What is your definition of "big" city? (largest, place, population)

[HenryAlan]

If it's a world city, it is big, otherwise, it is not. The U.S. has six world cities according to Wikipedia:

New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington DC
San Francisco
Boston

Those are the big cities in this country, everything else on that list is mid-size. And yes, I'm aware that population rankings give a different story. Same can be said for all manner of categories, but to be a world city means the city ranks high in all categories. Big is not just about people or density or professional sports franchises. Big is an idea, a symbolism, a notoriety, and an importance on the largest stage. The six I've listed meet that criteria, no others do.

[Spade]

Everyone has an opinion. Let's just leave it at that.

[justme02]

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

If it's a world city, it is big, otherwise, it is not. The U.S. has six world cities according to Wikipedia:

New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington DC
San Francisco
Boston

You should probably go re-read the article. If we are talking about global cities, Boston ranked the same as Dallas, Atlanta, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston as a Beta world city. There is only one ranking in the wikipedia article that includes all the cities you listed.

So if you want to take Boston out of your list, then you might have a point. Otherwise, by your standard, Boston (and maybe San Francisco ) doesnt belong there.

I think its a big city, but if we are going to pick and choose cities based on bias, I could easily find a study to justify that Boston doesnt belong with the others on your list.

[HenryAlan]

I used the top 30 global cities index, and took every US city on that list. Where is the bias? Here is the link to the article containing that list:

Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boston is on the list, whereas Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Houston are not. However, I'd accept those four additions. There are going to be a few different lists of this type, and results will vary. The key is that all such rankings try to make a determination based upon over all influence, rather than a specified metric like population. I find that to be a better approach. The "weight" of the city's impact is what determines bigness.

[Chicago60614]

I like how 20% of people didn't even vote for NYC.

I voted for them all except Inland Empire (since it's just a suburban area of LA), Orlando and Sacramento.

[justme02]

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

Boston is on the list, whereas Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Houston are not. However, I'd accept those four additions. There are going to be a few different lists of this type, and results will vary. The key is that all such rankings try to make a determination based upon over all influence, rather than a specified metric like population. I find that to be a better approach. The "weight" of the city's impact is what determines bigness.

I just dont think we can be that narrow minded when measuring what is a "big city". I would say the ones you listed plus Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, and Miami are easily big cities and global cities. You could even include some others like Philly, Seattle, Phoenix, Detroit, and San Diego.

[Gnutella]

At least one of the following has to be true:

1. City population of 300,000+
2. Metropolitan population of 1,500,000+

[HenryAlan]

Originally Posted by LAnative10

I just dont think we can be that narrow minded when measuring what is a "big city". I would say the ones you listed plus Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, and Miami are easily big cities and global cities. You could even include some others like Philly, Seattle, Phoenix, Detroit, and San Diego.

Sure, you could. I'm suggesting one way to do it, and using somebody else's research. Which city makes or does not make the cut-off is somewhat beside the point of what I'm trying to say, which is that the methodology should conceptually be about overall impact, not one metric or another that may overstate a city's importance.

[justme02]

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

Sure, you could. I'm suggesting one way to do it, and using somebody else's research. Which city makes or does not make the cut-off is somewhat beside the point of what I'm trying to say, which is that the methodology should conceptually be about overall impact, not one metric or another that may overstate a city's importance.

I dont think you can and still do it correctly. There are so many different studies that suggest different things. The GWaC, the World City survey, and Mastercard (for example) have different rankings and suggest a different order of things. Which one is correct? How can we say one is right and the others are incorrect? At that point, it comes down to "which study has my city closest to the top?". Thats what we see so often on this forum.

[OrlFlaUsa]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

I voted for them all except Inland Empire (since it's just a suburban area of LA), Orlando and Sacramento.

^This type of post is very indicative of the ignorance many people on this forum perpetuate about Orlando. Not saying that you Chicago_60614 are ignorant, you have your opinion and the right to vote anyway you please.

While I in no way suggest that Orlando, or the majority of the cities on this list, are big cities by most definitions, why is Orlando practically singled out?Why not include other similar sized cities that have the same, if not less, of an urban feeling downtown? Plus, Orlando has a big city airport, world class entertainment, professional sports, 2 million plus metro area, hotels and accommodations such as: The Waldorf Astoria, Ritz Carlton, J.W. Marriott, and countless more which can elevate even our dining scene to an equality of a much larger metro/so-called big city. Surely, places like Las Vegas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, which either have no pro sports, and/or a smaller metro with less amenities should have been mentioned too. There are even some slightly "larger" cities on that list that I would argue are surpassed by downtown Orlando and metro Orlando's overall quality of offerings.

Well, this poll comes as no surprise to me, Orlando is one of the lowest ranked, again. My definition of big city is confined to the really big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston (maybe) and Miami (maybe). Outside of that we move to level below big city which includes everything from the Twin Cities, Tampa, and Orlando on the lower end of the spectrum to Dallas, Atlanta and Houston which are closer to the top. My rankings are based on many different criteria, not just population, GDP, or any other number. I take into account how I see those factors play into the big picture through my own experiences with said city and then I reach my conclusion. I am not a fan of just quoting a number, aka BS statistic, and making all judgments based off that. Otherwise, the list created for the poll would have spoke for itself since it looks like the metros descend in population as you head down the page.