How would you list the top 10 "big city" feeling cities in order? (highest, people)
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.
When I think of "big city" feel, I think of places where I walk around and think "Wow, I'm in a big city". Buildings, people, busy atmosphere, the general frenetic city vibe, not to mention, cities where the urbanity and bustle don't drop off once you leave downtown have more of a "big city feel" for me.
1. NYC
2. San Francisco
3. Chicago
4. Boston
5. Philly
6. DC
7. LA
8. Seattle
9. Minneapolis
10. Miami
Umm, you do know he listed them by metro right? And also you do know DFW is the 4th largest metro in the county
According to the 2010 Census, the San Francisco Bay Area has 7.5 million people, while the Dallas Metroplex has 6.7 million. So the Bay Area is bigger and denser, not to mention it feels bigger.
And don't tell me the Bay Area (the half ring around the Bay) isn't one metro area:
According to the 2010 Census, the San Francisco Bay Area has 7.5 million people, while the Dallas Metroplex has 6.7 million. So the Bay Area is bigger and denser, not to mention it feels bigger.
And don't tell me the Bay Area (the half ring around the Bay) isn't one metro area:
We probably have a different perception of what we view to be "big city" feeling. To me, urbanized spans, or developed, non-rural area expanses represent "big city feeling".
In terms of a general contiguous urbanized region, with respect to the surrounding areas, Dallas, Detroit, and Phoenix look larger than DC by quite a bit. For example, along the freeway, the expanses to get from one area of built-up area to another is larger in Phoenix, Dallas, and Detroit than it is in DC, granted it is large as well, just a bit smaller. I don't consider Baltimore part of it, given that it is only minimally connected with DC in one direction that represents only about 20% of the outer-edge of the DC area. Baltimore, by and large, stands alone on most of its sides, or directions, away from DC. Furthermore, DC and Baltimore weren't really connected until the mid 90s.
The Bay area is large, if you're in areas that line the bay, but it's only around 10 miles across in most areas. The water of the bay takes up just as much area as the developed area of the bay itself, giving it a "larger" appearance to some. However, to those who analyze it truthfully, you simply have higher density tracts of development around the bay surrounded by hills or mountains on the opposite sides.
Not only does the Bay Area have millions more people than the Phoenix area, but you're telling me the first picture (a common San Francisco steetscape) feels like less of a big city than the second picture (a common Phoenix streetscape)?
We've already been over the fact numerous times that if you add San Francisco, Oakland, and several bordering suburbs that seamlessly blend into SF and Oakland (Daly City, Colma, San Leandro, Alemeda, Berkeley, Emeryville, etc) together so that you match Philly's land area, you get almost the exact same population/population density as Philly. Philly still wins, but by a very small margin... small enough that it's not exactly noticeable in real life. As i've said before I find SF alone to feel a little bigger than Philly does, due to SF's larger amounts of bustle and population/structural density overall. SF also has a larger metro area than Philly does, a higher GDP, and the metro is more densely populated than Philadelphia's as well. So you can stop saying that Philly is larger than SF by "a large margin"....it really isn't. Objectively you really can't say Philly is larger than SF, unless you arbitrarily limit yourself to city propers, or if you reach and try to include NYC and/or Baltimore-DC with Philly (or if you're a homer who can't admit when you're wrong).
Let me tell you this. I drove to Newark from Northeast Philly via route 1 (not a highway). There was no clear cut dividing line between the urban sprawls. It truly did flow somewhat seemlessly into the NYC area. You have to just draw a line somewhere even though in reality, there is no line. That's the problem with Philadelphia.
Drive from Trenton, NJ to Wilmington, DE and you will see an enormous urban footprint that extends for 60+ miles along both sides of the Delaware River. How people say DC and Boston feel larger in terms of urban footprint is beyond me. DC and Boston do have a huge sphere of influence in terms of commuting patterns, but that does not make them feel larger. When it comes to size, density and continuous urban sprawl, both of them are no match for Philly. Not only that, but Philly is easily the largest and feels the largest of the 3 by a significant margin.
