U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you ever live in a metro smaller than 2 million people?
Yes 32 69.57%
No 14 30.43%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2007, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
4,486 posts, read 15,293,605 times
Reputation: 3936

Advertisements

I for one would NEVER want to live in a small metro. I also know many others that feel the same way, they just couldn't thrive in a small city. Anybody else feel this way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2007, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
5,608 posts, read 20,732,813 times
Reputation: 5347
Two million is still a lot of people. I consider small metros anything 1 million or less: Colorado Springs, Tucson, Albuquerque, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. "Small" is any city too small to support a major league sports team, a major hub airport, or corporate headquarters. You know, Phoenix technically has 3.9 million people in the metro area, but there are cities less than half the size of Phoenix that have much more to do, and better jobs! I would still consider smaller cities if I had a good job there and if it was a desirable place to live. Of those cities I mentioned, I wouldn't mind living in Albuquerque if it happened to align with my career goals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2007, 10:59 PM
 
362 posts, read 1,633,316 times
Reputation: 242
I grew up in a town under 10,000 in the middle of Wyoming. Small towns don't scare me, but BIG cities (New York, LA) do. I consider anything over 300,000 a relatively big city, and I prefer cities anywhere from 100,000 - 300,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2007, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Midwest
1,903 posts, read 7,285,468 times
Reputation: 464
As an academic (currently a PhD student), I'm largely confined to small metros. My hometown is in metro Detroit, and I've lived in metro Cleveland/Akron ... midstate Illinois is nice, but the temptation to drive up to Chicago every weekend is strong.

I've applied to jobs in midsize cities such as Richmond, and strange places such as Great Falls (Montana). Ayy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2007, 11:19 PM
 
143 posts, read 788,931 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ View Post
I for one would NEVER want to live in a small metro. I also know many others that feel the same way, they just couldn't thrive in a small city. Anybody else feel this way?
2 million is medium sized to me although I assume your trying to limit the options to the typical "namebrand" metros. The truth is if youve never lived in a metro under 2 million you really dont know how living there would be. Size certainly dosent mean anything these days. I can point to several smaller metros with more to do than bigger ones. Phoenix is actually a PERFECT example of a big metro with hardly nothing to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2007, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska (moving to Ohio)
673 posts, read 3,754,322 times
Reputation: 474
After Lincoln, Nebraska and Fargo, North Dakota never again. I think after my experience in these two places I will never want to reside in a metro area with less then a million people preferably two million. My appetite for small metro areas that brag about what little they have to offer is getting on my nerves personally.

Quite honestly I dont even want to associate with people in small metropolitan areas anymore. Maybe that will change but at the current time if someone is from Bismarck, Sioux Falls or Cheyenne I probubly wouldnt give them the time of day just because of my experience with small towns/metro's over the last two years. Ive pretty much lost all respect for small metropolitan areas and their way of life based on the two smaller areas I have lived in but it just seems like medium sized metro's are Chicago are much friendlier.

It seems like smaller metro areas especially in small states tend to think they are all that when in fact they have very few amenities compared to larger cities. I understand Lincoln and Fargo are big cities to the people are from these small states but overall they have very little to offer culturally its the same thing everyday. Very boring culturally and what impresses people from small towns does not tend to impress in larger cities.

Just last weekend here in Lincoln people were sitting on lawn chairs along O street because some people primarily from rural Nebraska were taking their old cars on the streets and driving them around. People seemed very, very impressed and it seemed like it was the most impressive thing they have seen all year. Im sorry but seeing people rev up accelerators on their old cars for hour after hour doesnt impress me and I dont think alot of people from larger metropolitan would sit around hour after hour entertained by that either.

Sorry, but the gallery walks in the Short North district of Columbus on North High street and enjoying the 16th street mall in Denver, Colorado and the brick architecture in the Loring Park section of Minneapolis is much more interesting then watching a few old cars accelerate down O street in Lincoln, Nebraska.

One other thing is Lincoln and Fargo have been very socially isolating for me. In Fargo's case it was mainly it is such a small city that everyone seems to know everyone and in Lincoln it is so conservative that if you arent what people percieve as perfection people percieve you as beneath them and damaged goods. Metropolitan areas of a few million people just by sheer size have a greater variety of people which means a greater number of people who have the same interests and hobbies as oneself.

Another thing about smaller metropolitan areas is if they arent recreationally oriented such as rivers and mountains nearby they tend to be super-materialistic because people have to have sort of indentity. In Boulder, Colorado people's indentity is usually based on super-athletism but with smaller towns on the plains for example since many are flat, topography-wise are boring and rather cultureless by national standards many people tend to be superficial as in dressing up to go everywhere including to the grocery stores. Just very odd but seems to be a trait of smaller midwestern areas.

Overall, I just prefer medium-sized metropolitan that have just enough to do without being over-crowded such as Columbus, Pittsburgh, Twin Cities, Denver etc.

It seems like metropolitan areas between about 1.5 and 4 million people tend to have just enough to keep a typical person occupied without being overwhelming on a typical individual then again some people like being overwhelmed for those people of course there is cities like Chicago.

Last edited by MattDen; 07-02-2007 at 11:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2007, 11:21 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,021 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
I lived in Champaign, IL for seven years. It was OK while I was there, didn't really know any better, I guess. It was certainly a refreshing change to move to the Denver area where merchandise was more readily available, for one thing. More choices in shopping, churches, restaurants, etc. I could go under two million, but probably not under 500,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2007, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Deep In The Heat Of Texas
2,639 posts, read 2,464,052 times
Reputation: 700
Good grief, 2,000,000 people. I'm looking for a place with about 200.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2007, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
4,486 posts, read 15,293,605 times
Reputation: 3936
Quote:
Phoenix technically has 3.9 million people in the metro area, but there are cities less than half the size of Phoenix that have much more to do, and better jobs!
The Phoenix metro just crossed the 4 million mark. I can't think of any cities that are LESS THAN 1/2 the size of Phoenix with more to do in terms of culture, nightlife, entertainment, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2007, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Austin
4,102 posts, read 7,369,012 times
Reputation: 2124
The Austin metro area has less than 2 million people, but it doesn't seem too small to me. There's enough culture here, and people from all over live here. I've been to Phoenix and I'd say that Austin has a lot more to offer in terms of culture, nightlife and entertainment despite our metro being half the size of Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top