<p>I’m beginning to think that spending the past two-ish years in a state where our city’s population of around 65,000 qualifies us as the second biggest city in the state (the largest is around 100,000, and I’ve might a fair number of people from towns with double digit or low triple digit populations). We lived for several years in a near-suburb of a huge city with a population, in the city proper, of about 2.1 million and a metro-area population of 5.5 million, and then moved back to city with a little less than 180,000 in the city proper (metro area of about 1 million). My parents have always considered the later, 180,000 population city to be medium-sized, but coming back home from my “large” 65,00 population city, 180,000 seems absolutely HUGE. Heck, even the 65,00 person city is starting to feel quite big! Yet, I’ve seen other people refer to cities with populations of 200,000+, proper, as “small cities”–to me a small city might be about 20,000.</p>
<p>What do you define as a “big” or “small” city?</p>
<p>I define New York as a “big city.” I’d also say something like LA, San Francisco, Boston, DC and Seattle. Big city for me is millions upon millions of people. </p>
<p>tobia; I live in a city of around 60,000 and it IS THE LARGEST city in the state. Our state has the lowest population in all 50 states.</p>
<p>Having said that, I was born in and around New York City. Definitely large. Same with Amsterdam, Madrid, and Guayaquil Ecuador. All in the millions. However, here in the states, I consider anything over 500,000 to be called BIG. That has included Austin, Albuquerque and Colorado Springs. I live very close to Fort Collins, Colorado with a population of about 120,000. I don’t consider that a BIG city. </p>
<p>Of course, If I consider 500,000 to be big, then what would I call New York, LA, etc… Those cities I call “Metropolitan” areas. That’s pretty much a large city with a lot of adjoining areas of influence. A great example is New York. It is made up of 5 boroughs: The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island. LA is similar. So is San Diego. These areas will usually be in the mega-millions. There are some that are smaller that are starting to rise to such consideration as a Metropolitan area. Denver Colorado is a prime example. I wouldn’t call it a Metro yet, but it’s close. It is made up of Denver, Aurora, Westminster, Thornton, Brighton, and some other areas. It’s now about 2.4 million. </p>
<p>Anyway; a lot of opinions on what a big city is. If you come from Buford Wyoming; which is the HIGHEST town on interstate I-80 from coast to coast; with a legitimate population of 1. YES (ONE). (Actually, I think the man got married, so it might be 2 now.) Then even a town/city of 50,000 would seem like a very large city.</p>
<p>I’ve spent a fair amount of time in or near big cities. (NY, LA, Boston, Paris, London, Munich) There’s a big difference between a city with over a million and one with less than 100,000. The suburbs of NY include several smaller cities - for example Yonkers with about 200,000 and New Rochelle with about 70,000. Around here 20,000 is called a village. :)</p>
<p>I’ve only lived in big cities. They were 2-5 million in size. Places under 1 mil, like say Indianapolis or Portland, do not feel like big cities to me. That isn’t a negative though.</p>
<p>It is such an interesting question because until I read your post, I had no idea how people differed on their views about what defines a big city.</p>
<p>To me big city is defined by an expansive state of mind. Do the people who live in any given city or town realize that there is a whole other world outside of their limited universe. How outward looking are they? How inclusive are they? Are they kind to visitors and interested in their viewpoints? Gee, are they kind to their neighbors? Reading local newspapers can be an eye-opener no matter how large the city. So to me, it doesn’t have to do with numbers.</p>
<p>Well, Maine’s largest city (Portland) isn’t even 100,000. It’s around 65,000. But it “lives” like a big city in some good ways (restaurant scene, sophistication, cultural offerings) and lacks some of the bad (traffic jams, high crime…).</p>
<p>That said, I think a big city is NY (multi-millions). I used to think of San Francisco, Boston, Washington, DC as big cities… and they are big enough for me, but they are each well under 1 million in the city proper.</p>
<p>Now, I have a home near Tijuana - 2.5 million people, poor infrastructure, limited public transportation - that is a BIG city in terms of congestion.</p>
<p>Some cities are big cities (LA, for example) but are so sprawling that they don’t feel like cities to me.</p>
<p>I think if you just want to know where different people make the population “cut-off”, that is a somewhat interesting question. But, if you want to know when a city is large enough to have a lot to offer… that can be defined by aspects other than population size; as in my above example of Portland, Maine.</p>
