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.
Yeah, its amazing Denver has 2.9 million people in its CSA and Pittsburgh area is about 2.5 million people. But yet, in many ways amenity wise Pittsburgh especially on urbanity has so much more to offer even though I love Denver.
But yet Pittsburgh just seems to have alot more to offer. The light rail systems to be similar, but as far as the diversity of neighborhoods, the history, just from walking around Oakland and seeing the educational institutions and the massive hospital (Is it UPMC-Presby?) its huge. Pittsburgh is hard to beat in many, many categories for sure.
Pittsburgh just seems to be a much more significant city overall then Denver despite Denver being slightly larger although I would prefer Denver because those are my stomping grounds, But Pittsburgh really has amazing, amazing amenities for a metropolitan area of just over 2 million and especially with-in the city proper which is just over 300,000 people.
Yeah, its amazing Denver has 2.9 million people in its CSA and Pittsburgh area is about 2.5 million people. But yet, in many ways amenity wise Pittsburgh especially on urbanity has so much more to offer even though I love Denver.
But yet Pittsburgh just seems to have alot more to offer. The light rail systems to be similar, but as far as the diversity of neighborhoods, the history, just from walking around Oakland and seeing the educational institutions and the massive hospital (Is it UPMC-Presby?) its huge. Pittsburgh is hard to beat in many, many categories for sure.
Pittsburgh just seems to be a much more significant city overall then Denver despite Denver being slightly larger although I would prefer Denver because those are my stomping grounds, But Pittsburgh really has amazing, amazing amenities for a metropolitan area of just over 2 million and especially with-in the city proper which is just over 300,000 people.
Well, in 1970, the year I graduated from Pitt, Pittsburgh had 2.7 million people and Denver had 1.1 mil. That is the difference. Pittsburgh had built up an infrastructure long ago when it really was a big city. Denver is still working on it. Yes, UPMC is the old Presbyterian Hospital, among others. Health care is big there. Very big. So is education.
Pittsburgh metro is just over 2 million. Plus, since the city used to be about 3X larger than it now is, it has cultural facilities that much larger cities have: great museums, etc.
I believe he was talking just about the city itself, or at least thats what he wrote, he didnt mention metro.
I would definately live in a smaller (less than 2 million ) metro! Rochester NY is about 1.1 million or so and offers much more to do than a number of larger metros like Tampa, Atlanta or Phoenix. I live in Houston now which is definately large and like it here alot, but if the cards play right I want to go back to Rochester after college.
It depends on what that area would have to offer. Having lived in Chicago for all of my life, just anywhere else is (except for NYC and LA) going to seem small population wise. The cities that seems to come the closest to offering much of what I value(good mass transit, good network of museums, decent restaurants, abundant bookstores and etc.) are San Francisco(1.7M) and Milwaukee(1.5M). I obtained census information from the latest edition of The Places Rated Almanac.
Like others, my definition of a small metro is a bit different as I would classify small metros as being those that have under one million residents. While there are a handful of exceptions (Madison comes to mind), I would say that as a whole, no I would not live in a small metro area. From the 1-2 million range, there's more options of places that I'm interested in, but I'm mostly interested in the nation's larger cities and metro areas, places like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Those are the places that offer the most for me personally and where I feel the most at ease. I don't give much thought to settling in places like Birmingham, Greenville, Omaha, Toledo, etc.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,279,697 times
Reputation: 992
I like small metros better. The bigger ones do have their amenities, but it seems like for day to day life there is not much difference. Mostly, people eat at the same restaurants, watch the same movies and t.v., shop at the same stores, and just generally do the same type of stuff, the only difference is that in a larger metro you have to put up with more traffic and longer waits. Bigger metros do have spectacular skylines though.
I for one would NEVER want to live in a small metro. I also know many others that feel the same way, they just couldn't thrive in a small city. Anybody else feel this way?
That's why there are cities of all sizes...take your pick!
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.
...take your pick!
