Exactly what constitutes a major city? I've been trying to figure that out after seeing that term on the Internet earlier.
In the United States, I'd say that it's anything that is the centre of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Statistical_Area).
The definition probably varies between people though.
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on July 30, 2011, 07:32:37 PM
In the United States, I'd say that it's anything that is the centre of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Statistical_Area).
The definition probably varies between people though.
Only problem is that a number of central cities are quite small. For instance, places like Benton Harbor/St. Joseph, MI and Ft. Walton Beach, FL are essentially small towns, but the surrounding areas are large enough to make them metro areas. Benton Harbor itself barely has 10K. It's twin city, St. Joseph, doesn't even have 9,000. No one would confuse those with major cities.
I'd say a major city is any city where the metro area is at least a million and/or the city itself is at least a couple hundred K.
And I'm not talking strictly MSA's necessarily. Just whatever most reasonable people would consider the "CITY A area".
Mid sized cities are probably 50 or 60K on up into the 100k's. But they have to be stand alone. Suburbs don't count; they're part of their parent city's area. And they usually have an inset in Rand McNally. (Unless they're in California.)
Everything else, for the purposes of breaking down American towns into three categories, can be a small town.
But there's always those cities that are right on the edge between major and mid. Ohio has a bunch of 'em. Places like Toledo and Akron and Dayton. And twin cities always throw a wrench into the works. Wilkes-Barre/Scranton? Midland/Odessa? Bethlehem/Allentown? Are those mid or major? Individually they're mid, but together they might be major. I think most of us would still say mid for those examples.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2011, 05:21:51 PM
I'd say a major city is any city where the metro area is at least a million and/or the city itself is at least a couple hundred K.
And I'm not talking strictly MSA's necessarily. Just whatever most reasonable people would consider the "CITY A area".
For the US, if you do use MSA's, there are 51 of them over 1 million, and 48 of those have at least one city over 200K, with several having 2+ cities over 200K. If you subjectively look at lists of cities, that criteria seems to do pretty well. Salt Lake City is one city that I think most would call 'major' even though it's only 186K, and Rochester is one city that I think some would not consider to be major despite being 211K. There are also many cities that are thought more of as suburbs to larger cities even though they are over 200K (Long Beach, CA; Mesa, AZ; Henderson, NV; Aurora, CO; Arlington, TX).
So I guess if you wanted a purely objective criteria for a major US city, I would say:
1) City is > 200K
2) City is in a MSA > 1M
3) If a city is not the largest in its MSA, it must be at least 40% of the size of the largest city in its MSA.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 30, 2011, 07:12:25 PM
Exactly what constitutes a major city? I've been trying to figure that out after seeing that term on the Internet earlier.
I like cabiness's definition. But I'm intrigued by the idea of center cities that meet cab's second criterion but maybe not the first: what would be the largest variance anyone knows of between the size of a major metro area and the size of its core - or largest - component city? Put it another way, what's the largest metro with the smallest center city? Twin or multi-cities are fine, so long as the comparison is to the largest city within the area.
Quote from: berberry on August 02, 2011, 12:04:59 PMPut it another way, what's the largest metro with the smallest center city? Twin or multi-cities are fine, so long as the comparison is to the largest city within the area.
my guess would be the Bay Area. 945,000 people live in San Jose. 7.4 million people live in the Bay Area.
as for Los Angeles - it depends on how you define the metro area. If you include San Diego and Tijuana, you'll likely break that record, but that's really stretching the definition. that said, anyone who's ever driven in Southern California can tell you that it's basically one large blob of urbanization, with the traffic patterns to match.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2011, 12:27:48 PM...anyone who's ever driven in Southern California can tell you that it's basically one large blob of urbanization, with the traffic patterns to match.
Yeah, I have driven through it; I know exactly what you mean. But that's more of what I would call a megalopolis. There are so many large cities, and many of them can claim certain areas as their own satelites and thereby claim their own metro area, but they overlap other metro areas so much that they become very difficult to define.
You're probably right about the Bay Area, though. Pretty dramatic example, it is.
Quote from: berberry on August 02, 2011, 12:45:29 PM
There are so many large cities, and many of them can claim certain areas as their own satelites and thereby claim their own metro area, but they overlap other metro areas so much that they become very difficult to define.
the Bos-Wash corridor is effectively the same idea. All urbanized along I-95 from Kittery, ME to ... approximately Richmond, VA at my eyeballing. of that area, NYC would have the greatest population, at 18.9 million people. So, in order for the Bos-Wash corridor to beat the San Jose example, the entire area would need a population of 148 million people. It isn't
quite that populous.
