for me, what do I consider a big city? Philadelphia.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 05, 2014, 11:38:28 PM
Examples of major cities: Newark, Jersey City, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Orlando, Ontario, London, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc..
That one isn't big enough. :bigass:
Quote from: sammi on March 06, 2014, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 05, 2014, 11:38:28 PM
Examples of major cities: Newark, Jersey City, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Orlando, Ontario, London, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc..
That one isn't big enough. :bigass:
Actually, I meant Ontario, California, but I probably should have specified that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2014, 08:56:56 AM
So...for me, what do I consider a big city? Philadelphia.
Easily.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 06, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
Actually, I meant Ontario, California, but I probably should have specified that.
I know. But the population is under 200k (https://www.google.ca/search?q=ontario+CA+population). Which is why I said it wasn't big enough.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 06, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: sammi on March 06, 2014, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 05, 2014, 11:38:28 PM
Examples of major cities: Newark, Jersey City, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Orlando, Ontario, London, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc..
That one isn't big enough. :bigass:
Actually, I meant Ontario, California, but I probably should have specified that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2014, 08:56:56 AM
So...for me, what do I consider a big city? Philadelphia.
Easily.
But, is it a major city also?
I would say so.
Can a major city be a big city?
I don't know!!!!
New York.
there may be others around the world, but of all the places I've been to, New York has been the only one that has struck me as a city. Paris comes close. LA is a town with a traffic problem. the rest are just towns.
Take a ride in the back seat of a convertible down Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, and revel in the very cityness of the experience!!
(I did in 2011, it was a BLAST!)
You can go by the statistics book as to what classifies a big city, or go by perspective from people.
Big city in my mind is Chicago, NYC, LA, etc because I live in the urban sprawl.
But some "big" cities could be centers for the surrounding area. I know Dubuque, Iowa is not a big city, but to the tri-county area of IL, IA, and WI it's a big city. Peoria and Springfield could be considered big cities to those living in central Illinois. It all depends on peoples perspective.
Most will disagree with me, but I consider a big city any city that is shown in an inset map in the 2014 Randmcnally road atlas.
Quote from: US 41 on March 06, 2014, 01:38:13 PM
Most will disagree with me, but I consider a big city any city that is shown in an inset map in the 2014 Randmcnally road atlas.
It's always great to tie a standard to an external product over which you have no control.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 06, 2014, 11:29:23 AM
New York.
there may be others around the world, but of all the places I've been to, New York has been the only one that has struck me as a city. Paris comes close. LA is a town with a traffic problem. the rest are just towns.
If Paris only comes 'close' then you are looking at a very small club.
It totally depends on experience, Southampton is one of the biggest urban areas, but the layout of the city means that when I lived there it didn't feel as big as it is - sure it was bigger than the Green Belt town I grew up in, but that I could walk to the city centre, that there was a massive park en route, everywhere in the city was sensibly cycleable and the countryside (if the Common wasn't enough) was close. Plus I'd lived in London's shadow all my life, and London is 10-15 times more populous (at least!) and a city that even agentsteel would consider to be such!
1) Downtown with skyscrapers. They don't have to be 80 stories, but let's say more than 10 stories. I'm thinking of Charlotte as I write this. Otherwise it's just an average city at best.
2) At least 500,000 people in the metro area
3) Defined as the center of a metro area, or in isolated cases, twinned with another city in said definition (San Francisco-Oakland, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas-Fort Worth)
4) Local transportation hub - roads and rail come into the city moreso than they bypass it (obviously almost all cities have some sort of bypass)
Are there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one.
I'd probably set some minimum density, as well as prominence (in much the same way as topographic prominence is defined) to ward off suburbs.
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2014, 06:16:35 PM
I'd probably set some minimum density, as well as prominence (in much the same way as topographic prominence is defined) to ward off suburbs.
Skyscrapers and the "hub/spoke" rule tend to weed them out. Incidentally, it keeps Newark NJ defined as a city instead of a suburb, which is very much true. (Though not a large city - population minimum and not "center of metro area")
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2014, 08:56:56 AMSomeone living in New York City may consider Boston to be a punny little village (and will add in Red Sox Suck any chance they get).
People in New York don't really consider Boston much, period.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:21:04 PM
Skyscrapers and the "hub/spoke" rule tend to weed them out. Incidentally, it keeps Newark NJ defined as a city instead of a suburb, which is very much true. (Though not a large city - population minimum and not "center of metro area")
What about Trenton or Camden? There are no skyscrapers in any of those cities, but they still are
cities. I think that the actual size of the city (such as how much land the city uses in its limits) should help define a town vs. a city, but then the aforementioned features can define a city vs. a big city. And then you can go further and define a major city, but that's pushing it.
Also you said skyscrapers more than 10 stories tall - what is the minimum definition of a skyscraper? I would think 25+ stories would qualify, and even then it might qualify as just a high-rise.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:21:04 PM
Skyscrapers and the "hub/spoke" rule tend to weed them out. Incidentally, it keeps Newark NJ defined as a city instead of a suburb, which is very much true. (Though not a large city - population minimum and not "center of metro area")
I'd need to see a map with more colors and perhaps some more rigorous analysis, but Newark does seem to have a high prominence: http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_New_Jersey.pdf
Quote from: Zeffy on March 06, 2014, 06:29:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:21:04 PM
Skyscrapers and the "hub/spoke" rule tend to weed them out. Incidentally, it keeps Newark NJ defined as a city instead of a suburb, which is very much true. (Though not a large city - population minimum and not "center of metro area")
What about Trenton or Camden? There are no skyscrapers in any of those cities, but they still are cities. I think that the actual size of the city (such as how much land the city uses in its limits) should help define a town vs. a city, but then the aforementioned features can define a city vs. a big city. And then you can go further and define a major city, but that's pushing it.
