Smaller Cities with Urban Big City Bones (50,000 to 200,000) (metropolitan, people, skyscrapers)

[Jhenma]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

Tacoma, WA was destined to become a big major port city for the West Coast, but it lost out against Seattle. Now it's urban grid is consumed by suburban houses, with the exception of a pretty decent and relatively large downtown considering Tacoma's size.

Tacoma is a good one. It definitely has urban bones downtown and in the adjacent areas but it's not very vibrant and has the energy of a small town, not a big city.

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by Atticman

^ Victoria's metro is close to 350,000, though.

Saint John and Kingston both have quite a bit less than 200,000 in their metro areas.

350,000 in the metro isn't that big though. You can find US metros with 500,000 but the core cities probably aren't as lively and built up as Victoria's core.

[ManoftheNorth]

I've personally never been, but from google maps street view Dayton, Ohio looks a lot bigger than a city of 141,527.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Da...0e4ce4!6m1!1e1

That and Flint were the two cities I thought of when I saw this thread.

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by ManoftheNorth

I've personally never been, but from google maps street view Dayton, Ohio looks a lot bigger than a city of 141,527.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Da...0e4ce4!6m1!1e1

That and Flint were the two cities I thought of when I saw this thread.

Well they both have the bones of a city much larger.

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland

350,000 in the metro isn't that big though. You can find US metros with 500,000 but the core cities probably aren't as lively and built up as Victoria's core.

From my experience Canadian cities across the board have much larger and healthier cores than their American peer-sized cities. I also don't recall seeing freeways running directly through the core of Canadian cities. This with the style of planning in Canada is why I have always thought Canadian cities cores were so much better than the American ones - a lack of decentralization.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Desert_SW_77

Albany, NY (98K) and Troy, NY (49K). They both have blocks of tight rowhouse neighborhoods. Troy looks like a little Brooklyn on some of its blocks.

Schenectady also has some rowhouse/dense neighborhoods as well.

Pretty much any "Rust Belt" city within that population range would fit in terms of having the look and/or "bones" to support more people. Here's a lesser talked about Upstate NY city that comes to mind: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0996...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Another in Michigan that comes to mind as well: https://www.google.com/maps/place/La...029d9e!6m1!1e1

[qworldorder]

When I was stationed there, Biloxi always felt much larger than simply being a city of 44,000, due to all of the casinos on the coast (post-Katrina) and bridges. It makes sense, as that whole Gulfport-Biloxi region is part of a larger CSA of 400,000. Not necessarily a small city with good "urban bones", but a small city with a bigger city feel.

[qworldorder]

Montgomery, Alabama is another small city (200,000) that feels bigger. Unlike Biloxi, I think The Gump's "urban bones " are strong, as there are historic, dense neighborhoods, a revitalized riverfront and new apartment complexes going up. Throw in the modest skyscrapers downtown, the Capitol, two busy interstates that run through it, and a popular minor league stadium, and Montgomery definitely gives off a bigger vibe.

[Jack Lance]

Galveston Texas, once the largest city and financial capital of Texas that now only has about 45k in permanent residence, but still has that urban core it built in the late 19th and early 20th century. It has a Large deep water port, and cruise ship facilities. Add the fact that there are a constant stream of visitors from the mainland for the beach and cruise ship facilities and its proximity to Houston you would think you were in a much larger city

[Craziaskowboi]

Harrisburg, PA looks and feels much larger than it is.