Metros between .9-1.1mil that feel the biggest (state, largest, comparison)
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.
These metropolitain areas that either don't have an CSA or are the central MSA in their CSA (ex Bridgeport-Stamford excluded) and have a population between 900,000 and 1,100,000 (as of 2015) (roughly 1,000,000)
These are the factors that they will be judged on
-Vibrancy of the city center
-urbanity of secondary centers
-swath of population for which that city is "the city"-
-overall cultural amenities: (Theatre, museums, festivals)
-other (intangibles)
This may actually go to Honolulu due to being "the city" for the state, its population density is the highest on the list in terms of the city and the aspects in comparison. Otherwise, Omaha and Albuquerque are similar in regards to being "the city" for their states, but aren't as dense.
In terms of feeling the biggest/largest, Rochester is actually a close second to Honolulu due to being a close second in population density and was once a top 50 city in population while being the smallest city on the list in terms of land area(35.8 square miles). Rochester is actually the biggest metro on the list as well. So, you could say that Rochester feels the biggest due to having more people in its metro and its city density.
This may actually go to Honolulu due to being "the city" for the state, its population density is the highest on the list in terms of the city and the aspects in comparison. Otherwise, Omaha and Albuquerque are similar in regards to being "the city" for their states, but aren't as dense.
In terms of feeling the biggest/largest, Rochester is actually a close second to Honolulu due to being a close second in population density and was once a top 50 city in population while being the smallest city on the list in terms of land area(35.8 square miles). Rochester is actually the biggest metro on the list as well. So, you could say that Rochester feels the biggest due to having more people in its metro and its city density.
I think Honolulu would still win that argument. Honolulu has 802,000 people in a 170 sq mi urban area. That's an urban density of over 4700ppsm. Rochester at 720,000 people in 324sq mi is going to feel more spread out and give way to suburbia quicker. Honolulu being on Hawaii has different development patterns, and wouldn't have zoning too similar to the more Midwestern style grids of the other cities. To pack 4700ppsm in an urbanized area is going to give way to much more mid-high rise style housing developments. The other cities will have evidence of this, just not on the level of Honolulu.
I think Honolulu would still win that argument. Honolulu has 802,000 people in a 170 sq mi urban area. That's an urban density of over 4700ppsm. Rochester at 720,000 people in 324sq mi is going to feel more spread out and give way to suburbia quicker. Honolulu being on Hawaii has different development patterns, and wouldn't have zoning too similar to the more Midwestern style grids of the other cities. To pack 4700ppsm in an urbanized area is going to give way to much more mid-high rise style housing developments. The other cities will have evidence of this, just not on the level of Honolulu.
Yes, I mentioned earlier that Honolulu has the highest city population density above, while Rochester was second in that regard, but has more people on the metro level than any of the other metros(for now). So, even at the city proper level, Honolulu has a higher density than Rochester.
Albuquerque and Omaha have more people in terms of Urbanized Area than Rochester, at 2nd and 3rd out of the areas in the thread.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 06-10-2016 at 03:39 PM..
Omaha has a very good skyline in it's downtown for a metro of 900,000 people. It also has a 2nd skyline with insurance companies and the massive Nebraska Medical Center which is a mid-sized city skyline itself.
There is a huge amount of companies for a metro of it's size so there are several large office parks spread out throughout the entire area.
The freeway system is also large for a metro of it's size, which makes the size of Omaha look so big. It also has alot of new sprawl which makes it seem large in land area.
Omaha just feels like a complete city that has the amenities and feel of a city double it's size.
Honolulu by far. It feels packed (Traffic and tourist everywhere) and there are highrise buildings everywhere. It feels/looks bigger than many cities twice it's size imo.
After that, i'd say Omaha. It feel like it's at least a city of 1.5 Million people
Yes, I mentioned earlier that Honolulu has the highest city population density above, while Rochester was second in that regard, but has more people on the metro level than any of the other metros(for now). So, even at the city proper level, Honolulu has a higher density than Rochester.
Albuquerque and Omaha have more people in terms of Urbanized Area than Rochester, at 2nd and 3rd out of the areas in the thread.
Also something that is in Omaha's favor, is it is "the city" for miles around. So people go to Omaha for things. meanwhile, 30 miles west of Rochester, you would probably go to Buffalo for concerts, sports, etc. meanwhile the nearest city larger than Omaha is Kansas City, nearly 200 miles away.
That's where even Honolulu falls short, even though its "the city" for its state, I have a hard time seeing people from say Hilo ever going to Honolulu.
Until recently, Tulsa was the same way, now OKC and Tulsa are peers.
Last edited by btownboss4; 06-10-2016 at 04:38 PM..
Also something that is in Omaha's favor, is it is "the city" for miles around. So people go to Omaha for things. meanwhile, 30 miles west of Rochester, you would probably go to Buffalo for concerts, sports, etc.
That's where even Honolulu falls short, even though its "the city" for its state, I have a hard time seeing people from say Hilo ever going to Honolulu.
Until recently, Tulsa was the same way, now OKC and Tulsa are peers.
OKC has always been bigger than Tulsa. I believe that Wichita isn't too far from Tulsa and would probably be the other nearby option.
I agree that Rochester being within an hour or so of Buffalo and Syracuse hurts it in comparison to the other metros in regards to being "the city".
OKC has always been bigger than Tulsa. I believe that Wichita isn't too far from Tulsa and would probably be the other nearby option.
I agree that Rochester being within an hour or so of Buffalo and Syracuse hurts it in comparison to the other metros in regards to being "the city".
One thing about Rochester that those other cities don't have is the Landmarks, it seems like a large city. Its Central Library, The Eastman House, The Eastman Theatre, City Hall, are all these Grand Buildings. They are landmarks. I think those kinds of Public Buildings say a lot about how a city sees (or saw) themselves.
Rochester has more ornate grand structures, fitting for a large city than Omaha Honolulu, or Tulsa do. Of course this is because Rochester used to be larger than it is, but it certainly wears off onto perceptions today.
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.