Also you said skyscrapers more than 10 stories tall - what is the minimum definition of a skyscraper? I would think 25+ stories would qualify, and even then it might qualify as just a high-rise.
Trenton and Camden are not LARGE cities. Camden was always second fiddle to Philadelphia, and it does have a few tall buildings near the waterfront, but it's not like Jersey City to NY with some legitimate high-risers. Camden is, however, a local hub for NB. Trenton actually isn't so much of a hub - it was chosen for its central location more than anything, the capital had been New Brunswick which is more of a hub. It's definitely a small city.
I'm not saying that a city can't be a city unless it meets one or more of my criteria. That's not today's topic.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
4) Local transportation hub - roads and rail come into the city moreso than they bypass it (obviously almost all cities have some sort of bypass)
San Francisco says hi. Maybe you could argue that BART puts rail over the edge, but for normal rail Oakland is much more of a hub. Thanks, SF Bay!
It may be easier to classify metropolitan centersc into distinct categories by function. There will always be exceptions to the rules out there, so understand that these are broad-brush generalizations:
Major metropolitan centers - large, dense, urban cities with all the trappings of economic hubs: sports teams, corporate headquarters, center of a certain industry or industries (i.e. NYC with finance, SF with tech/internet, LA with entertainment/media), junction of two or more 2 digit interstates. Not all of these apply, but there should be a preponderance of them to qualify. Minimum population of 500K in city limits and/or 1 million in metropolitan area. Examples: NY, LA, Phoenix, Houston, Charlotte, Sacramento, Memphis, Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, et al.
Secondary metropolitan centers - like the major centers but smaller, usually a minor league sport team or two, some smaller corporate HQs, located on an interstate (unless you happen to be Fresno :-() City limit population of 250K/metro population of 1 million or less. Examples: Baton Rouge, Jackson MS, Birmingham, Colorado Springs, Knoxville, etc.
Satellite cities - large cities which are suburbs or adjacent to larger cities. Subcategories include former or current industrial centers (Newark, Camden, Gary, Long Beach, Joliet, Tacoma), historic centers past their prime/overshadowed by neighbors (Galveston) and megasuburbs (Mesa, Plano, Va. Beach, Naperville). Populations range from 100K to 300K.
Small metropolitan centers - no sports teams or corporate HQs, usually reliant on a single industry but slightly more diversified than smaller centers; often economically depressed unless reliant on a growing industrial sector, or if a university or tourist attraction is nearby. Populations 50K - 100K. Examples - Youngstown OH, Monroe LA, San Angelo TX, Asheville NC, Jackson TN, Macon GA. These cities can take on more importance in parts of the country where there are few larger metro centers, such as Montana or the Dakotas.
Regional centers - usually university towns or cities centered on some single industry (or even a single employer); also includes some state capitals. Should have at least one regional shopping center to qualify. These can range in population from 20K-50K. Examples: Hammond LA, Bloomington IN, Prescott AZ, Grand Junction CO.
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2014, 06:43:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
4) Local transportation hub - roads and rail come into the city moreso than they bypass it (obviously almost all cities have some sort of bypass)
San Francisco says hi. Maybe you could argue that BART puts rail over the edge, but for normal rail Oakland is much more of a hub. Thanks, SF Bay!
Scottsbluff, NE also says hi. you like trains? go to Scottsbluff.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2014, 08:56:56 AMSomeone living in New York City may consider Boston to be a punny little village (and will add in Red Sox Suck any chance they get).
People in New York don't really consider Boston much, period.
I'm from Boston, and lived there for 18 years, and I still don't consider it a city in the New York sense.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:21:04 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2014, 06:16:35 PM
I'd probably set some minimum density, as well as prominence (in much the same way as topographic prominence is defined) to ward off suburbs.
Skyscrapers and the "hub/spoke" rule tend to weed them out. Incidentally, it keeps Newark NJ defined as a city instead of a suburb, which is very much true. (Though not a large city - population minimum and not "center of metro area")
Personally, my way of "warding off suburbs" is: if traveling from one population center to another does not involve passing through a rural area (farmland, forest, empty desert, whatever), then they are not independent from each other and one must be a suburb or satellite city of the other - or, less frequently, a twin city to the other. The exception is if the two metro areas are conjoined only by a small isthmus of suburbanism (this keeps NYC and Philadelphia separate, and prevents the likes of Hartford and Springfield from being considered satellites of NYC).
Newark is a city, certainly, but it is a satellite of New York, not a centerpoint in its own right.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 06, 2014, 07:25:57 PM
I'm from Boston, and lived there for 18 years, and I still don't consider it a city in the New York sense.
In what "sense" is this? I'm not sure I follow.
Quote from: 1 on March 06, 2014, 06:49:06 AM
100000+, and not within 15 miles of one with at least twice its population (because then it would be a suburb).
I was pondering if suburbs can be considered big cities. But Mesa, AZ, has a population larger than cities like Atlanta, Miami and St. Louis, which many would consider major cities. I've concluded that it would be rather unfair to not call Mesa a big city. I wouldn't have an issue with them not be referred to as a major city. After all, no one flies into Mesa or go watch the Suns or Cardinals play in Mesa.
Mesa is a suburb of Phoenix. And its supposed downtown is suburban as hell.
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2014, 10:20:58 PM
Mesa is a suburb of Phoenix. And its supposed downtown is suburban as hell.
So even when it surpasses Tucson (not if, but when), Mesa can't be a big city?
My personal arbitrary cutoffs: a big city is any with a metro area over 1 million and a well defined urban core. A small city is any with a metro area under 500k or so and a well defined urban core. Under 100k and it becomes a large town.
