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.
Could New York be a competitor as well? I mean it does have a lot of decent-sized cities outside of NYC. There's Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and Rochester. All of these cities are decent-sized.
This isn't a very scientific method, but California has seven cities with major pro sports teams bearing their names: Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim and San Diego. That has to say something for the size/significance of each.
Fresno is actually larger than both Sacramento and Oakland. However, none of them are really 'big' cities as they have populations of less than 500,000
Here are my states in descending order (as this is a good question):
1. California (LA, SF, Sacramento, San Jose, Long Beach, San Diego, Bakersfield)
2. Texas (Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Ft. Worth, Arlington, McAllen
3. Ohio (Cleveland, Columbus, Toldeo, Cincinatti, Jonestown, Achron)
4. Arizona (Phoenix, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tucson, Mesa)
5. North Carolina (Charlotte, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Asheville, others that I know are huge but cannot name)
5.
naples, FL has only a population of 21,000+. definitely not a major city. and it's not tampa bay, it's just tampa. tampa bay is the metro region.
portsmouth, OH is also only around 21,000. what about lima (40,000+ instead)? or even mansfield (50,000+, with a noticeable skyline too). just not portsmouth.
to answer the question though, i've always thought ohio as the #1, especially based on size ratio. but it's probably technically california or texas.
despite being small, and these cities being in the way of only 60,000-150,000 each, connecticut has a wide array of small cities. there's hartford, bridgeport, new haven, meriden, stamford, waterbury, norwalk, danbury, new london, etc.
A metro region to me is the modern definition of a city. I forgot its Tampa though, why on earth do they say "Tampa Bay Devil Rays, and Tampa Bay Lightning?" Why not just Tampa? May as well start doing San Francisco Bay now, and we could call Oakland "East Bay"
Fresno is actually larger than both Sacramento and Oakland. However, none of them are really 'big' cities as they have populations of less than 500,000
Fresno...I completely forgot about that. How big is Barstow? I would imagine it has to have some sizable population given that I-40 (which parallels Route 66 all the way from Oklahoma City to Barstow) terminates there at I-15, yet another major north-south transcontinental interstate.
Fresno is actually larger than both Sacramento and Oakland. However, none of them are really 'big' cities as they have populations of less than 500,000
I didn't mean to exclude it at all. I think Long Beach is also bigger than both, so it should also be included.
Here are my states in descending order (as this is a good question):
1. California (LA, SF, Sacramento, San Jose, Long Beach, San Diego, Bakersfield)
2. Texas (Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Ft. Worth, Arlington, McAllen
3. Ohio (Cleveland, Columbus, Toldeo, Cincinatti, Jonestown, Achron)
4. Arizona (Phoenix, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tucson, Mesa)
5. North Carolina (Charlotte, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Asheville, others that I know are huge but cannot name)
5.
When will this end??? City populations are useless
Fresno is not bigger than Sacramento. Long Beach is part of LA. Virginia Beach is part of Norfolk. Political boundaries mean absolutely nothing other than a tax base.
When will this end??? City populations are useless
Preach it brother!
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.