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.
Louisville, with 614,000 residents, is the largest city in this group
See this is a pet peeve of mine. There needs to be a sticky explaining metro governments and their effect on city populations. Otherwise you get people arguing that Nashville is larger than Atlanta!
I don't see Louisville as the largest of these cities just because it has a metro government. I'd give that honor to Pittsburgh or Kansas city, with Honolulu and New Orleans being in contention.
Greenville is an interesting example. City population is 67K but no way is it 1/10 the size of Louisville. But what is interesting is 30 yrs ago downtown Greenville was 1/10 the size of Louisville. It's interesting to drive down main street and see that all but two of the historic storefronts are only two stories. It seems there are 2-3 times more structures downtown than there were 40 yrs ago and these are mostly mid-rise buildings.
I'll put Greenville around the upper limit of a small city as it maintains the small city feel. And this is a good thing.
Lancaster, PA is an excellent example of a great small city.
See this is a pet peeve of mine. There needs to be a sticky explaining metro governments and their effect on city populations. Otherwise you get people arguing that Nashville is larger than Atlanta!
As the resident of a city that got a "metropolitan government" in 1854, I'm not so sure I'd insist on making the distinction.
And don't forget cities like Albuquerque - and Kansas City - that annexed a bunch of undeveloped land when they could and reaped the benefits of capturing their own suburban expansion. The principal difference between these two cities and Louisville, Indianapolis and Jacksonville is that the former annexed their suburbs before they became suburbs while the latter did so after the fact.
David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, wrote a pretty convincing argument for this approach to handling metropolitan growth about 10-15 years ago; the book was called "Cities Without Suburbs." Perhaps you've heard of it?
No I haven't. I tend to focus on the size/feel of cities. How big/tall/bulky is downtown, how far do the subdivisions extend. Urban area seems like the best metric for this, though even that is not perfect.
As the resident of a city that got a "metropolitan government" in 1854, I'm not so sure I'd insist on making the distinction.
And don't forget cities like Albuquerque - and Kansas City - that annexed a bunch of undeveloped land when they could and reaped the benefits of capturing their own suburban expansion. The principal difference between these two cities and Louisville, Indianapolis and Jacksonville is that the former annexed their suburbs before they became suburbs while the latter did so after the fact.
David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, wrote a pretty convincing argument for this approach to handling metropolitan growth about 10-15 years ago; the book was called "Cities Without Suburbs." Perhaps you've heard of it?
Louisville's population does NOT include the whole county. Louisville/Jefferson County will be very close to 800,000 soon, in a very small land area. If you've never been all around Louisville, you'd never know it looks and feels like the bones of at least a mid major city, not a small city like Greeneville, etc.
Greeneville's urban environment literally feels like one linear strip. What people don't realize is Louisville has MULTIPLE urban and walkable urban districts, some dating to the 1850s when the Falls Cities of Louisville and S. Indiana were among the top 12 legitimate largest metro areas in the USA.
Louisville's population does NOT include the whole county. Louisville/Jefferson County will be very close to 800,000 soon, in a very small land area. If you've never been all around Louisville, you'd never know it looks and feels like the bones of at least a mid major city, not a small city like Greeneville, etc.
Greeneville's urban environment literally feels like one linear strip. What people don't realize is Louisville has MULTIPLE urban and walkable urban districts, some dating to the 1850s when the Falls Cities of Louisville and S. Indiana were among the top 12 legitimate largest metro areas in the USA.
I'm a native Kansas Citian and an adopted Philadelphian.
I've never been to Louisville, but I've always classed it with cities like Kansas City, Cincinnati and Memphis in size.
I do know that both KC and Louisville take pride in a network of parkways (Louisville) / boulevards (Kansas City) that lace the cities in green.
The editors of NatGeo Travel grouped the cities they surveyed into three classes based on population: under 100k, 100-200k and 200-600k. Louisville, Kansas City and Pittsburgh all fall into the last category.
Cool to finally see Pensacola start getting recognition for the strides it’s made. I moved there in the mid-2000s and used to lament its huge potential: beautiful beaches nearby, interesting and long history, downtown situated on a beautiful deep water bay that was neither developed much (at the time) as a port or residential/commercial area, and nice architectural bones on the Main Street that feel like a dead mini-NOLA.
Now it’s finally reaching toward its potential with tons of development downtown, especially for a metro its size (~400k), and generally a more optimistic vibe. The beaches are beautiful as always but Palafox Street and downtown have really turned a corner.
"Best" in what way? best educated? best economically? best to retire in? best climate for a small city?
on most lists, I would submit the following: Asheville, Naples, Iowa City, LaJolla, Sarasota, Shaker Heights, Oakbrook, Amherst, Fayetteville AR, Winter Park and a few others
I'm a native Kansas Citian and an adopted Philadelphian.
I've never been to Louisville, but I've always classed it with cities like Kansas City, Cincinnati and Memphis in size.
I do know that both KC and Louisville take pride in a network of parkways (Louisville) / boulevards (Kansas City) that lace the cities in green.
The editors of NatGeo Travel grouped the cities they surveyed into three classes based on population: under 100k, 100-200k and 200-600k. Louisville, Kansas City and Pittsburgh all fall into the last category.
Yeah I agree. They are all similar but KC and Cincinnati have more suburbs, and thus bigger metros.
People coming to KC expecting a cow town will met with art, culture, and sophistication. I'd like to see better transit, though. I feel like KC could support a rail system.
I'm not sure that I'd include any city where the urbanized area is over 150,000. I mean, seriously? They are comparing some very small cities to some quite large legacy cities.
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.