Wikipedia gives 49.6 million people for Boston to Washington, DC - adding the NH/Maine and VA periphery wouldn't change things by much.
Quote from: berberry on August 02, 2011, 12:04:59 PMPut it another way, what's the largest metro with the smallest center city? Twin or multi-cities are fine, so long as the comparison is to the largest city within the area.
Metropolitan London is between 12.3 to 14 million, largest city is Westminster at 236k (and the city of London has 11.5k). The Mayor of London relates to the region of Greater London (not the county - slightly different as the City is it's own county, but is part of the region and it's the 33 boroughs that are more like county/city equivalents), which covers about 8 million. Effectively it's like the Welsh Assembly, but in London and with an executive branch. The Lord Mayor of London, while ceremonial, is just for the city proper.
I think this disparity is more to do with the completely different - and totally messed up - local government structure - city status is a rare-ish honour to receive and local government barely exists anyway. If you treated all the London boroughs, surrounding districts/counties, etc, as cities then we're looking at 350k for the largest one that's truly all part of the London met area.
I think 'major' doesn't just depend on population - Bradford in the UK has a large population and isn't really a major city as Leeds is not that far away and is the regional focus - ditto Sunderland next to Newcastle or Wolverhampton or Coventry not that far from Birmingham. Derry is pretty small (80k), yet you'd have to count it as much more important than most places twice the size in Britain - same for Galway. Also, despite having half (or perhaps a wee bit less) the met population, Edinburgh is more important than Glasgow.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2011, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: berberry on August 02, 2011, 12:04:59 PMPut it another way, what's the largest metro with the smallest center city? Twin or multi-cities are fine, so long as the comparison is to the largest city within the area.
my guess would be the Bay Area. 945,000 people live in San Jose. 7.4 million people live in the Bay Area.
The Bay Area is a combined statistical area; San Jose and San Francisco are separate CBSAs. Even so, with the numbers you cite San Jose is about 12.8% of the Bay Area.
Taking a quick look at some census estimates for 2009, and considering only CBSAs, I came up with:
Miami 433K out of a CBSA of 5.5M (about 7.8%)
Atlanta 540K out of 5.4M (9.9%) - this one surprised me
Washington DC 600K out of 5.5M (11.0%)
Minneapolis 385K out of 3.3M (11.8%)
St Louis 357K out of 2.8M (12.6%)
There may be better examples but I think Miami's the winner.
Quote from: berberry on August 02, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
Put it another way, what's the largest metro with the smallest center city? Twin or multi-cities are fine, so long as the comparison is to the largest city within the area.
San Francisco/Oakland and San Jose are distinct MSAs, as are Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego.
Among the MSAs over 1M:
Miami has 7.18% of the population of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA
Riverside has 7.19% of the population of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA
Atlanta has 7.97% of the population of the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA
On the other extreme:
San Antonio has 61.96% of the population of the San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX MSA
Jacksonville has 61.07% of the population of the Jacksonville, FL MSA
San Jose has 51.50% of the population of the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA
Boston city (~600K) is less than 8 percent of the Boston/Manchester/Worcester/Providence, MA-NH-RI CSA, which is all together is almost 7.5 million.
I am also quite shocked to see that my home town of Corpus Christi, Texas has the same city population as Pittsburgh, PA, just over 300K.
Another thing, I don't know why Houston has a CSA when its MSA is almost the identical size.....its MSA is at 5.95 million and CSA is at 6 million. Dallas/Fort Worth isn't too far off either with a 6.4 million MSA and a 6.8 million CSA.
If you look at the Rio Grande Valley area in Texas (where I grew up), Brownsville and McAllen are only 60 miles apart with Harlingen being practically midway between the two, would it be going out on a limb to combine those two MSAs into its own CSA? If so they would combine for more than 1.2 million if you unite the two neighboring MSAs.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 03, 2011, 02:37:04 AMI am also quite shocked to see that my home town of Corpus Christi, Texas has the same city population as Pittsburgh, PA, just over 300K.
So Pittsburgh is another good example of a small city / big metro.