I mention a well defined urban core because I don't consider nonsense suburban metro areas like Riverside, CA to be big cities.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 06, 2014, 10:35:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2014, 10:20:58 PM
Mesa is a suburb of Phoenix. And its supposed downtown is suburban as hell.
So even when it surpasses Tucson (not if, but when), Mesa can't be a big city?
Correct, unless they build a real downtown.
QuoteAre there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one
Depending on how you define the region, the Hampton Roads area is 1.5 million without a pro sports team (a couple minor-league teams in baseball and hockey is all they got).
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
1) Downtown with skyscrapers. They don't have to be 80 stories, but let's say more than 10 stories. I'm thinking of Charlotte as I write this. Otherwise it's just an average city at best.
This gets in the way of historic cities like London and Paris which are mostly mid-rise.
London, I guess, has picked up some clusters in the centre, especially in The City (though you can argue that the West End is the main CBD and The City just an auxiliary one, and the West End has only one or two skyscraper in its centre, and only a couple on the edge).
Paris proper has one non-residential, non-hotel skyscraper, and that is somewhat on the edge. It has an impressive residential cluster, though.
Of course, La Defense, and Canary Wharf are impressive skyscraper areas - but they are clearly not 'downtown', or even central.
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2014, 06:30:03 PMI'd need to see a map with more colors and perhaps some more rigorous analysis, but Newark does seem to have a high prominence: http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_New_Jersey.pdf
Misses off the elephant across the Hudson.
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2014, 08:35:19 AM
QuoteAre there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one
Depending on how you define the region, the Hampton Roads area is 1.5 million without a pro sports team (a couple minor-league teams in baseball and hockey is all they got).
Albuquerque, Tucson and El Paso are a few more cities without a pro team.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 07, 2014, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2014, 08:35:19 AM
QuoteAre there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one
Depending on how you define the region, the Hampton Roads area is 1.5 million without a pro sports team (a couple minor-league teams in baseball and hockey is all they got).
Albuquerque, Tucson and El Paso are a few more cities without a pro team.
Hartford as well, although of course they used to have a team (the Whalers) that moved to North Carolina in 1997. That's another one that depends on how you define the region, as froggie mentioned. I think the Census Bureau combines Hartford and Springfield into one area, while some other commentators view Hartford and New Haven as more of the relevant area.
I believe in terms of US metropolitan areas with no sports teams Las Vegas tops the list, while Austin tops the list if you restrict it to the actual city itself. (While it's not an issue as to Austin, for discussion purposes I would suggest that we're not talking about whether the team actually plays within the physical city limits versus whether the team is considered to represent that city. It's obviously pretty common for a team to play outside the city limits, such as the Dallas Cowboys, or even in another state....odd trivia: Only one NFL team plays in the State of New York.)
Quote from: golden eagle on March 05, 2014, 11:26:20 PMSeveral years ago, I created a topic asking what constitutes a major city. In that topic, factors such as pro sports teams, major airports and newspaper circulations were mentioned. Now, I want know what criteria needs to be met to just simply be a big city. I'm sure the criteria isn't as stringent as being a major city. There would need to be a population minimum, but how much? In that case, can a suburb be a big city, and would they need to have a downtown with high-rise buildings? What others must there be to qualify?
I'd look to an extension of the global city concept since the various other criteria suggested have problems (population minimum needs to take account of suburbs; not all world cities have skyscrapers, and the ones that do frequently don't have them in central downtown locations; not all major cities have pro sports teams or local papers that are also newspapers of record; major airports are occasionally exurban in location).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
Global city status is essentially based on a holistic assessment of the city's regional, national, and international importance. The Wikipedia article cited above reproduces several attempts at classifying cities by global importance; it strikes me that the GaWC study, which uses the Greek alphabet to express city rank, is probably the most nearly compatible with the criteria sought by the OP. To take some examples which have already been cited in this thread, London and New York City are alpha double-plus, Paris is alpha-plus, Los Angeles is alpha, Boston is alpha-minus, Newark (NJ) is not listed at all, and Phoenix is gamma-plus. Kansas City (not already mentioned, and probably the most important metropolitan area outside Texas that overlaps part of the frontier-states tier) is gamma-minus. Southampton (UK) classifies as "High sufficiency," a ranking inferior to gamma-minus, while Las Vegas (Nevada) is at "Sufficiency," the next level down.
I created a ranking system that took into account:
-City proper population
-Metro area population (MSA, not CSA) and the city's role within that area (so secondary cities/suburbs of large metro areas wouldn't receive a deceptively high score)
-Ranally city ranking (city's business influence on a national level)
-GaWC ranking (city's business influence on a global level)
I scaled the scores so New York would be the benchmark at 80 points, and here's the top 50 (alphabetically within groups):
Group 1 (80 points): New York
Group 2 (50-56 points): Los Angeles, Chicago
Group 3 (35-39 points): Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Washington
Group 4 (22-26 points): Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, St Louis
Group 5 (17-20 points): Charlotte, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Antonio, San Jose, Tampa
Group 6 (rest of top 50): Austin, Birmingham, Fort Worth, Hartford, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Newark, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Providence, Raleigh, Richmond, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Tulsa
Admittedly, it's my arbitrary opinion of what to include in these rankings, but the scores did group themselves in a way that mostly makes sense to my eye.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2014, 10:51:25 AMNewark (NJ) is not listed at all,
Southampton (UK) classifies as "High sufficiency,"
I'd imagine that this relates to prominence - both these cities are in close proximity to the most global cities in the world (though Southampton seems to be hitting above it's weight, as the most important one not on the greek scale and Reading, which I would consider somewhere just as important, isn't on the list, probably due to being overshadowed by London).
While I'd agree that the global city method is a good way of seeing a cities importance, the question is more about size.
