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.
I think when you think of big cities you have to keep in mind perspective. First I think we should start with the census definition of MSAs and conclude that all MSAs are cities. In that regard their are 367 cities in the United States. That is roughly 7 cities per state. I would say a sure shoe in would be any metro over 1 million and/or at least 200k in the city proper. I would say you could debate cities between 500k-1million. As far as metros like Phily, Atlanta, Detroit, etc. They are in another category above big city. Some states such as Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Dakotas, etc. may only have one metro and to say that they don't have a big city is to discredit the metros that have a significant impact on the state.
I think when you think of big cities you have to keep in mind perspective. First I think we should start with the census definition of MSAs and conclude that all MSAs are cities. In that regard their are 367 cities in the United States. That is roughly 7 cities per state. I would say a sure shoe in would be any metro over 1 million and/or at least 200k in the city proper. I would say you could debate cities between 500k-1million. As far as metros like Phily, Atlanta, Detroit, etc. They are in another category above big city. Some states such as Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Dakotas, etc. may only have one metro and to say that they don't have a big city is to discredit the metros that have a significant impact on the state.
I mostly agree. It's all about perspective and the definition of big city will vary from person to person. Saying that, I disagree where you say "Some states such as Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Dakotas, etc. may only have one metro and to say that they don't have a big city is to discredit the metros that have a significant impact on the state." If from my perspective a big city is 5,000,000+ then there is no way that I can put Cheyenne or Des Moines into that category. Doesn't mean that I don't recognize/respect the importance that they play to their respective states.
City population is irrelevant. Jacksonville, FL has a relatively large city population, but I don't consider it a "big city."
A big city to me is one with a metro over 2 million. Places like Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, etc. just don't feel like big cities.
I mostly agree. It's all about perspective and the definition of big city will vary from person to person. Saying that, I disagree where you say "Some states such as Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Dakotas, etc. may only have one metro and to say that they don't have a big city is to discredit the metros that have a significant impact on the state." If from my perspective a big city is 5,000,000+ then there is no way that I can put Cheyenne or Des Moines into that category. Doesn't mean that I don't recognize/respect the importance that they play to their respective states.
Here is what you have to keep in mind. Cities function primarily for geopolitical reasons. Theyy are economic generators and magnets for talent. The nation is broken down into states and then counties for the most part. States such as the one I mentioned are mostly rural. A big city in that state may not have as big as impact in California but it is extrmely huge in that state. As I've said, a city with 5 million plus is on a whole 'nother level. Cities like that are global and other such nomenclature. But I say a metro of at least 500k is worth considering a big city. I've read one report where the bulk of the worlds economic growth will come from metros 500k to less than 10million. I see what you're saying and we basically agree, I guess my definition of a "city" is more liberal than others because my definition of a city is based on function and Census definitions rather than sheer statistics.
The university that shocked me the most in Texas (well maybe there would be more but I just happen to learn about this one) is Texas Tech in Lubbock. I mean wow.
Look at this:
The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through 13 colleges and hosts 60 research centers and institutes. Texas Tech University has awarded over 200,000 degrees since 1927, including over 40,000 graduate and professional degrees. The Carnegie Foundation classifies Texas Tech as having "high research activity". Research projects in the areas of epidemiology, pulsed power, grid computing, nanophotonics, and wind energy are among the most prominent at the university.
I'm jealous. Now I know this is a little off topic but in a way its not as I feel that having a major university makes Lubbock a large city, not that I would want to live there, sorry if I offend anyone. Sure some people might say the Lubbock MSA is only 276,000 people but with this university I am sure it has a "big" city feel to it.
On to the universities you talk about. I do find it interesting that some cause major growth and others do not. That is something I would like to study more and find out why. I would guess that universities play a larger role now in a cities economic growth then it did back in the 1800's so maybe that is why cities want them where before they could take them or leave them. As far as Pueblo the founders blew it back in the 1890's as we could of had CU but then again universities were not the drving force for growth so I can't blame them as the state hospital was seen as a larger economic platform for growth. In 1926 we almost got one but lost out by one vote in Denver. It was not until the 1960's that we finally out maneuvered Denver, who had been fighting to keep Pueblo from getting a university, and not until just a few years ago it was renamed Colorado State University - Pueblo.
Full disclosure: I am a Tech grad and am de facto biased. That being said, Texas Tech is a wonderful university and is well on the path to the coveted Tier One status. As a West Texas native, I felt incredibly fortunate to have been able to attend such a great in-state school without having to move to a less-desirable (IMO) area of the state. Although I would consider a population of 280k plenty "big" in its own right, Lubbock seemed even bigger than that to me because of the nightlife/activities/cultural opportunities afforded by the presence of Texas Tech.
City population is irrelevant. Jacksonville, FL has a relatively large city population, but I don't consider it a "big city."
A big city to me is one with a metro over 2 million. Places like Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, etc. just don't feel like big cities.
Jacksonville looks like a big city to me.
I don't think anybody would confuse Jacksonvile for a quiet small town.
I'm going to give him/her a bit of the "benefit of the doubt" and guess he means it's a medium-city not that it's small. S/He also named Nashville and Memphis, but I don't think anyone deems them "small town." (Well someone might, I remember a poster asking us how people live in "Small towns like Virginia Beach.")
Full disclosure: I am a Tech grad and am de facto biased. That being said, Texas Tech is a wonderful university and is well on the path to the coveted Tier One status. As a West Texas native, I felt incredibly fortunate to have been able to attend such a great in-state school without having to move to a less-desirable (IMO) area of the state. Although I would consider a population of 280k plenty "big" in its own right, Lubbock seemed even bigger than that to me because of the nightlife/activities/cultural opportunities afforded by the presence of Texas Tech.
From my limited research I would agree with your statement and also I would bet that it makes Lubbock look like a big city. To be honest I would like for Pueblo to follow the Lubbock model.
I don't think anybody would confuse Jacksonvile for a quiet small town.
Have you been? - when Jax hosted the Super Bowl it was a disaster the city was far too small and ill-equiped to handle such a large event (not enough hotel rooms, transit, taxis, restaurants etc and to me not at all big city amentities by any stretch). Also you are just looking at the skyline, just beyond this area there are areas that are hardly developed, many strip malls and even subdivisions within a mile of the DT.
Is it a city, yes but by no means a big city, really not even close IMHO
Have you been? - when Jax hosted the Super Bowl it was a disaster the city was far too small and ill-equiped to handle such a large event (not enough hotel rooms, transit, taxis, restaurants etc and to me not at all big city amentities by any stretch). Also you are just looking at the skyline, just beyond this area there are areas that are hardly developed, many strip malls and even subdivisions within a mile of the DT.
Is it a city, yes but by no means a big city, really not even close IMHO
Just because Jacksonville could not handle a Superbowl does not mean anything. If that was your definition then Orlando would be a mega city because they could not only handle the Superbowl but both republican and Democratic national conventions at the same time and have rooms to spare. Maybe I am exaggerating but not by much. Jacksonville has all of the amenities found in large cities and that is what makes it feel like a large city.
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.