It's been so long since I've been to Pittsburgh that I've pretty much forgotten it. For some reason, I remember it as a mostly dirty, smoggy place. Is there a reason for that or is it a mistake? A friend visited there a couple years ago, and told me that it's a beautiful city with very clean air. I want to go back within the next year or so, among other reasons to see Falling Water, which isn't far from there.
I probably remember a lot of smog because it was much more common in the 70s than it is today, and certainly not just in Pittsburgh. Although there were other factors involved, the size of a city was a good indication of how bad its smog problem was, back in the day. So a lot of cities had to be worse than Pittsburgh was.
As for Pittsburgh being "dirty & smoggy", yeah... that is pretty much a thing of the past.
As for the "small city / big metro" thing, that is also exactly the case. When it comes to municipalities, there is always talk about consolidation to increase efficiencies in gov't services, or to somehow merge Pittsburgh with Allegheny County, but nothing ever happens... so the City of Pittsburgh, land-wise, has been the same size for decades.
Let's compare:
Corpus Christi, TX (my hometown): 305,215 city and 461,000 metro
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 305,704 city and 2.35 million metro.
Corpus Christi is practically devoid of suburbs.....exit the city limits and immediately see rural fields of farmland.
Orlando is another small city/big metro. It is has a metro area population of over 2 million, but the city is only 238,300. I wouldn't consider Orlando alone a major city, but I would definitely consider it to be a major metro area.
An example of a large city/small metro area would be El Paso-the city is 649,121, but the metro area is only 800,647. Of course that is somewhat misleading as neighboring Juarez, Mexico would put the metro area at about 2 million
Cincinnati's population is now less than 300,000 (296,943 to be exact) while their metro population is still 2,130,151
In comparison, Toledo's population is 287,208 but their metro is 651,429
In going back to defining a major city, I would also consider market influence, perhaps using the Ranally system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranally_city_rating_system
On that page I think everyone would consider the "1" cities to be major, and then the 2-AA, 2-BB and 2-CC cities I would consider major as well.
Other factors that might be considered:
-Professional sports team
-Nationally recognized arts organization (symphony, art museum, opera)
-Newspaper circulation
-Airport passengers
-Convention center traffic
Salt Lake in Utah is another small city example.....the city is ten percent of it's own CSA. They have the Utah Jazz and hosted the 2002 Olympic Games. They are also a hub for one of the world's major airlines. Compare that to Tucson in neighboring Arizona.
Salt Lake, Utah: 190K city and 1.8 million metro
Tucson, Arizona: 520K city and 980K metro
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on August 03, 2011, 10:30:04 PM
Orlando is another small city/big metro. It is has a metro area population of over 2 million, but the city is only 238,300. I wouldn't consider Orlando alone a major city, but I would definitely consider it to be a major metro area.
I would consider Orlando a major city, if you go by DTComposer's criteria. Think about it:
1. Why do people go to Orlando? For Disney World, the biggest single tourist attraction in the country (and with all the airport and convention traffic that goes along with it)
2. Professional sports with the NBA's Orlando Magic
3. The Orlando Sentinel is a nationally-known paper, primarily because of columnists Charley Reese and Myriam Marquez
I don't know about their arts community.
Isn't Walt Disney World in St. Cloud or Kissimmee, which I think might be almost an hour south of Orlando? Are they part of the Orlando metro? Just wondering.
Quote from: golden eagle on August 04, 2011, 09:36:41 PM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on August 03, 2011, 10:30:04 PM
Orlando is another small city/big metro. It is has a metro area population of over 2 million, but the city is only 238,300. I wouldn't consider Orlando alone a major city, but I would definitely consider it to be a major metro area.
I would consider Orlando a major city, if you go by DTComposer's criteria. Think about it:
1. Why do people go to Orlando? For Disney World, the biggest single tourist attraction in the country (and with all the airport and convention traffic that goes along with it)
2. Professional sports with the NBA's Orlando Magic
3. The Orlando Sentinel is a nationally-known paper, primarily because of columnists Charley Reese and Myriam Marquez
I don't know about their arts community.
With #1, you're basically confirming my contention that Orlando is a major metropolitan area, but not a major city. Disney World is not in the city of Orlando, but it is in its metropolitan area. Thus its metro area is more important than the city itself.
My point is with most major metropolitan areas, you can separate out its central city from its suburbs, and that city is a major city by itself. Separate out Orlando from its suburbs(and particularly Disney World), and it's really not a major city by itself. Yeah, Orlando has an NBA franchise and its newspaper may be a major newspaper, but does any of that happen if Disney World doesn't locate in the area? I doubt it.