Liverpool is a big city and feels like it - it has a full-on metro, it has grandeur from its days when the term 'world city' was invented for it and it just about trumped NYC for the second biggest city in the world. It is probably the one city in the UK, other than London, that has its own distinct culture. OK, its not a major city (which the OP says is higher up), and 'sustainable' seems a reasonable estimation of its current importance, but it is a big city.
My 'big' criteria would be as follows
- population: it has to actually be a big city
- prominence: able to not be seen as another city's suburbia
- commuters: lots travel from hinterland to the city for work, not many travel out
- connectivity: forms a regional hub on transport networks, people travel there to get to other places
- gravity: forms a hub in the region for retail, leisure, sports, nightlife, government stuff, etc
- grandeur: the feeling of importance and size coming from bustle, buildings, etc.
What about Tysons Corner, Virginia?
It is in unincorporated Fairfax County.
Has much more employment than many of the "real" cities mentioned above, and according to its Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tysons_Corner,_Virginia), is the 12th largest employment center in the United States.
IMO, it meets the gravity and grandeur tests mentioned by english si above.
Stands at the junction of an Interstate highway (I-495, Capital Beltway) and a major tolled freeway (Va. 267, Dulles Toll Road).
Will very soon have four Metro (heavy rail subway) stops.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 12:49:23 AM
What about Tysons Corner, Virginia?
It is in unincorporated Fairfax County.
Has much more employment than many of the "real" cities mentioned above, and according to its Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tysons_Corner,_Virginia), is the 12th largest employment center in the United States.
IMO, it meets the gravity and grandeur tests mentioned by english si above.
Stands at the junction of an Interstate highway (I-495, Capital Beltway) and a major tolled freeway (Va. 267, Dulles Toll Road).
Will very soon have four Metro (heavy rail subway) stops.
Except it fails the first two criteria he listed: not only is the resident population barely 20,000; it isn't incorporated, and according to the Wikipedia article, wasn't even an acceptable city name for USPS purposes until recently.
And as far as prominence goes, it most definitely is seen as a suburb (or at best, an edge city) of Washington.
Quote from: Jardine on March 06, 2014, 12:07:50 AM
Or look at it another way, maybe any metro area with a million people or more is 'big'. I think the US has over 50 of those.
Big 3 would be New York, Chicago, and LA, top 10 ads Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc.
Omaha metro is just shy of a million and is IIRC around #60 or so in DMA size.
Chicago and Houston are pretty darned close in population, aren't they? I seem to remember they've swapped the No. 3 position, after NYC and LA, a few times over the decades.
In my own mind, I've always thought of major cities, generically, as being those Top 10 metros. In geopolitics, a major city would also be one where a major stock exchange, central government bank and/or seat of major government is located, so I think even a small city can be considered a major city. Also, to me, a large city (New Orleans, Birmingham) has metro pop one million or more. A medium city 500k or more (Baton Rouge, Jackson, Little Rock), plain old city 100k or more (Hattiesburg, Shreveport) and anything less is a small city or town.
Quote from: berberry on March 08, 2014, 03:54:29 AM
Quote from: Jardine on March 06, 2014, 12:07:50 AM
Or look at it another way, maybe any metro area with a million people or more is 'big'. I think the US has over 50 of those.
Big 3 would be New York, Chicago, and LA, top 10 ads Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc.
Omaha metro is just shy of a million and is IIRC around #60 or so in DMA size.
Chicago and Houston are pretty darned close in population, aren't they? I seem to remember they've swapped the No. 3 position, after NYC and LA, a few times over the decades.
I would be very surprised if they have. Even with a substantial comparative growth lag, Chicago is still 25% larger than Houston. both Houston and Dallas metros, which are close in size, are several million smaller than Greater Chicago.
QuoteExcept it fails the first two criteria he listed: not only is the resident population barely 20,000; it isn't incorporated, and according to the Wikipedia article, wasn't even an acceptable city name for USPS purposes until recently.
And as far as prominence goes, it most definitely is seen as a suburb (or at best, an edge city) of Washington.
And aside from retail, it doesn't really meet
gravity either...
How About San Jose, CA its been mentioned for overtaking San Francisco as the largest city in Northern California. Its Population boom for Santa Clara county started sometime in the 1970's and beat San Francisco since the 1990's. I know San Jose has been mentioned as having the largest standard and cost of living for California along with San Francisco.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 12:49:23 AMWill very soon have four Metro (heavy rail subway) stops.
On one line, that is part of Washington DC Metro, and the line is about getting to the Airport, rather than just Tysons Corner
A London equivalent on that front would be Hounslow (4 stations, on way to Airport), but the line ended at Hounslow long before it went to Heathrow as, unlike Tysons Corner, it justified its own metro branch without an Airport on the end.
Tysons Corner, looks to me like a very large retail (and business?) park. In which case I offer to you Brierley Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brierley_Hill), which had a 4 station monorail system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Hill_Shopping_Centre#Monorail) to call its own, rather than 4 stations of another city's metro. :bigass:
Quote from: bing101 on March 08, 2014, 09:58:54 AM
How About San Jose, CA
To me, San Jose is a good example of a big city that is not necessarily a major city (as far as city proper - Silicon Valley as a whole certainly makes the region a major player). Its growth actually goes back further - it doubled in population in the '50s and did so again in the '60s, going from 95,000 to 450,000 in that time, and is in all likelihood over 1,000,000 people at this writing.
San Francisco had been the financial and cultural center of the region for a hundred years prior to San Jose's boom; and even though much of San Francisco's continued status as a player on the world stage is due to its ties and proximity to Silicon Valley, it will continue to be the major city of the region, regardless of how much bigger San Jose becomes.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 05, 2014, 11:26:20 PM
Several years ago, I created a topic asking what constitutes a major city. In that topic, factors such as pro sports teams, major airports and newspaper circulations were mentioned. Now, I want know what criteria needs to be met to just simply be a big city. I'm sure the criteria isn't as stringent as being a major city. There would need to be a population minimum, but how much? In that case, can a suburb be a big city, and would they need to have a downtown with high-rise buildings? What others must there be to qualify?