The Bay Area on the other hand is a beast. From San Francisco to San Jose to Oakland....that is some serious urban sprawl there. It is all very continuous too and that is what makes the Bay Area different from DC and Boston.
Let me tell you this. I drove to Newark from Northeast Philly via route 1 (not a highway). There was no clear cut dividing line between the urban sprawls. It truly did flow somewhat seemlessly into the NYC area. You have to just draw a line somewhere even though in reality, there is no line. That's the problem with Philadelphia.
Drive from Trenton, NJ to Wilmington, DE and you will see an enormous urban footprint that extends for 60+ miles along both sides of the Delaware River. How people say DC and Boston feel larger in terms of urban footprint is beyond me. DC and Boston do have a huge sphere of influence in terms of commuting patterns, but that does not make them feel larger. When it comes to size, density and continuous urban sprawl, both of them are no match for Philly. Not only that, but Philly is easily the largest and feels the largest of the 3 by a significant margin.
The Bay Area on the other hand is a beast. From San Francisco to San Jose to Oakland....that is some serious urban sprawl there. It is all very continuous too and that is what makes the Bay Area different from DC and Boston.
Totally agree with you on Trenton to Wilmington - it's a beast urban corridor. And, yes, Philly's urban area feels larger than DC or Boston's. (Although I think Boston has slightly more of a "big city" feel in the core areas)
But saying that Philly to NYC has continuous development is a bit of a stretch - the area between Trenton and New Brunswick (even on Route 1) is not continuous urban development at all, and even New Brunswick to just south of Elizabeth is pretty spotty. You can't put that corridor in the same caliber as Trenton-Wilmington, San Francisco-San Jose, or San Jose-Oakland/Richmond.
But the point also missed is the urban (not metro or suburban footprint) doesnt end at the Philly borders (on the borders are areas higher in density than Philly proper actually) SF adds to get to the Philly footprint but the city extends in same way and this is never accounted for the comparative calculations. Philly goes to over 200 sq miles and over 2 million people. In the same way SF has areas that extend the borders the Philly footprint continues. And call me a homer but the CITY part of Philly IS larger. I find SF folks equally homers to not admit this, it can proved. In additon within the footprint on top of the population continuation there is more concentrated industrial complexes, ports, refineries, and two airports. Also is continuous and not sperated by water. On the linear developement (which i dont include in the 200 sq miles it also has a line of highly urban areas from Wilmington DE to Trenton (60 miles). I agree SF is large but knowing both places it really does not have the same city mass. It never to me feels comparable to Chicago the next largest whereas to me Philly does come closer. Yes the burbs of the Bay are more dense once you get out of the city portions but to me that doesnt make it feel larger. On the homer comment; Philly developed space connects right into the Jersey/NYC developed space just with more people. There are metrics to prove this point like radius populations etc. We can agree to disagree but i do feel tht Philly is notably larger in the city footprint (even with all the areas added in the Bay) by nearly 60 sq miles; an area larger than SF itself.
On structual density I disagree; to me that is where all the industrial etc facilities coupled with the resdential make the Philly footprint feel larger.
on SF alone feeling larger, there is no way, you obviously have never explored all of Philly, there is no way as a city SF feels larger. On DTs yes similarities and one can argue either way or even SF larger in the DT, on city no way, you drive through the city in a heart beat it is only 7 x 7.
The areas around Philly don't feel very urban to me at all: Levitttown, Wyndmoor, Willow Grove, Willingboro - even Camden, to be honest. And there are even sections within city limits that feel straight-up country (ignore the title, its from an earlier search): Route 1 Lincoln-Mercury, U.S. 1, Avenel, NJ - Google Maps
Overall, Philly doesn't come close to the wall of continuous dense development (albeit, narrow) in the 50 miles between San Francisco and San Jose, and 50-60 miles between San Jose and and Richmond. Even Trenton to Wilmington has some serious deserted patches and almost-rural feeling areas.
I know what a CSA consists of einstein, my thing is that the poster was referring to the MSA not CSA, what's so hard to understand about this? Besides CSA's are sometimes misleading as in combining far away cities that have no connection to the metro area.
New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Fran
Philly
Boston
DC
Houston
Miami
Atlanta
Dallas
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.
