Which city is better? The Bigger or Smaller one? (living, cost, state)

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Pick a city - Bigger or smaller, which city do you prefer out of these pairs? Is the bigger city always better or does the smaller city have more appeal?

Milwaukee vs. Madison in WI
Phoenix vs. Tucson in AZ
Albuquerque vs. Santa Fe in NM
Providence vs. Newport in RI
Atlanta vs. Savannah in GA
Charlotte vs. Asheville in NC
Detroit vs. Ann Arbor in MI

Does the bigger city totally trump the smaller one or does the smaller city offer a special character about it that the bigger city can't match? Choose one from each pair and explain why you prefer one over the other. If you haven't been to them all choose the city you would prefer to visit.

EDIT: I left off pitting a two major cities against one another (Houston/Austin, Philly/Pittsburgh etc.) and wanted to see how significantly smaller cities with a bit of notoriety fair against the big cities.

[annie_himself]

1st of all, I haven't been to any of these places.

Milwaukee-I like how urban it is and it's much larger than Madison, I've love to visit Madison too but Milwaukee is much larger and you'd think they have good bars and good beer.

Tucson-Duh

Santa Fe-Culture, location, scenery, etc.

Providence-I don't know much about Newport but I know Providence is bigger and looks pretty urban and slept on.

Savannah-Been to Atlanta already and Savanna is much more intimate.

Asheville-Been to Charlotte plenty and I'd like to see Asheville.

Detroit-Would like to see all the empty buildings for photos.

[grapico]

I picked smaller for all but Atlanta and Providence. I'd probably prefer Austin over Houston, Philly definitely over Pittsburgh though... most easy pick for me.

Most of the small cities you listed are nice cities but not great for careers and such compared to the bigger one esp for Savannah/Asheville

[risotto11]

"Better" "appeal" ? Define "better" and "appeal"?
Most of the time bigger cities offer more in terms of entertainment, job opportunities, culture, education etc etc. Then again if you are looking to settle with a family of four while financially independent smaller cities maybe much better choice just like a Chrysler Town and Country maybe a better and more appealing choice for a family of four than a Porsche Carrera

[Trafalgar Law]

I'm in the Bay Area right now and so far it's been sort of a lateral move from the DMV, just add 10-15 Farenheit degrees to it and more spectacular scenery. I suppose what I'm saying is that I came looking for more but found about the same, just different stuff. The Bay Area and the DMV are like 2-4 (five max) day visit places it feels.

Yeah I'm a size first, everything else second sort of person though. It's not a coincidence that my favorite city in China is Shanghai, it's also the largest. Favorite in Japan is Tokyo, it's also the largest in a pool of extremely large cities. Favorite in the United States is New York, the largest. Favorite in Canada is Toronto, the largest. Favorite in Israel is Tel-Aviv, the largest. Favorite in the United Kingdom is London, the largest. Favorite in India is Mumbai, the largest. So on. You just cant compensate for size, you can for everything else but there's no substitute for it. Only exception to it is Melbourne in Australia, I prefer that to Sydney but the way it's going, Melbourne is probably going to re-surpass it eventually.

I'd rather live in a large metropolitan area like Atlanta without a well defined or active core and "suburban" than somewhere like Portland, Pittsburgh, such off the sheer scale of things to see, do, and have around you.

[animatedmartian]

Ann Arbor doesn't have as much as Detroit. AA is better functioning in pretty much in every way, but you aren't going to find too many things that isn't college-centered or catered to young people. The downtown is rather typical and the size you'd expect for a city around 100K albeit more lively due to the benefit of the college.

AA is sort of limited growth wise unless the city really starts to build mid-density development around the downtown core (outside of the college campus). There's a few high-rise residentials recently built downtown, but real estate is still relatively expensive due to short supply. There's many other areas of Michigan with similar housing for cheaper and more or less the same amenities, most specifically in Detroit's suburbs.

Speaking of Detroit, while it does have its flaws, it still has most big city amenities that Ann Arbor does not. Major sports, museums, nightlife, residential options, etc., are all more numerous in Detroit than Ann Arbor. I'm speaking of city proper but obviously if you include the whole metro then it's a pretty one-sided comparison. Of course, Ann Arbor is close enough to Metro Detroit that it's frequently included whenever talking about SE Michigan as a whole and travelling between AA and Metro Detroit is pretty easy and quick (only an hour's drive from downtown to downtown).

