Most Vibrant cities with under 1 million people within city limits (live in, vs.)

[AcroJimmy2]

Just to clarify, I'm talking about cities proper, not Metro areas.

My votes go to San Francisco and Boston. Both are very dense and feel much bigger than they are.

[Minato ku]

But city limit mean nothing, it clearly depend of the size and the % of the metropolitan area.
This vary a lot in the country, that's why metropolitan area where created to see the real size of the city (even if CSA are too big in my opinion)

Boston and San Francisco are officially under 1 million inhabitants but around there is a large suburbs with many more inhabitants and the reality is that these cities (with the suburbs) have several million.
It is the same case for DC.
Most of the crowd don't live inside the city limit but in suburbs.

We have the same problem in Europe, officially Rome (2.8 million) is more populated than Paris (2.2 million) but in reality Rome is over 500 sq mile and Paris is about 40 sq mile.
If we take 500 sq mile of Paris area you will find far more inhabitants than in the same area in Rome.
If we look the metro area Rome is about 4 million in the higher estimation (Italy don't have metropolitan area stat) while Paris is 12 million (INSEE stat, more conservative than MSA)

So only looking city limit is stupid.

[polo89]

City limit wise Miami, New Orleans, and San Fransisco.

[Boston14]

Boston

[Rhymes with Best Coast]

SF has the #s, density, and vibe to back it up.

[DailyJournalist]

Boston and Washington DC

[grapico]

city limits and size are both pretty stupid gauges for picking cities...
the main reason being city limits are always different
have to also look for quality #1... who cares if a city is gigantic if huge swaths of the area are slums and sprawl.
density is also a good gauge, it provides critical mass and makes places more vibrant and often safer as well.
i.e. ...

1. New York City - 27,000
2. San Francisco - 16,000
3. Chicago - 12,000
4. Boston - 12,000
5. Philly - 11,000

not the be all end all but it does help determine vibrancy.

[leighland]

Originally Posted by grapico

city limits and size are both pretty stupid gauges for picking cities...
the main reason being city limits are always different
have to also look for quality #1... who cares if a city is gigantic if huge swaths of the area are slums and sprawl.
density is also a good gauge, it provides critical mass and makes places more vibrant and often safer as well.
i.e. ...

1. New York City - 27,000
2. San Francisco - 16,000
3. Chicago - 12,000
4. Boston - 12,000
5. Philly - 11,000

not the be all end all but it does help determine vibrancy.

The density of Providence RI is 9400 per sq mile. Thats just under Philly. So are you saying that a city such as San Diego the 8th largest city in the US, does not have as much to offer as Providence?

BTW, you can't compare Chicago and medium cities such as Boston, Philly and Houston. Chicago is a BIG city, with big city infrastructure, population/socio-economic diversity and day-to-day life.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by leighland

The density of Providence RI is 9400 per sq mile. Thats just under Philly. So are you saying that a city such as San Diego the 8th largest city in the US, does not have as much to offer as Providence?

BTW, you can't compare Chicago and medium cities such as Boston, Philly and Houston. Chicago is a BIG city, with big city infrastructure, population/socio-economic diversity and day-to-day life.

what about not the be all end all didn't you get?
what can't you compare chicago vs. boston and philly on? sheer population #s?

[noela]

San Francisco, Boston and Seattle are great, and Atlanta i loved as well, but just to vote for only one of them, Boston's my favourite.