Any place that has ≥ 100,001 people within the City Limits. Suburbs can be a big city if they meet the 100,001 person requirement. That means that Columbia and Charleston are the only two in SC.
Well i see a shift for san jose you have the 49ers moving to the area and the a's looking for a place in the area but in the case of the a's theres more lawsuit action by mlb though and oakland to prevent the a's from going there. However 49ers and the nfl are moving to levis stadium soon.
Quote from: mjb2002 on March 08, 2014, 12:59:18 PM
Any place that has ≥ 100,001 people within the City Limits. Suburbs can be a big city if they meet the 100,001 person requirement. That means that Columbia and Charleston are the only two in SC.
North Charleston is now estimated to be over 100K.
Greenville is also pretty big.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 08, 2014, 10:04:42 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on March 08, 2014, 12:59:18 PM
Any place that has ≥ 100,001 people within the City Limits. Suburbs can be a big city if they meet the 100,001 person requirement. That means that Columbia and Charleston are the only two in SC.
North Charleston is now estimated to be over 100K.
Huh Vallejo tends to be 120K people but its viewed as a suburb for San Francisco. Vacaville CA have 100k each but is viewed as a suburb for Sacramento. But both Vallejo and Vacaville belong to Solano County, CA yet some cities are viewed as suburbs for different cities. 100k City is considered a big city of you are in Little Rock, Arkansas not so much in California. 100k is Suburb Population by CA standards..
I used to think that anything over 100,000 was a big city, regardless of whether or not there were suburbs surrounding it. But then again, even there are suburbs that have a population of over 100,000, so now I've raised the big city criteria to at least 250,000.
A "big city" to me is more of a regional center regardless of population. The "big city" in the Keweenaw Peninsula in Michigan's UP is Houghton and Hancock put together. They're a mere 12,000 or so in population (not counting the universities). But, they are the major regional center. By contrast, Cicero is a fairly big city near Chicago in Illinois, but it is ancillary to Chicago, the major regional center of the area.
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2014, 03:44:39 PM
I used to think that anything over 100,000 was a big city, regardless of whether or not there were suburbs surrounding it. But then again, even there are suburbs that have a population of over 100,000, so now I've raised the big city criteria to at least 250,000.
Congratulations. The only big city in New England now is Boston.
Providence RI, Manchester NH, Springfield MA, Worcester MA, New Haven CT, and Hartford CT are not big anymore.
As well as Buffalo NY and Albany NY.
Quote from: 1 on March 10, 2014, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2014, 03:44:39 PM
I used to think that anything over 100,000 was a big city, regardless of whether or not there were suburbs surrounding it. But then again, even there are suburbs that have a population of over 100,000, so now I've raised the big city criteria to at least 250,000.
Congratulations. The only big city in New England now is Boston.
Providence RI, Manchester NH, Springfield MA, Worcester MA, New Haven CT, and Hartford CT are not big anymore.
As well as Buffalo NY and Albany NY.
Good heavens, we wouldn't want Manchester to find out that they're not a big city like Boston.
Quote from: 1 on March 10, 2014, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2014, 03:44:39 PM
I used to think that anything over 100,000 was a big city, regardless of whether or not there were suburbs surrounding it. But then again, even there are suburbs that have a population of over 100,000, so now I've raised the big city criteria to at least 250,000.
Congratulations. The only big city in New England now is Boston.
Providence RI, Manchester NH, Springfield MA, Worcester MA, New Haven CT, and Hartford CT are not big anymore.
As well as Buffalo NY and Albany NY.
None of those other cities are big. They're medium. Buffalo used to be big.
Quote from: 1 on March 10, 2014, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2014, 03:44:39 PM
I used to think that anything over 100,000 was a big city, regardless of whether or not there were suburbs surrounding it. But then again, even there are suburbs that have a population of over 100,000, so now I've raised the big city criteria to at least 250,000.
Congratulations. The only big city in New England now is Boston.
Providence RI, Manchester NH, Springfield MA, Worcester MA, New Haven CT, and Hartford CT are not big anymore.
As well as Buffalo NY and Albany NY.
Boston is the only big city in New England. None of the rest you list are big.
My definition of a big city would be a city large enough to sustain a major sports (NHL, MLB, NFL etc) team.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on March 11, 2014, 05:54:30 PM
My definition of a big city would be a city large enough to sustain a major sports (NHL, MLB, NFL etc) team.
Hello, Green Bay. I could also throw the following at you:
East Rutherford, NJ
Foxborough, MA
Auburn Hills, MI
I think you get the idea.
East Rutherford and Auburn Hills are suburbs of larger city (New York and Detroit respectively) and Foxborough is in between Boston and Providence, feeding off those two cities. Besides, New England is more of a regional team than a city-based team. Green Bay though, definitely an exception to the rule. They've always been an outlier and I love that about the city and its team.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 11, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
East Rutherford and Auburn Hills are suburbs of larger city (New York and Detroit respectively) and Foxborough is in between Boston and Providence, feeding off those two cities. Besides, New England is more of a regional team than a city-based team. Green Bay though, definitely an exception to the rule. They've always been an outlier and I love that about the city and its team.
Yeah they get their 4-6 months of fame and attention, then disappear until the preseason (or land a decent draft pick) :happy:
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 11, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
East Rutherford and Auburn Hills are suburbs of larger city (New York and Detroit respectively) and Foxborough is in between Boston and Providence, feeding off those two cities. Besides, New England is more of a regional team than a city-based team. Green Bay though, definitely an exception to the rule. They've always been an outlier and I love that about the city and its team.