So whether you want to call it a major city or not, you still must recognize it is quite different from other major cities. Those cities have had suburbs that have grown up due to outgrowth from the central city. Orlando has been the opposite-a city that has grown because of something that grew up in the surrounding area.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 05, 2011, 01:24:52 AM
Isn't Walt Disney World in St. Cloud or Kissimmee, which I think might be almost an hour south of Orlando? Are they part of the Orlando metro? Just wondering.
It's in Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, two cities controlled by Disney, and lying within the Reedy Creek Improvement District, another Disney creation. It's only about 15 miles southwest of downtown Orlando.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 04, 2011, 12:30:25 AM
Other factors that might be considered:
-Professional sports team
-Nationally recognized arts organization (symphony, art museum, opera)
-Newspaper circulation
-Airport passengers
-Convention center traffic
I've always thought a city has made it when its name can be mentioned on its own (without attaching the state/country). St. Petersburg makes me think of Russia, the one in FL is Tampa/St. Pete to me. In this regard, I'm afraid my own hometown will never get out of its own shadow.
I think my criteria for a major city has to have at least 5 of the following:
1. The city limit population needs to be 150,000 at a minimum.
2. Has a major commercial airport within 10 miles of city limits with at least 200 commercial flights a day.
3. Pro sport team or at least a AAA MLB team. No A or AA.
4. Must be at least top 5 in population in the state.
5. There has to be a downtown or central business district.
6. Has it's own city buses or train system.
7. A state university.
In my criteria, Omaha would qualify but not Lincoln for example. Anaheim would also qualify.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 05, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
I think my criteria for a major city has to have at least 5 of the following:
1. The city limit population needs to be 150,000 at a minimum.
2. Has a major commercial airport within 10 miles of city limits with at least 200 commercial flights a day.
3. Pro sport team or at least a AAA MLB team. No A or AA.
4. Must be at least top 5 in population in the state.
5. There has to be a downtown or central business district.
6. Has it's own city buses or train system.
7. A state university.
In my criteria, Omaha would qualify but not Lincoln for example. Anaheim would also qualify.
Uh, mind explaining that one? Lincoln has 5 of the above criteria. The only ones that don't fit are #2 and #3.
it has over 150K within the city limits?
Quote from: golden eagle on July 30, 2011, 07:12:25 PM
Exactly what constitutes a major city? I've been trying to figure that out after seeing that term on the Internet earlier.
It also depends on where the city is located. For example most of NJ couties have large populations. I grew up in Ocean County and it has over 500K people and along with neighboring Monmouth County over 600K. 1.1 million is on par than many "major" metro areas populations (ie San Antonio or Jacksonville0 But Monmouth-Ocean is just suburbs/exurbs of NYC.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 05, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
it has over 150K within the city limits?
Uh, yes I'd say so-258,379 in the 2010 Census. Lincoln reached the 150,000 level 40 years ago. Not sure what numbers you were looking at.
OK. i just looked it up. Lincoln does qualify.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 05, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
I think my criteria for a major city has to have at least 5 of the following:
1. The city limit population needs to be 150,000 at a minimum.
2. Has a major commercial airport within 10 miles of city limits with at least 200 commercial flights a day.
3. Pro sport team or at least a AAA MLB team. No A or AA.
4. Must be at least top 5 in population in the state.
5. There has to be a downtown or central business district.
6. Has it's own city buses or train system.
7. A state university.
In my criteria, Omaha would qualify but not Lincoln for example. Anaheim would also qualify.
Jackson would meet five of the seven, perhaps a sixth depending on how many commercial flights per day. We have AA baseball team, so we wouldn't qualify there. But, I still don't see Jackson as a major city.
Actually thinking about it a little more, I came up with an 8th one.
Has to be more than 100 Sq miles. so a city must be at least 10X10 miles.
Quote from: golden eagle on August 05, 2011, 03:44:05 PMJackson would meet five of the seven, perhaps a sixth depending on how many commercial flights per day. We have AA baseball team, so we wouldn't qualify there. But, I still don't see Jackson as a major city.
I agree. But it's rated 2AA by Ranally, above cities like Fort Worth TX and Oakland CA. The classification is defined as "major regional business center", which does fit Jackson when you consider that the nearest larger city is hundreds of miles away. My guess is that that's the very reason Jackson is ranked higher - Oakland is right next to San Francisco and Fort Worth is only a short drive from Dallas.
