Using this list of metro areas, where do you draw the line for a "big city"? (subdivision, property taxes)

[jobber123rd]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

I think all the numbers look way dated.

As was stated previously, the population numbers posted are for urban areas, not MSAs or other related "metro total" counts.

Originally Posted by Diff1

Why is Va Beach listed when it should be Norfolk instead?

Maybe it's that despite Norfolk being the "urban core" of Hampton Roads, VB has a significantly higher population (as of 2012, only ~5.6% less than Norfolk and Chesapeake combined). VB passed Norfolk in the 1990 Census, but wasn't made the "first primary city" of the MSA (VB-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA) until 2010. (What made them come to that decision, besides population? Commuting patterns?)

I don't get why the other cities are dropped from the name of the "VB urban area", while other UAs have more than one city listed. I think it makes VB seem a lot larger than it really is. It appears that the VB UA includes Hampton and NN across the water, with a separate, new-for-2010 Williamsburg UA for that city and its surrounding population in James City and York Counties.

I'd say that while I agree that Hampton Roads is large (and if it were all one city, it would be a large city), none of its individual cities are large. Listing the UA with just VB seems inaccurate, as nobody from HR would consider Hampton and NN to be in the "Virginia Beach area."

[kidd_funkadelic]

I think it's a combination of gdp and metro population. I'm from the Cleveland area and I don't really consider Cleveland a "big city" anymore. I just think of America's primate cities as "big"

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Using urbanized populations (while still not perfect, I find this better than MSA or CSA rankings) how would you break this list of 400k plus metros down? I tend to call a lot of metro areas "big cities" when some people think only the top ten are big metros while others think that a metro of 200k is "big". So I was just curious to see what others thought.. Personally, I think I would draw the line with New Orleans being the last city I would consider a Big City even though some of those cities are considerably smaller than the ones near the top. They are still big cities in my mind.

New York, NY - 18,351,295
Los Angeles, CA - 12,150,996
Chicago, IL - 8,608,208
Miami, FL - 5,502,379
Philadelphia, PA - 5,441,567
Dallas--Fort Worth, TX - 5,121,892
Houston, TX - 4,944,332
Washington, DC - 4,586,770
Atlanta, GA - 4,515,419
Boston, MA - 4,181,019
Detroit, MI - 3,734,090
Phoenix, AZ - 3,629,114
San Francisco--Oakland, CA - 3,281,212
Seattle, WA - 3,059,393
San Diego, CA - 2,956,746
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN - 2,650,890
Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL - 2,441,770
Denver, CO - 2,374,203
Baltimore, MD - 2,203,663
St. Louis, MO - 2,150,706
Riverside San Bernardino, CA - 1,932,666
Las Vegas, NV - 1,886,011
Portland, OR - 1,849,898
Cleveland, OH - 1,780,673
San Antonio, TX - 1,758,210
Pittsburgh, PA - 1,733,853
Sacramento, CA - 1,723,634
San Jose, CA - 1,664,496
Cincinnati, OH - 1,624,827
Kansas City, MO - 1,519,417
Orlando, FL - 1,510,516
Indianapolis, IN - 1,487,483
Virginia Beach, VA - 1,439,666
Milwaukee, WI - 1,376,476
Columbus, OH - 1,368,035
Austin, TX - 1,362,416
Charlotte, NC - 1,249,442
Providence, RI - 1,190,956
Jacksonville, FL - 1,065,219
Memphis, TN - 1,060,061
Salt Lake City, UT - 1,021,243
Louisville, KY - 972,546
Nashville, TN - 969,587
Richmond, VA - 953,556
Buffalo, NY - 935,906
Hartford, CT - 924,859
Bridgeport--Stamford, CT - 923,311
New Orleans, LA - 899,703
^ BIG CITIES
Raleigh, NC - 884,891
Oklahoma City, OK - 861,505
Tucson, AZ - 843,168
El Paso, TX - 803,086
Urban Honolulu, HI - 802,459
Birmingham, AL - 749,495
Albuquerque, NM - 741,318
McAllen, TX - 728,825
Omaha, NE - 725,008
Dayton, OH - 724,091
Rochester, NY - 720,572
Allentown, PA - 664,651
Tulsa, OK - 655,479
Fresno, CA - 654,628
Sarasota--Bradenton, FL - 643,260
Springfield, MA - 621,300
Concord, CA - 615,968
Albany--Schenectady, NY - 594,962
Baton Rouge, LA - 594,309
Mission Viejo--Lake Forest--San Clemente, CA - 583,681
Grand Rapids, MI - 569,935
Akron, OH - 569,499
New Haven, CT- 562,839
Colorado Springs, CO - 559,409
Knoxville, TN - 558,696
Columbia, SC - 549,777
Charleston, SC - 548,404
Ogden--Layton, UT - 546,026
Cape Coral, FL - 530,290
Bakersfield, CA - 523,994
Toledo, OH - 507,643
Worcester, MA - 486,514
Provo--Orem, UT - 482,819
Wichita, KS - 472,870
Palm Bay--Melbourne, FL - 452,791
Des Moines, IA - 450,070
Harrisburg, PA - 444,474
Murrieta--Temecula--Menifee, CA - 441,546
Little Rock, AR - 431,388
Poughkeepsie--Newburgh, NY - 423,566
Syracuse, NY - 412,317
Lancaster, PA - 402,004
Madison, WI - 401,661
Greenville, SC - 400,492