I'm just pointing out the easiest examples in terms of not every city with a pro team is big. There are definitely other examples out there. Newark has the NJ Devils - New York has two pro teams, so don't tell me they feed off NY (they really don't, trust me).
Apologies, I understand North Jersey is large enough to be its own metro area by itself. The point was made though and is definitely valid, pro teams don't always mean a city is big.
I suppose that Green Bay is an exception, but I am sure that most people would get the point of using pro sports teams as a gage.
While East Rutherford, for example, might not be in itself a big city, it's hard to deny that it isn't part of the giant megalopolis that is the NYC area. There wouldn't be a team in East Rutherford if it wasn't for the cities that surround it.
My list of "Big" Cities in the USA
Birmingham, AL
Phoenix, AZ
SF, CA
LA, CA
San Diego, CA
Miami
Jacksonville
Tampa/St. Petersburg
Atlanta
CHicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New Orleans
Baltimore
Boston
Detroit
Minneapolis/St. Paul
ST. Louis
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Buffalo
NYC
Charlotte
Cleveland
Columbus
Cincinnati
OKC
Tulsa
Portland, OR
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Memphis
Nashville
HOuston
Ft WOrth/Dallas
San Antonio
Salt Lake City
Virginia Beach
Richmond
Washington DC
SEattle
Milwaukee
*Austin, TX is probably a big city. For some reason on the map it just doesn't look as big as it really is.
Chattanooga is also big.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 11, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
East Rutherford and Auburn Hills are suburbs of larger city (New York and Detroit respectively) and Foxborough is in between Boston and Providence, feeding off those two cities. Besides, New England is more of a regional team than a city-based team. Green Bay though, definitely an exception to the rule. They've always been an outlier and I love that about the city and its team.
Don't Forget Santa Clara and the 49ers its feeding off 2 cities also San Jose and San Francisco. The Oakland A's was supposed to have a stadium where the 49ers are at today (Levi's Stadium) but a court order from Oakland, CA prevented that move to San Jose/ Santa Clara area.
Quote from: bing101 on March 12, 2014, 10:28:48 AM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 11, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
East Rutherford and Auburn Hills are suburbs of larger city (New York and Detroit respectively) and Foxborough is in between Boston and Providence, feeding off those two cities. Besides, New England is more of a regional team than a city-based team. Green Bay though, definitely an exception to the rule. They've always been an outlier and I love that about the city and its team.
Don't Forget Santa Clara and the 49ers its feeding off 2 cities also San Jose and San Francisco. The Oakland A's was supposed to have a stadium where the 49ers are at today (Levi's Stadium) but a court order from Oakland, CA prevented that move to San Jose/ Santa Clara area.
To clarify: The Levi's Stadium site was never an option for the A's. The A's were originally looking to build a new stadium in Fremont (between Oakland and San Jose), but that fell apart at the start of the recession. San Jose has a downtown site selected for a ballpark, but the Giants claim territorial rights to Santa Clara County and are blocking attempts to move the A's (see below). Oakland itself has several feeble attempts at a downtown ballpark or a rebuilt Coliseum on the table in an attempt to keep the team there.
The new 49ers stadium is in the approximate area where the Giants were looking to build a stadium in the early '90s: when it looked like San Francisco could not get a new ballpark built to replace Candlestick and the team seemed ready to move to Tampa/St. Petersburg, the A's allowed the Bay Area market to be split between the two teams (the other two-team markets are shared rather than split) so the Giants could look at options for a stadium in the South Bay, including the Santa Clara site. Eventually a downtown San Francisco site got approved, resulting in today's AT&T Park.
Ironically for the A's, it was their granting permission to split the market that has now come back to haunt them in allowing the Giants to prevent the A's move to San Jose. Both teams want the corporate sponsorships and gobs of money that Silicon Valley has to offer.
Quote from: Alps on March 11, 2014, 07:22:15 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 11, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
East Rutherford and Auburn Hills are suburbs of larger city (New York and Detroit respectively) and Foxborough is in between Boston and Providence, feeding off those two cities. Besides, New England is more of a regional team than a city-based team. Green Bay though, definitely an exception to the rule. They've always been an outlier and I love that about the city and its team.
I'm just pointing out the easiest examples in terms of not every city with a pro team is big. There are definitely other examples out there. Newark has the NJ Devils - New York has two pro teams, so don't tell me they feed off NY (they really don't, trust me).
It's funny, it seems like until its sort of lowly days in the 90s, the NHL subsisted off of a much smaller average city size than any of the other major sports leagues in the United States (as opposed to Canada-only like the CFL) – Québec, Hartford, etc. Since that time it seems like the NHL has become dependent on being in major cities of the kind being discussed here. It reminds me of arena football (you know, the football equivalent of the NHL), whose franchises became successful enough that a second tier had to be created to keep the sport in the smaller cities it had built itself on.
New York, Chicago, LA, Houston, San Diego, St. Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Des Moines, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Washington, San Antonio, Miami, New Orleans, Seattle, Milwaukee, Detroit, Boston
I think those are the big cities.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 06:45:48 PM
New York, Chicago, LA, Houston, San Diego, St. Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Des Moines, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Washington, San Antonio, Miami, New Orleans, Seattle, Milwaukee, Detroit, Boston
I think those are the big cities.
Are you sure about Des Moines?
Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 06:48:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 06:45:48 PM
New York, Chicago, LA, Houston, San Diego, St. Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Des Moines, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Washington, San Antonio, Miami, New Orleans, Seattle, Milwaukee, Detroit, Boston
I think those are the big cities.
Are you sure about Des Moines?
Seconded. Des Moines, and not Pittsburgh, Portland, Nashville, Kansas City, Charlotte, etc., etc.?
Why do I not add Denver to the mix as well?
I was just naming some to make my point that is why. I did not want to be here all day, so I just named the top ones off the top of my head.