Jackson is indeed not a very large city, but it's apparently more important than either of us would have guessed.
Thanks to the poster who pointed out the Ranally ratings. I'd heard of them some time ago but forgotten about them.
And people forget that the largest city in Florida is not Miami or Tampa or Orlando -- it's Jacksonville. In fact Jacksonville I believe is the 11th largest city in the US. Orlando is the fifth largest city in Florida. In fact Florida has more pro sports cities than my home state of Texas 4-3.
Quote from: berberry on August 06, 2011, 12:01:57 AM
I agree. But it's rated 2AA by Ranally, above cities like Fort Worth TX and Oakland CA. The classification is defined as "major regional business center", which does fit Jackson when you consider that the nearest larger city is hundreds of miles away. My guess is that that's the very reason Jackson is ranked higher - Oakland is right next to San Francisco and Fort Worth is only a short drive from Dallas.
Jackson is indeed not a very large city, but it's apparently more important than either of us would have guessed.
Thanks to the poster who pointed out the Ranally ratings. I'd heard of them some time ago but forgotten about them.
Careful when comparing the AA vs. BB vs. CC ratings. The only reason Ft. Worth/Oakland/etc. are BB cities instead of AA is that there's already an A-level city in their market (Dallas, San Francisco). The Ranally system dictates there can only be one A-level city in each of their (admittedly self-described) market areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that the AA cities are more "important" or "ranked higher" than the BB cities.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 05, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
I think my criteria for a major city has to have at least 5 of the following:
1. The city limit population needs to be 150,000 at a minimum.
2. Has a major commercial airport within 10 miles of city limits with at least 200 commercial flights a day.
3. Pro sport team or at least a AAA MLB team. No A or AA.
4. Must be at least top 5 in population in the state.
5. There has to be a downtown or central business district.
6. Has it's own city buses or train system.
7. A state university.
In my criteria, Omaha would qualify but not Lincoln for example. Anaheim would also qualify.
Anaheim? I'm not arguing that it isn't a major city, but while it has numbers 1 and 3 down, it does not have numbers 4 (it's ranked number 9 in the state), 6 (the transit system is regional, not centered on Anaheim), or 7 (closest are in Irvine or Fullerton). That leaves number 2 (debatable, since SNA is 14 miles from Disneyland and 16 miles from City Hall) and number 5, and while there is a "downtown" Anaheim, [opinion] I wouldn't consider it worthy of a major city by any stretch [/opinion].
That being said, given the benefit of the doubt, Anaheim still only qualifies on 4 of the categories. But again, I'm not arguing it isn't a major city, just some friendly fact-checking.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on August 05, 2011, 03:12:56 AM
Yeah, Orlando has an NBA franchise and its newspaper may be a major newspaper, but does any of that happen if Disney World doesn't locate in the area? I doubt it.
So whether you want to call it a major city or not, you still must recognize it is quite different from other major cities. Those cities have had suburbs that have grown up due to outgrowth from the central city. Orlando has been the opposite-a city that has grown because of something that grew up in the surrounding area.
However, you can argue that San Francisco only became a major city because of something that happened 130 miles away (discovery of gold), and Los Angeles' growth was only possible because of something over 200 miles away (Owens Valley water). I'm sure other cities could cite such far-flung events or resources as the impetus behind their growth as well. It's impossible to predict what would have happened to Orlando had Disney not located there - all of Florida has experienced tremendous growth the last 50 years, so who's to say Orlando wouldn't be a similar size now, just driven by factors other than tourism? The point is Orlando is what it is today, for whatever reasons inside or outside city limits, and do we consider it a major city? I would say yes.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 06, 2011, 02:00:04 AMThe only reason Ft. Worth/Oakland/etc. are BB cities instead of AA is that there's already an A-level city in their market (Dallas, San Francisco). The Ranally system dictates there can only be one A-level city in each of their (admittedly self-described) market areas.
Yes, I think we're making the same point in different ways. I said that I felt Jackson's higher ranking reflected the fact that it is at least a moderately large city and commercial center with no other large city anywhere within a couple hundred miles, at least.
