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.
Philly could have become a much greater city both in actuality and reputation without New York hovering overhead. It's difficult to stand out with the world's greatest city less than 50 miles away.
I think Albuquerque should have been a major city. The fact that New Mexico doesn't have a big city is kinda sad given that it's a beautiful state with great outdoor recreation, and a lot of culture and for the Southwest, a lot of history too.
I don't know why ABQ never grew though, or Santa Fe, for that matter. Both were major settlements, Santa Fe has been a city since the early 1600s and is the oldest continuously inhabited state capital. Albuquerque wasn't a city until a century later.
Albuquerque is already a fairly major city. I mean, it's not New York City, but neither is it Fargo. There are only 31 cities proper and 59 metros bigger than it in the country. That places it quite comfortably in the top fifth of all cities over 100,000 and all MSAs in the country.
Albuquerque has continually grown as long as New Mexico has been a state. It has added an average of 100,000 people to its metro each decade since the 1950s. Has its growth been as explosive or as fast as Las Vegas or Orlando in that same time? No, but it still isn't something to sniff at, nor is it stagnant or underachieving.
Different cities grow at different rates for different reasons. Would anybody call Dallas underachieving or disappointing in its growth because it hasn't grown to be as large as Los Angeles in the same timeframe?
The OP's cutoff of 1.5 million is pretty ridiculous. That would mean that cities like Salt Lake City, New Orleans and Oklahoma City are smaller and non-major cities even though they have major league sports franchises (OKC, SLC, NO), more extensive public transportation (SLC) and more urbanity (New Orleans) than many cities much larger than them.
A small city, IMO, would be somewhere with less than 100,000 people in the city itself or 250,000 in its metro.
Examples given such as Galveston I can agree with, but places like Albuquerque? Nope.
Philly could have become a much greater city both in actuality and reputation without New York hovering overhead. It's difficult to stand out with the world's greatest city less than 50 miles away.
I fell as though Wilmington, DE should be much larger, especially being Delaware's largest city, definitely should be over 100,000 imo.. Still feels much larger now no matter what the stats say.. I know a lot of that population is reflected in it's metro population but still think the city proper should be much larger today..
Albuquerque is already a fairly major city. I mean, it's not New York City, but neither is it Fargo. There are only 31 cities proper and 59 metros bigger than it in the country. That places it quite comfortably in the top fifth of all cities over 100,000 and all MSAs in the country.
Albuquerque has continually grown as long as New Mexico has been a state. It has added an average of 100,000 people to its metro each decade since the 1950s. Has its growth been as explosive or as fast as Las Vegas or Orlando in that same time? No, but it still isn't something to sniff at, nor is it stagnant or underachieving.
Different cities grow at different rates for different reasons. Would anybody call Dallas underachieving or disappointing in its growth because it hasn't grown to be as large as Los Angeles in the same timeframe?
The OP's cutoff of 1.5 million is pretty ridiculous. That would mean that cities like Salt Lake City, New Orleans and Oklahoma City are smaller and non-major cities even though they have major league sports franchises (OKC, SLC, NO), more extensive public transportation (SLC) and more urbanity (New Orleans) than many cities much larger than them.
A small city, IMO, would be somewhere with less than 100,000 people in the city itself or 250,000 in its metro.
Examples given such as Galveston I can agree with, but places like Albuquerque? Nope.
New Orleans should count merely because it would likely have been larger than it is today given its history.
Cincinnati, OH. Between 1901-1902, both Henry Ford and J.W. Packard came to the city to secure capital with which to make their inventions and obtain the needed patents from local carriage manufacturers to construct auto bodies. Since Cincinnati was the center of this trade, Ford and Packard hoped to persuade executives of the largest of these companies to make the engines while the others built the bodies. After their repeated efforts failed, these two men moved on to Detroit.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,142,021 times
Reputation: 2919
Quote:
Originally Posted by oobanks
I fell as though Wilmington, DE should be much larger, especially being Delaware's largest city, definitely should be over 100,000 imo.. Still feels much larger now no matter what the stats say.. I know a lot of that population is reflected in it's metro population but still think the city proper should be much larger today..
Its historical high was around 110,000 prior to suburbanization, and it still has those bones. While the metro area solely focused on Wilmington is around ~750,000, the city proper took a huge hit down to 72,000. Philadelphia's massive size and pull means the city could never be a truly major city, but it could've been akin to Providence in size and stature.
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.