New York.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 07, 2014, 10:04:41 AM
I believe in terms of US metropolitan areas with no sports teams Las Vegas tops the list, while Austin tops the list if you restrict it to the actual city itself.
The thing about Austin is that it has gained most of its size in the past few decades. It may be a big city now, but it isn't a
historically big city... just look on a map at how I-10 conspicuously goes to San Antonio when it would be more direct if it went to Austin. This is because San Antonio was a much bigger city when I-10 was being built.
For this reason, Austin basically shares a sports market with San Antonio (which is only 75 minutes away) and in some cases also Houston, so despite its size it isn't really an unfilled niche.
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
Albuquerque
Atlanta
Austin
Baltimore
Bettendorf
Birmingham
Boise
Boston
Buffalo
Charlotte
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dallas
Davenport
Des Moines
Denver
Detroit
El Paso
Fargo
Fort Worth
Houston
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Knoxville
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Louisville
Memphis
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Moline
Montgomery
Nashville
New Orleans
New York
Norfolk
Oakland
Oklahoma City
Omaha
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
Portland (OR)
Richmond
Rochester (NY, but I was tempted to include MN)
Rock Island
Sacramento
Saint Louis
Saint Paul
Saint Petersburg
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Seattle
Sioux Falls
Tampa
Toledo
Tucson
Tulsa
Virginia Beach
Washington, DC
Wichita
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
recognition of the name
Bettendorf
Fargo
Moline
Rock Island
I have never heard of these before.
Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:18:55 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
recognition of the name
Bettendorf
Fargo
Moline
Rock Island
I have never heard of these before.
People know Fargo. If for nothing else, the movie gave it legs.
The Quad Cities are not known by many people (sports nuts like to occasionally name-drop the Thunder as a suitable opponent for a lousy basketball team). I will give you a dollar if you ask 100 people at random east of the Appalachians and three of them can name said Quad Cities. More people probably think "Bettendorf" is the football announcer that just retired.
Not that the East is the arbiter of all things, but it's a huge hunk of the name-recognizing population.
Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:18:55 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
recognition of the name
Bettendorf
Fargo
Moline
Rock Island
I have never heard of these before.
I've heard all four and been to three. Of course, those three are easy to get to from each other being three-quarters of the Quad Cities (Davenport, the largest, is the fourth). Never been to Fargo (yet).
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
(big list)
You include Fort Worth with Dallas, St. Paul with Minneapolis, St. Petersburg with Tampa, and Virginia Beach with Norfolk, but not Oakland and San Jose with San Francisco? Plus, either of those cities wield more influence nationally and globally than many of the cities you listed. Just curious as to your rationale.
Quote from: DTComposer on March 12, 2014, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
(big list)
You include Fort Worth with Dallas, St. Paul with Minneapolis, St. Petersburg with Tampa, and Virginia Beach with Norfolk, but not Oakland and San Jose with San Francisco? Plus, either of those cities wield more influence nationally and globally than many of the cities you listed. Just curious as to your rationale.
No rationale. I had considered Oakland, but thought it might be redundant/overshadowed. You do bring up a good point, so I'll go ahead and add them to the list.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 08:02:41 PM
Why do I not add Denver to the mix as well?
I was just naming some to make my point that is why. I did not want to be here all day, so I just named the top ones off the top of my head.
Denver would be a lot better than Des Moines
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
What about Rapid City? Or anything in Wyoming?
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 13, 2014, 11:54:49 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
What about Rapid City? Or anything in Wyoming?
I don't know why I didn't include Rapid City. I may have been thinking it was more of a tourist destination at this point, like Duluth. South Dakota is more than represented enough by Sioux Falls, though.
Wyoming cities are definitely growing, both in influence and population. Casper and Cheyenne are certainly big for the surrounding area, but they would be the smallest cities by population on this list for sure. I'm kind of torn between one or the other, and my precedent not to include them is because some East Coaster is probably going to ask "why did you include the tiny Cheyenne, but not Providence" if I do.
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 13, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 13, 2014, 11:54:49 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
What about Rapid City? Or anything in Wyoming?
I don't know why I didn't include Rapid City. I may have been thinking it was more of a tourist destination at this point, like Duluth. South Dakota is more than represented enough by Sioux Falls, though.
Wyoming cities are definitely growing, both in influence and population. Casper and Cheyenne are certainly big for the surrounding area, but they would be the smallest cities by population on this list for sure. I'm kind of torn between one or the other, and my precedent not to include them is because some East Coaster is probably going to ask "why did you include the tiny Cheyenne, but not Providence" if I do.
I see your point, but being form West River I take a little issue with saying Sioux Falls represents all of SD... ;-)
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 13, 2014, 12:46:13 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 13, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 13, 2014, 11:54:49 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 12, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I don't take population into consideration at all when discussing "big" cities. Only the influence on the country and recognition of the name. Without further ado, here are all the big cities in the country to me (Equally important metropolitan cities are all listed separately). Like it or hate it, I'm probably not changing it. I may have forgotten a couple.
What about Rapid City? Or anything in Wyoming?
I don't know why I didn't include Rapid City. I may have been thinking it was more of a tourist destination at this point, like Duluth. South Dakota is more than represented enough by Sioux Falls, though.
Wyoming cities are definitely growing, both in influence and population. Casper and Cheyenne are certainly big for the surrounding area, but they would be the smallest cities by population on this list for sure. I'm kind of torn between one or the other, and my precedent not to include them is because some East Coaster is probably going to ask "why did you include the tiny Cheyenne, but not Providence" if I do.
I see your point, but being form West River I take a little issue with saying Sioux Falls represents all of SD... ;-)
I totally understand ;)
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 13, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
I don't know why I didn't include Rapid City. I may have been thinking it was more of a tourist destination at this point, like Duluth.