I had used the word "important" only in saying that Jackson was apparently more important than I or Golden Eagle had assumed, probably because we're both closely connected to it and it doesn't seem like such a large or important place to us. I was not saying that Jackson is ultimately more important than larger but lower-ranked cities.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 06, 2011, 01:18:43 AM
And people forget that the largest city in Florida is not Miami or Tampa or Orlando -- it's Jacksonville.
Only because they merged with the county.
Quote from: berberry on August 03, 2011, 10:41:06 AMIt's been so long since I've been to Pittsburgh that I've pretty much forgotten it. For some reason, I remember it as a mostly dirty, smoggy place. Is there a reason for that or is it a mistake? A friend visited there a couple years ago, and told me that it's a beautiful city with very clean air.
It has been awhile!
The reason is pretty simple because heavy industry was based along the riverbanks, and the city, especially downtown, sits in the bottom of a large river valley and the smoke would get trapped between the hills. In the late 50s, the Renaissance I project began which, including demolishing everything from Stanwix Street to the Point and building Gateway Center and Point State Park, the mills had to clean up their acts...literally.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 06, 2011, 01:18:43 AM
And people forget that the largest city in Florida is not Miami or Tampa or Orlando -- it's Jacksonville. In fact Jacksonville I believe is the 11th largest city in the US. Orlando is the fifth largest city in Florida. In fact Florida has more pro sports cities than my home state of Texas 4-3.
If you wanna get technical, Texas has four pro sports cities (Dallas, Arlington, San Antonio and Houston). Sure, the Cowboys and Rangers are in Arlington, but if you're counting Arlington as a part of Dallas, then it would be three. Same with Florida. Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando and Miami do host pro sports, but don't the Tampa Bay Rays play in St. Petersburg and the Florida Panthers play somewhere outside of Miami? That would make it six cities.
Quote from: golden eagle on August 06, 2011, 04:01:53 PM
If you wanna get technical, Texas has four pro sports cities (Dallas, Arlington, San Antonio and Houston). Sure, the Cowboys and Rangers are in Arlington, but if you're counting Arlington as a part of Dallas, then it would be three. Same with Florida. Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando and Miami do host pro sports, but don't the Tampa Bay Rays play in St. Petersburg and the Florida Panthers play somewhere outside of Miami? That would make it six cities.
The Florida Panthers play in suburban Sunrise (which IIRC is closer to Fort Lauderdale than Miami).
Quote from: DTComposer on August 06, 2011, 02:19:19 AM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on August 05, 2011, 03:12:56 AM
Yeah, Orlando has an NBA franchise and its newspaper may be a major newspaper, but does any of that happen if Disney World doesn't locate in the area? I doubt it.
So whether you want to call it a major city or not, you still must recognize it is quite different from other major cities. Those cities have had suburbs that have grown up due to outgrowth from the central city. Orlando has been the opposite-a city that has grown because of something that grew up in the surrounding area.
However, you can argue that San Francisco only became a major city because of something that happened 130 miles away (discovery of gold), and Los Angeles' growth was only possible because of something over 200 miles away (Owens Valley water). I'm sure other cities could cite such far-flung events or resources as the impetus behind their growth as well. It's impossible to predict what would have happened to Orlando had Disney not located there - all of Florida has experienced tremendous growth the last 50 years, so who's to say Orlando wouldn't be a similar size now, just driven by factors other than tourism? The point is Orlando is what it is today, for whatever reasons inside or outside city limits, and do we consider it a major city? I would say yes.
Whether one wants to all it a major city or not isn't really that important to me. I still maintain that Orlando alone, by itself isn't really a major city, but it certainly is a major metropolitan area. Clearly, some people have a broader definition of what constitutes a major city than others. I think it's a difficult term to define anyway. My main point for bringing it up in the first place was citing it as an example of a city that is very small in relation to its metropolitan area.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 06, 2011, 04:31:05 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on August 06, 2011, 04:01:53 PM
If you wanna get technical, Texas has four pro sports cities (Dallas, Arlington, San Antonio and Houston). Sure, the Cowboys and Rangers are in Arlington, but if you're counting Arlington as a part of Dallas, then it would be three. Same with Florida. Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando and Miami do host pro sports, but don't the Tampa Bay Rays play in St. Petersburg and the Florida Panthers play somewhere outside of Miami? That would make it six cities.
The Florida Panthers play in suburban Sunrise (which IIRC is closer to Fort Lauderdale than Miami).
