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.
There is one city in particular where the arrogance and brass transcends the City Data forums into real life and the media. It's actually a great city, but gives itself too much and others too little. That's as specific as I care to get.
My take on it: When people have to justify WHY a city should be considered big, as in the above post, then the city is not really all that big. The TRULY big cities will automatically be apparent --without anyone needing to point them out and say "this city is big because....".
In this case, it's not really about the city being "big" per se, but bigger than what many give it credit for or than generally perceived. There's a difference--hence the very specific title of this thread.
There is one city in particular where the arrogance and brass transcends the City Data forums into real life and the media. It's actually a great city, but gives itself too much and others too little. That's as specific as I care to get.
any city that is on those dumb "forbes" great place to live lists the last 10 years and is hip with young people is going to be super over hyped and I think people who are used to a real functioning city, whether it is Houston, San Diego or Chicago are going to be disappointed.
These 2 m range metro's think they are equivalent to big time 5 million plus cities.
San Diego is just the opposite, it's a much smaller city that it really is. Huge population, #2 in CA, but compact downtown and doesn't have much known about it or to boast about other than the zoo and beaches.
It is more than that, great urban core neighborhoods, but admittedly can't compare with the big metro guys, even those much smaller in population.
San Diego is just the opposite, it's a much smaller city that it really is. Huge population, #2 in CA, but compact downtown and doesn't have much known about it or to boast about other than the zoo and beaches.
It is more than that, great urban core neighborhoods, but admittedly can't compare with the big metro guys, even those much smaller in population.
I agree. I like humble cities that remain somewhat low key.
any city that is on those dumb "forbes" great place to live lists the last 10 years and is hip with young people is going to be super over hyped and I think people who are used to a real functioning city, whether it is Houston, San Diego or Chicago are going to be disappointed.
These 2 m range metro's think they are equivalent to big time 5 million plus cities.
I lived in Houston once and my opinion is that it's not a real city. Rather I see it as a huge un-planned, un-zoned, endless mess of suburbia.
I lived in Houston once and my opinion is that it's not a real city. Rather I see it as a huge un-planned, un-zoned, endless mess of suburbia.
Hilarious what a "real" city is by your standards.
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.
