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.
1- its downtown- which is very dence and cluttered, but beautiful
2- its population- yes in town it's 300g, but the metro is what counts to me
3- its culture- and pittsburgh has the steel mill, rough neighborhood, city atmosphere
4- and finaly- its sports teams- which I say- go steelers- and eat s*** Pitt- go WVU
In the world Pittsburgh seems to be the 183 biggest metropolitan area. That might sound low on a list, but it apparently puts it above Copenhagen or Vancouver, BC.
I'd generally say that if a city's metropolitan area is over two million it's a big city. (Maybe not if it's in Brazil, China, or India) For me personally a metro-area over 500,000 probably feels like a big city.
Remember, this is just about the city. Metro is kinda cheating cause burbs are independent of center cities.
Most suburbs are only independent in a political sense; most are dependent on the metro area in general and the city core in particular for their economic survival.
I don't think population within the city proper boundaries are a useful metric; the broader metro area also helps shape a city's vibe. Would you call London a "small city" because London City has a population of 8,000 without putting in context its place in Greater London and its 7 million inhabitants?
Just for comparison's sake, Pittsburgh feels more like a "big city" to me than Columbus does, even though Columbus has well over twice the population. Despite the smaller population of the city proper, Pittsburgh has a more urban form than Columbus, and the "urban" feel of Pittsburgh spills into the suburbs more so than vice-versa whereas the "suburban" form around Columbus spills into the city proper.
Remember, this is just about the city. Metro is kinda cheating cause burbs are independent of center cities.
Pennsylvania has land use laws that make very, very difficult for municipalities to annex land or combine, mainly because every square inch of the state is in an incorporated municipality. That skews Pittsburgh's actual size down relative to many other U.S. cities. IMO, the metro area size (or even more specifically, the urbanized area population) is a more accurate indicator of how big a city really is rather than the actual central city population.
I personally feel there are very few "big cities" in the United States; cities that have metro areas that are around 2 million are more like medium-sized big cities (yes I know, that's a contradiction of sorts), rather than true big cities. I don't think of Pittsburgh or other similar-sized cities as big cities, but they definitely aren't small cities either.
Heck yeah Pittsburgh is a big city. What a strange question.
You wouldn't think it strange if you read the Pittsburgh forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72
Pennsylvania has land use laws that make very, very difficult for municipalities to annex land or combine, mainly because every square inch of the state is in an incorporated municipality. That skews Pittsburgh's actual size down relative to many other U.S. cities. IMO, the metro area size (or even more specifically, the urbanized area population) is a more accurate indicator of how big a city really is rather than the actual central city population.
I personally feel there are very few "big cities" in the United States; cities that have metro areas that are around 2 million are more like medium-sized big cities (yes I know, that's a contradiction of sorts), rather than true big cities. I don't think of Pittsburgh or other similar-sized cities as big cities, but they definitely aren't small cities either.
Pittsburgh is not the only city so affected, although to read the local press you might think so. There is a provison in the Colorado constitution, approved by the voters, that makes it almost impossible for Denver to annex land. Point being, many cities are dealing with this issue.
Lately, there have been a plethora of posts on the Pittsburgh forum about how Pittsburgh is really doing well for being almost a "small town". For ex. Pittsburgh was recently ranked #3 in the arts for cities of its size. The thing is, Pittsburgh now has a population of about 300,000 people, but at one time, its population was nearly 700,000! It still has a metro area of about 2.1 million, right behind Denver in metro size. So yeah, for a city of 300,000 people, Pittsburgh has a lot of arts facilities. For a metro of 2.1 million, maybe still a pretty high ranking (it really does have a lot of stuff), but probably not #3.
It sometimes seems to me that Pittsburgh wants to have it both ways: be a "big city" with major-league sports, national/international recognition (the G-20 will be meeting there later this month), and a "small city" with a huge arts scene, way better than most cities of similar size; fabulous edcuation facilities when compared to other cities its size, etc. What does everyone on CD think?
Whether it's big or not, it sure is on the top of my lists of great cities. I love the architecture and topography of Pittsburgh. I'd move there in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose. It's simply a great 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.