Duluth is a tourist destination?
Quote from: realjd on March 13, 2014, 12:53:27 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 13, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
I don't know why I didn't include Rapid City. I may have been thinking it was more of a tourist destination at this point, like Duluth.
Duluth is a tourist destination?
I'd believe it for certain seasons. Gateway to Lake Superior, spectacular fall colors in September
Quote from: ET21 on March 13, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
Quote from: realjd on March 13, 2014, 12:53:27 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 13, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
I don't know why I didn't include Rapid City. I may have been thinking it was more of a tourist destination at this point, like Duluth.
Duluth is a tourist destination?
I'd believe it for certain seasons. Gateway to Lake Superior, spectacular fall colors in September
And then frozen.
QuoteAnd then frozen.
Yes, frozen, but you'd be surprised about the effect. Duluth along the waterfront is often warmer than the Twin Cities, as the water has a stabilizing influence on temperature. It's not uncommon to have 20 degree temperature swings between downtown (along the waterfront) and the airport (up on the bluff).
Duluth can also be used as a staging base to the ski areas in northeastern Minnesota (Giants Ridge, Lutsen, and especially Spirit Mountain which is right outside Duluth).
-------------------------------
I also find it a bit amusing that people are including Virginia Beach in with Norfolk. While Virginia Beach is, officially, the most populated city in Virginia, the reality is that it's nothing more than a huge suburb. The "old" part of Virginia Beach, the oceanfront, had a total of about 8,000 people when it merged with Princess Anne County to become an independent city.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
Are there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one.
Tulsa. Wichita (which is the largest city in its state).
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2014, 04:08:10 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
Are there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one.
Tulsa. Wichita (which is the largest city in its state).
Wichita may be the largest city in Kansas but it isn't the biggest metro area. And I don't know about Tulsa but Wichita is far from a big city.
Here are the cities in Europe that I'm familiar with, making them big cities:
Athens
Barcelona
Belfast
Berlin
Birmingham
Hamburg
Lisbon
Liverpool
London
Madrid
Manchester
Moscow
Paris
Sparta
St. Petersburg
Warsaw
EDIT:
Dublin
Glasgow
Vienna
Maybe someone not from North America can do this for the United States?
Quote from: NE2 on March 18, 2014, 06:26:31 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 18, 2014, 06:23:32 AM
Sparta
Yeah, about that–
Sparta's population is about 35,000. Or, to put it in terms you can relate to, about the size of Chelmsford, Mass.
Quote from: 1 on March 18, 2014, 06:23:32 AM
Here are the cities in Europe that I'm familiar with, making them big cities:
Athens
Barcelona
Belfast
Berlin
Birmingham
Hamburg
Lisbon
Liverpool
London
Madrid
Manchester
Moscow
Paris
Sparta
St. Petersburg
Warsaw
EDIT:
Dublin
Glasgow
Vienna
Maybe someone not from North America can do this for the United States?
No ROME???! Come on, that's one city everyone should know! Oh, and Milan while we're on the Italy tangent.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2014, 04:08:10 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
Are there big cities without pro sports teams? Austin, TX may be an example. Las Vegas is definitely one.
Tulsa. Wichita (which is the largest city in its state).
Albuquerque? (500,000 ish)
Tucson and Fresno's populations are estimated to be over half a million, but neither one have pro teams. El Paso is getting close to 700K, and they have no pro teams, either.
Louisville, KY, also doesn't have pro sports. However, their population is largely due to consolidation with Jefferson County.
He also forgot Dusseldorf, Germany.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 19, 2014, 07:35:33 PM
Tucson and Fresno's populations are estimated to be over half a million, but neither one have pro teams. El Paso is getting close to 700K, and they have no pro teams, either.
Louisville, KY, also doesn't have pro sports. However, their population is largely due to consolidation with Jefferson County.
It's a matter of large city, but (comparatively) small metro and/or television market. Fresno, Tulsa, Tucson, Albuquerque, Wichita and El Paso all have metro populations of under a million (even if just barely), putting all of them at #50 or below in ranking. Same with tv markets - Albuquerque's the largest of that list at #44.
Factoring in two-team markets, pro sports have 26 to 30 slots to fill - so they're more likely to go where the most eyeballs (and most potential dollars) are.
El Paso metro has over a million... Ciudad Juárez has over a million itself.
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2014, 03:07:31 PM
El Paso metro has over a million... Ciudad Juárez has over a million itself.
Yeah that's a whole different twist on the idea. Several years ago the company I was working for opened a location in El Centro, CA. Never heard of it. Wiki told me it had 50,000 people or so, seemed a bit small for a mall the size of the one we were going into. Looked around, saw Calexico, okay that has around 40,000, we're getting there, but something didn't click. It still seemed weird for our first California location to go in the middle of nowhere. Then I saw some numbers on Mexicali and it all made sense.
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2014, 03:07:31 PM
El Paso metro has over a million... Ciudad Juárez has over a million itself.
El Paso metro is 831,036...the
CSA (including Las Cruces) is 1,044,496. I'll give you that the border-straddling urbanized region (with Ciudad Juárez) is well over two million. I don't know how that would factor into feasibility of locating a team there.
With Juarez being that close, could El Paso, perhaps, support an MLS team?
Quote from: golden eagle on March 31, 2014, 07:57:36 PM
With Juarez being that close, could El Paso, perhaps, support an MLS team?
There was an interesting story on NPR this weekend that involved Juarez and soccer...although it focused on one player, I also got the perception that the city is so plagued with violence that MLS (or any major league) - and their sponsors - might think twice about getting involved in such a city.
https://soundcloud.com/snapjudgment/the-hometown-crowd-snap
The violence is a concern, but if it were on the El Paso side, maybe, the violence could be curbed.