In the end, I'd still pick Detroit because driving across town for entertainment gets old pretty quick and Ann Arbor doesn't have enough by itself to satisfy pseudo-big city living.

[orlando-calrissian]

Phoenix vs. Tucson in AZ
No contest. Phoenix is better. Suburbs are much better, especially with Tempe and Scottsdale. Roads are better maintained in Phoenix. UofA is better than ASU IMO, but that's really the only thing Tucson has on Phoenix. Tucson doesn't even have a drainage system; the roads flood when it rains.

Also, compared to the other "small" cities on this list, Tucson isn't small. It's bigger than Albuquerque, city and metro wise. Better comparison would have been Phoenix vs. Flagstaff.

Atlanta vs. Savannah in GA
Depends what you're looking for. Nightlife and major attractions? Atlanta. History and culture? Savannah.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Phoenix vs. Tucson in AZ
No contest. Phoenix is better. Suburbs are much better, especially with Tempe and Scottsdale. Roads are better maintained in Phoenix. UofA is better than ASU IMO, but that's really the only thing Tucson has on Phoenix. Tucson doesn't even have a drainage system; the roads flood when it rains.

Also, compared to the other "small" cities on this list, Tucson isn't small. It's bigger than Albuquerque, city and metro wise. Better comparison would have been Phoenix vs. Flagstaff.

Well Phoenix would likely take Flagstaff in a landslide as it's just not really well known, even though it is a very cool mountain college town with a bit of a Colorado like vibe. Tucson is still significantly smaller than Phoenix, and as much as Phoenix's big city amenities trump Tucson, there is an old school Southwestern pueblo vibe in Tucson that makes it different than Phoenix and some people prefer that kind of characteristic. I'll also venture to say I found 4th Ave in Tucson a bit more eclectic and interesting than Mill Ave in Tempe. I will say Scottsdale tips the scales heavily in Phoenix's favor. Both cities have improving downtowns and public transit infrastructure.

[ABQalex]

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Also, compared to the other "small" cities on this list, Tucson isn't small. It's bigger than Albuquerque, city and metro wise. Better comparison would have been Phoenix vs. Flagstaff.

No, it's not. It's bigger metro-wise, but Albuquerque is bigger by about 30,000 people within city limits.

Albuquerque city and MSA population:

2010 official Census numbers - (City) 545,852 (Metro) 887,077
2012 Census estimates - (City) 555,417 (Metro) 901,700


Tucson city and MSA population:

2010 official Census numbers - (City) 520,116 (Metro) 980,263
2012 Census estimates - (City) 524,295 (Metro) 992,394


As for the question posed by the thread, I'd pick the larger city in every case. The smaller cities may have certain caches and charms, but there's no question the bigger cities in each case offer more and better opportunities to live a better life and each offers more things for its residents, not just its tourists. And that's just the thing, people with a tourist and 'getaway' mentality may think these smaller cities are so much better than the bigger ones, but in the real world and for actual living the bigger cities win hands down.

Santa Fe, for instance, has a horrible disparity between the quality of life of those who can afford to live the Santa Fe lifestyle of perusing art galleries on Canyon Road and dining in five-star establishments whilst living in a faux-dobe McMansion and wearing turquoise jewelry and broomstick skirts. That is what so many think of when they think of Santa Fe. But there is another side of Santa Fe and that is the grittier reality of people whose families have lived in Santa Fe for generations but who are being pushed out by the increasing cost of living that comes with all these rich newcomers seeking out that chic Santa Fe lifestyle, and also by the lack of opportunity that comes with having an economy based on tourism and art sales.

Albuquerque has its disparities as well, but there's no question there are opportunities here to live a comfortable life for everybody and not just the well-to-do types which just don't exist in Santa Fe and the other celebrated small town in northern New Mexico, Taos.

I personally know people who grew up in Santa Fe and Taos but who now live in Albuquerque, indeed I myself am partly descended from native Santa Feans who left almost fifty years ago, and there's no question as to why these people chose to move to Albuquerque rather than stay where they were.

Santa Fe and Taos are great places to live if you are already a success in life and have a nice amount of money to live off of while there. They are not so great if you are just trying to eke out a living, let alone trying to get somewhere in life.

[Iconographer]

I don't think it's always true, but it's funny here that I picked the smaller city in every case.