What cities in Texas would you consider to be a major cities? (Houston: how much, living in)

[blkgiraffe]

Your all wrong. A major city for Texas would pretty much be any city over 100k. Being internationally/nationally known isn't the only qualification for being a major city.

When the Mount Carmel incident happened about 20 minutes outside of Waco, they didn't refer to Waco as a small city or small town, it was considered a major city.

[EasilyAmused]

Waco is not a major city anyway you paint it. I'm sure it's a great place for you, but a major city it isn't. You get over a million in population, then we'll talk.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Your all wrong. A major city for Texas would pretty much be any city over 100k. Being internationally/nationally known isn't the only qualification for being a major city.

When the Mount Carmel incident happened about 20 minutes outside of Waco, they didn't refer to Waco as a small city or small town, it was considered a major city.

Nope. There two international cities in Texas, Houston and Dallas. San Antonio and Austin are the regional ones. Waco controls...its county I guess.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by Spade

You misunderstood what I'm saying. Even if you didn't add Fort Worth, the Dallas area is bigger than the San Antonio area. The true size of a city is the entire urban metropolitan area. Not some imaginary arbitrary political line.

So what are counties made up of?

[blkgiraffe]

It dosen't matter because we all have a different opinion of what a major city is (even though I'm right ).

Major cities in Texas go beyond the top 5, and anyone outside of TX will tell you that. No one says the only major cities in TX are Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and Fort Worth. They are the most important, but not the only major ones.

[theSUBlime]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Your all wrong. A major city for Texas would pretty much be any city over 100k. Being internationally/nationally known isn't the only qualification for being a major city.

When the Mount Carmel incident happened about 20 minutes outside of Waco, they didn't refer to Waco as a small city or small town, it was considered a major city.

I'm going to disagree big time. There are waaaay too many cities in Texas with a population of over 100k. I mean, there are regional major cities--for example Manchester, NH (pop. 108, 874) could probably be considered a major city in New England, but not nationally. (The smaller the state/region--the more "major" the city is considered.) In either case, the standard population for a Texas major cities should actually be much higher seeing as Texas is a HUGE state. Waco is not a major city by either standard, however.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by TXTwizter

Here you go.

http://www.texasalmanac.com/population/population-city-history.pdf (broken link)


Waco WAS larger than Dallas............from 1850 til mid 1870s, But Waco has NEVER been anywhere near the size of Houston. Even if Waco had annexed as much land as either Dallas or Houston, it still would not be as large as they are.

Thanks for a really cool link! Turns out Waco, SA, Austin, Galveston and even New Braunfels were larger than Dallas in the 1850's. Neat to see how Galveston once was the largest city in TX. Then SA was the largest. Dallas and Houston boomed and left everyone else in the dust from 1900-1920. Also interesting to see that now, a disproportionate number of the largest cities in TX (over 100, 200, or even 300K) are actually just suburbs of Dallas!

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

I'm going to disagree big time. There are waaaay too many cities in Texas with a population of over 100k. I mean, there are regional major cities--for example Manchester, NH (pop. 108, 874) could probably be considered a major city in New England, but not nationally. (The smaller the state/region--the more "major" the city is considered.) In either case, the standard population for a Texas major cities should actually be much higher seeing as Texas is a HUGE state. Waco is not a major city by either standard, however.

Nope, the majority of the cities in TX over 100k (excluding suburbs) each offer something different and unique feel. To say that only the top 5 are the only major cities is wrong. Tx offers more than just those cities.

Ranging from Killeen, to Lubbock, to Waco.

To exclude cities like Galveston, South Padre, El Paso,. for being considered Major cities is just insane.

In California, cities like SF, SD and LA aren't the only cities considered to be major cities, it goes much more beyond that,

[j96g]

Answer me this? Just look at what city-data did for Texas forum. IMHO, I feel Fort Worth should have been paired up with Dallas, because really how far apart are they in miles? And put Rio Grande Valley as a separate forum. But they divied it up as Austin, Corpus, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio. Why? I think they saw them as major cities.

[TXTwizter]

Originally Posted by j96g

Answer me this? Just look at what city-data did for Texas forum. IMHO, I feel Fort Worth should have been paired up with Dallas, because really how far apart are they in miles? And put Rio Grande Valley as a separate forum. But they divied it up as Austin, Corpus, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio. Why? I think they saw them as major cities.

Exactly!!! You pretty much summed it up all right there.

Rep +1 to you!!!