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.
In my mind to be a major city you need the artibutes of a major city: public transit, urban retail/streetlife, density, world class parks,public spaces culture, etc.
NYC, LA, and Chicago clearly make the cut, SF, DC, Boston, and maybe Philly and Miami also likely make the cut (the last 2 could be a little stronger economically). Sea, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are all emerging "major cities" but aren't there yet.
In my mind to be a major city you need the artibutes of a major city: public transit, urban retail/streetlife, density, world class parks,public spaces culture, etc.
NYC, LA, and Chicago clearly make the cut, SF, DC, Boston, and maybe Philly and Miami also likely make the cut (the last 2 could be a little stronger economically). Sea, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are all emerging "major cities" but aren't there yet.
What does Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta need to be major? Steal New Yorks density? They all have public transit, urban retail/streetwise, density, world class parks, public spaces, and culture. Some of which are practically world famous.
I feel like a safer explanation for your perspective might be merely the most important city in a country.
I think it needs to be at least 2 million in (metro) population, and be a hub in the nearby region for something. Las Vegas, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh are all major cities. Providence, Spokane, and Wichita are not.
There are some exceptions, like New Orleans and Omaha. But overall I think 2 million MSA population is a good indicator.
In my mind to be a major city you need the artibutes of a major city: public transit, urban retail/streetlife, density, world class parks,public spaces culture, etc.
NYC, LA, and Chicago clearly make the cut, SF, DC, Boston, and maybe Philly and Miami also likely make the cut (the last 2 could be a little stronger economically). Sea, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are all emerging "major cities" but aren't there yet.
Seattle, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are absolutely and unquestionably major cities.
OK a debate in another thread got me thinking. What are the requirements for a city to be called a "major" city on a national level?
Here are the criteria I've always used. A city needs to meet all of these in order to be called "major" in my book.
Presence of a major league sports franchise
Large airport (with more than 5 million passengers per year, and being called "international" doesn't necessarily make an airport large)
Presence of at least one major research university
At least 5 skyscrapers of 300 feet
At least 1 major corporate headquarters
Must have at least two interstates intersect in the city
Did I leave anything out? Or am I being too restrictive?
I realize some people in this forum will be offended that I don't consider their beloved cities to be "major." But there's no shame in being a really cool non-major national city. I just think some people are a little too cavalier with their definitions of "major city" and maybe also a little too sensitive.
Obviously this is an older thread, but while I agree with some of these, some don't work in certain respects, though I do think (excluding DC), that this fits pretty well for describing an American major city.
Presence of Major League Sports is a pretty strong baseline that it is a hub city within the US so I have no qualms with that. I do think certain places qualify as "mid major" without necessarily having that (ie, Richmond to me is just as if not more as important as Jacksonville), but I do understand the overall sentiment.
Completely agree on airport. That one is almost difficult to argue, anywhere.
I generally speaking agree with this also about a research university, though I guess it depends exactly on how "major" is being defined. My threshold isn't super high, but maybe something rated within USNWR Top 200?
This is one that works for almost every American city, though DC of course is a notable exception, and then once not stateside things change considerably depending on the continent.
No arguments there. Even if we are using a foreign example, it should have business that is major at very least by that country's standard or market listing (DAX Index for Germany, etc.)
Again, one where I agree mostly, but on American terms. Freeways in of themselves can be antithetical to true urbanism of course, in fact Vancouver is lauded for being the only major urban core in North America which has no freeway/highways passing through it. I get the overall sentiment though as that importance of a city (whether or not the city liked it, or didn't like SF which fought it tooth and nail), directly related to freeways potentially passing through, or not.
Setting up objective criteria for this is kind of silly. “Major” is subjective. Everyone in the US agrees that NYC is a major city, but I’m guessing some New Yorkers wouldn’t consider Milwaukee or Cleveland to be major cities. Meanwhile, places like Birmingham, ABQ, Little Rock, Omaha, or even Sioux Falls are “major” cities to many people living in those states.
Setting up objective criteria for this is kind of silly. “Major” is subjective. Everyone in the US agrees that NYC is a major city, but I’m guessing some New Yorkers wouldn’t consider Milwaukee or Cleveland to be major cities. Meanwhile, places like Birmingham, ABQ, Little Rock, Omaha, or even Sioux Falls are “major” cities to many people living in those states.
Even Casper Wyoming and Fairbanks AK are "major" to the areas they are in. I still do cities that are relatively major on the national level as "major", and even have a list of "minor-major" cities (Des Moines, Omaha, Birmingham AL, etc.)
What does Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta need to be major? Steal New Yorks density? They all have public transit, urban retail/streetwise, density, world class parks, public spaces, and culture. Some of which are practically world famous.
I feel like a safer explanation for your perspective might be merely the most important city in a country.
As others have pointed out "major" is pretty subjective. I struggled with where to draw the line. Detroit, MPS,Phoenix are all major metropolitan areas with pro-sports, light rail, arts and culture, parks, international airports, fortune 500 companies. Then if you include them what about SD, Tampa Bay and Denver and so on.
I basically thought the "MAJOR" cities are unquestionably NYC, LA, Chi. Then you have the SF Bay area with SF having arguably the 4th best collection of urban amenities (restaurants, retail, etc). DC isn't quite as developed, but it is a major power center with a smallish, but fairly urban core. It is also a major population center when combined with Baltimore.
Boston, Philly and MIA are more tentative cases, economically they are basically on par with DFW, Hou, ATL. But, I included them given their legacy urban big city feels." When you are in Center City or Back Bay, I feel like I'm in the heart of a major city with major museums, retail, parks, restaurants and nightlife, theater all in a very compact area. I don't exactly feel the same way when I'm in central Dallas for example. Although, obviously the sunbelt is rapidly improving and infilling.
In my mind to be a major city you need the artibutes of a major city: public transit, urban retail/streetlife, density, world class parks,public spaces culture, etc.
NYC, LA, and Chicago clearly make the cut, SF, DC, Boston, and maybe Philly and Miami also likely make the cut (the last 2 could be a little stronger economically). Sea, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are all emerging "major cities" but aren't there yet.
Certain cities you listed shine in criteria more than others, but I have never heard under any circumstances someone refer to Philadelphia as a borderline "major" city.
Seattle, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta are major cities as well even if they don't show as well in the traditional big/urban city criteria.
And a strong economy is important for a healthy city, but not sure what the never ending obsession with Fortune 500s has to do with making a city "major"? For example, Rome, Mumbai, Athens (and many more) are very much subpar economically compared to Philly, Boston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. does that make them not major?
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.
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.