According to my atlas, Sunrise is just west of Ft. Lauderdale.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 05, 2011, 03:55:26 PM
Actually thinking about it a little more, I came up with an 8th one.
Has to be more than 100 Sq miles. so a city must be at least 10X10 miles.
Within city limits? If so, you'd be surprised how many places that eliminates. Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Saint Louis, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle I think....
Quote from: Coelacanth on August 02, 2011, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2011, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: berberry on August 02, 2011, 12:04:59 PMPut it another way, what's the largest metro with the smallest center city? Twin or multi-cities are fine, so long as the comparison is to the largest city within the area.
my guess would be the Bay Area. 945,000 people live in San Jose. 7.4 million people live in the Bay Area.
The Bay Area is a combined statistical area; San Jose and San Francisco are separate CBSAs. Even so, with the numbers you cite San Jose is about 12.8% of the Bay Area.
Taking a quick look at some census estimates for 2009, and considering only CBSAs, I came up with:
Miami 433K out of a CBSA of 5.5M (about 7.8%)
Atlanta 540K out of 5.4M (9.9%) - this one surprised me
Washington DC 600K out of 5.5M (11.0%)
Minneapolis 385K out of 3.3M (11.8%)
St Louis 357K out of 2.8M (12.6%)
There may be better examples but I think Miami's the winner.
5.5 million for Washington? If you extend the Washington area far enough to take in that many people, is Washington still the largest city in it? Or would it be Baltimore?
When it comes to the USA, the US Census decides and defines a major city, a metropolitan area and nowadays, the rise of exurbs and micropolitan areas. We have 10 cities with over a million inhabitants: San Jose surpassed Detroit according to the 2010 census, when San Jose has now 1.0 million while Detroit shrinks to 800,000 or less people. The 250 other cities with over 100,000 residents may have less or lower urban status profile, many are suburban cities of already larger ones: Long Beach near L.A., Mesa near Phoenix, Aurora near Denver and Arlington in Dallas-Ft. Worth.
In Cal. we have 12 cities with over a quarter of million (250,000+ people), with a possible tie of Anaheim and Santa Ana at 300,000 in the 2000 census report. But I think the latest updates on Anaheim (8th largest in Cal.) has more than Santa Ana (12th largest in Cal.), while Bakersfield, Stockton and Riverside pushed down Santa Ana. The other 6 cities in the 500,000-1 million range are San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Oakland. The San Diego area has a border town Tijuana with 1.5 million residents, if the two merged, the San Diego-Tijuana duplex doubles to 3 million.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 06, 2011, 02:19:19 AM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on August 05, 2011, 03:12:56 AM
Yeah, Orlando has an NBA franchise and its newspaper may be a major newspaper, but does any of that happen if Disney World doesn't locate in the area? I doubt it.
So whether you want to call it a major city or not, you still must recognize it is quite different from other major cities. Those cities have had suburbs that have grown up due to outgrowth from the central city. Orlando has been the opposite-a city that has grown because of something that grew up in the surrounding area.
However, you can argue that San Francisco only became a major city because of something that happened 130 miles away (discovery of gold), and Los Angeles' growth was only possible because of something over 200 miles away (Owens Valley water). I'm sure other cities could cite such far-flung events or resources as the impetus behind their growth as well. It's impossible to predict what would have happened to Orlando had Disney not located there - all of Florida has experienced tremendous growth the last 50 years, so who's to say Orlando wouldn't be a similar size now, just driven by factors other than tourism? The point is Orlando is what it is today, for whatever reasons inside or outside city limits, and do we consider it a major city? I would say yes.
Orlando was the largest inland city in Florida pre-Disney. I remember when I was a kid ( in the 70s) WESH 2 the NBC affiliate was licenced to Daytona Beach and Orlando. The didnt even have all the networks represented in the city. It was a regional city in Florida but not internationally known. Disney and then the "copycat" attractions have put Orlando on the map. Jacksonville historically was much more prominent than Orlando but Orlando has taken over as Metro area number 3 in Florida
Detroit dropped to 713 000, but the Metro Detroit have 4 500 000 when we add the surrounding suburban counties. If we add Windsor, Ontario and its suburbs, it's around 5.7 millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit-Windsor
Quote from: DTComposer on August 04, 2011, 12:30:25 AM
Other factors that might be considered:
-Professional sports team
Careful with this one. If you were going by this alone you could say Tulsa, Wichita, and Las Vegas are not major cities, which is clearly false.