What is a big city?

[bing101]

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.

[english si]

Will 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, which had a 4 station monorail system to call its own, rather than 4 stations of another city's metro. 

[DTComposer]

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.

[mjb2002]

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.

[bing101]

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.

[golden eagle]

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.

[US 41]

Greenville is also pretty big.

[bing101]

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..

[Henry]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[realjd]

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.

[AsphaltPlanet]

My definition of a big city would be a city large enough to sustain a major sports (NHL, MLB, NFL etc) team.

[Alps]

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.

[tdindy88]

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.

[ET21]

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) 

[Alps]

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).

[tdindy88]

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.

[AsphaltPlanet]

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.

[US 41]

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.

[bing101]

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. 

[DTComposer]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.