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.
In general, you can not compare city to city anymore. Many cities on the eastern half of the US have definitive city limits and can not expand those as peer cities in the west often do through annexation. Furthermore, some cities have merged with counties and now report as one jurisdiction. Any comparison you want to make must be apples to apples.
Anyway, I voted for Wilmington because the city is very dense, has a compact yet decent vertical skyline. It punches way above its weight for a city of ~70K.
That's understandable. Looking at the just the city population, Columbia doesn't really seem much bigger than it is compared to similarly-sized municipalities like Dayton, Bellevue, the CT cities (New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford), Syracuse, etc. Looking at it from a metro perspective, it looks and feels the size it actually is, more or less.
I would go with Honolulu - it has the skyline and density of a much bigger city.
Richmond would get my vote for cities on the list.
I am curious about the votes for Salt Lake - it very much looks the size of the greater metro population of 2.5 million that it covers. The city proper is small, but the Wasatch front that it commands is very large for the Intermountain west.
Boston is not that large city, either population-wise or geographically, but the surrounding metro area has quite a few people, making it a large TV market, and an area that punches well above its weight ( many on CD have ranked it within the top 7 metro areas in the US, in terms of output, capabilities, socioeconomic influence, etc).....
Maybe not, but if I had to put a "feel" on Wilmington, it feels the size of its MD, or maybe somewhere between Durham/Harrisburg and Little Rock/Greensboro. I'm with every one else, it doesn't feel like a small town of 70,000, but it doesn't feel like a big city, either....
Richmond stands officially at 1.3 million but I think it could go for 1.5 easily...
Boston is not that large city, either population-wise or geographically, but the surrounding metro area has quite a few people, making it a large TV market, and an area that punches well above its weight ( many on CD have ranked it within the top 7 metro areas in the US, in terms of output, capabilities, socioeconomic influence, etc).....
anyone else having trouble wikipedia-ing boston today (nfsw) ?
but yeah. most people would assume that boston is 100's of square miles big but its only about 38 sq. mi. which would put it at less than half the size of probably all the cities in this list.
anyone else having trouble wikipedia-ing boston today (nfsw) ?
but yeah. most people would assume that boston is 100's of square miles big but its only about 38 sq. mi. which would put it at less than half the size of probably all the cities in this list.
Actually, the first 6 cities on the list have a smaller land area.
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.