These are 2010 urban area numbers, right? If so, it wouldn't surprise me if Raleigh's urban area (even without adjacent Durham like it's stated above) is now larger than New Orleans. Both areas are growing but Raleigh is growing more rapidly. If Raleigh and Durham weren't separated by the enormous research park that unites them and at the same time causes them to be considered two distinct urban areas, Its urban area would be right below Charlotte's.

[CravingMountains]

Metro population has to be greater than 2 million. I would get bored in a city with any less than that.

[Ghengis]

I've always considered that if I hit anything by shooting my guns down Main St, then it's probably a big city........YEEEEEE-HAH!!!! BLAM, BLAM, BLAM

[lammius]

Originally Posted by jobber123rd

As was stated previously, the population numbers posted are for urban areas, not MSAs or other related "metro total" counts.



Maybe it's that despite Norfolk being the "urban core" of Hampton Roads, VB has a significantly higher population (as of 2012, only ~5.6% less than Norfolk and Chesapeake combined). VB passed Norfolk in the 1990 Census, but wasn't made the "first primary city" of the MSA (VB-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA) until 2010. (What made them come to that decision, besides population? Commuting patterns?)

I don't get why the other cities are dropped from the name of the "VB urban area", while other UAs have more than one city listed. I think it makes VB seem a lot larger than it really is. It appears that the VB UA includes Hampton and NN across the water, with a separate, new-for-2010 Williamsburg UA for that city and its surrounding population in James City and York Counties.

I'd say that while I agree that Hampton Roads is large (and if it were all one city, it would be a large city), none of its individual cities are large. Listing the UA with just VB seems inaccurate, as nobody from HR would consider Hampton and NN to be in the "Virginia Beach area."

Yeah, the Hampton Roads area is so weird, because many of the cities formed from city-county mergers. Virginia Beach is the largest city in Virginia because it covers such a huge land area. The whole city is suburban or rural in character. Yet, according to the Census, it's the primary city, just because it covers enough subdivisions and corn fields to eclipse tiny Norfolk's population. Think if Fairfax County incorporated itself into a city the same way Virginia Beach did, we wouldn't have a Washington, DC metro area, we'd have a Fairfax, VA metro area. Or if the suburban parts of Fulton County incorporated into a city, we'd have a Fulton metro area instead of an Atlanta metro area. Washington and Atlanta would still be the urban cores of their areas, but their neighboring, more populous suburban cities would be the regions' namesakes. Weird, eh?

[mancat100]

If a city needs to have a case made for its bigness, then it's not big. It may be a fantastic place to live, but it's not a big city.

[kyle19125]

There seems to be confusion over the use of the term "big city" and "MSA" (Metropolitan Statistical Area). The OP's list is of MSAs and doesn't reflect actual city population size. A shining example is Orlando which gets credit for a population of 1.5 million people. The City of Orlando has a mere population of 240,000 and the extra 1.25 million or so is cobbled together from the 6000 square miles of suburban sprawl surrounding Orlando which by definition doesn't equate to "big city".

[kyle19125]

Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl

If Raleigh and Durham weren't separated by the enormous research park that unites them and at the same time causes them to be considered two distinct urban areas, Its urban area would be right below Charlotte's.

Most bizarre MSA situation ever. The two cities have areas where their city limits adjoin and residents live in one and commute to the other. How is that two distinct MSAs???

[kcmo]

I don't get the love for Raleigh being so "big". The place just not feel big city at all to me. Des Moines feels like a larger city than Raleigh does. I know the Raleigh area has a lot of people now, but it sure doesn't act or feel like its population stats. Just by visiting, I would peg the metro at 500-800k if I didn't know any better.

New Orleans on the other hand feels like a city of 2-3 million. So just the opposite. And why NO is smaller than Raleigh, I would consider it a big city long before Raleigh.