<p>ETA: I see that overseas and I have a similar thought re what makes a “city.”</p>
<p>Well, Wyoming is the LEAST populated state of all 50. Population of about 527,000 people. The largest city is Cheyenne, with a population of about 55,000.</p>
<p>To some extent, resident population is only a rough guide. Places like Los Angeles, New York, Houston, and Philadelphia grew by incorporating surrounding communities. Places like San Francisco, Boston, Washington D.C. didn’t/couldn’t. If you put the Los Angeles footprint down on San Francisco or Washington, they are quite large.</p>
<p>The issue for me is what kind of commercial and cultural life the population network supports. </p>
<p>I’ve spent meaningful time living in a near-midwestern city (mid-six-figure city population, 1M+ SMSA), an East Coast city with a population of about 100,000, Washington, Silicon Valley, NYC, Philadelphia, Barcelona. There is a category difference between NYC and everything else (although I haven’t spent enough time in LA or Chicago to know if they feel like NYC). San Francisco feels like a plenty big city, even though the city itself is relatively small. Barcelona is similar to that; so, in its own way, is Washington. Philadelphia and Toronto are almost exactly the same size, both the cities themselves and their surrounding areas. But Toronto feels a lot bigger than Philadelphia: it’s the commercial and cultural capital of its country, while Philadelphia is a 90-minute drive from the commercial and cultural capital of its country, and that makes a huge difference.</p>
<p>Smaller cities are a different thing altogether. Still cities, certainly, but a very different feel.</p>
<p>A bunch of states probable could fit this profile …</p>
<ul>
<li>That fits New Hampshire dead on … Manchester is the biggest city and near that population.<br></li>
<li>Burlington is the biggest city in Vermont and is in the 60k-70k range.<br></li>
<li>Someone already mentioned Maine as being in a similar situation.<br></li>
<li>Rhode Island might be but I’d guess Providence is a lot bigger than 100k</li>
<li>I do not know the Western States very well but the smaller states North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, etc might also fit the bill.</li>
</ul>
<p>The US has an amazing mix of types of places to live.</p>
<p>I agree with this. Boston has “only” 600,000 people, but I would certainly think of it as a “big” city. Louisville, since it merged with the county, has around the same number of people, but I think of it as a much smaller city.</p>
<p>The NFL thing is not a bad proxy, but I’m not certain Baltimore, Cincinnatti, or Jacksonville play bigger than Austin, Albuquerque, or Salt Lake City. And then there’s the special case of New Orleans, a city that always had more the illusion of size than actual size, and now . . . .</p>
<p>“Big cityness” to me is more a matter of density than just size. Most of the the US cities that I consider big are in the northeast and upper midwest, usually because they are densest. lots of people living, working, and playing in close proximity is the epitome of big city living. you find it easily in many (but not all) parts of new york, chicago, boston, baltimore, d.c., but not in dallas, atlanta, or l.a. for example. possible exceptions: san francisco and miami, (i’ve been several times to the former, never to the latter). </p>
<p>The corollary to this is that big cities usually must have mass transit. its the only way to achieve that density without suffering death by car. the automobile culture is why sunbelt cities, despite their million-plus populations, just don’t have the big city ‘feel’ that older cities do. (another possible exception; pre-Katrina New Orleans)</p>
<p>you have density and the rest follows–the restaurants, the arts, the sophisticated shopping, etc etc.</p>
<p>And to JHS-- Chicago feels much like New York. LA does not. I think of Chicago as the great American city in the U.S. and New York as the great world city in the U.S. Personally, I try not to think of L.A. at all!</p>
<p>Here in Jacksonville people talk about the “city” but there are cowfields right next to my kids’ school! Geographically I"ve been told that its bigger than the five boroughs of Manhattan, Dallas or LA. In my mind, the biggest city will always be “Bright lights, Big City” New York!!</p>
<p>In my mind, the biggest city will always be “Bright lights, Big City” New York!!</p>
<p>Just a word about that: most New Yorkers don’t identify themselves with New York City, I’ve found. Its just too damn big to mean much of anything so most of us identify by neighborhoods. Ask “Where you from?” and the answer is more likely to be The East Side, Jackson Heights, Riverdale, Park Slope or whatever. Its how we make the city manageable. Break it down into pieces. I’ve known many New Yorker who live in their neighborhoods and go to Manhattan only to work and perhaps, rarely, for a sporting event or some other form of entertainment. Still, outside of here, say New York and the Bright Lights Big City thing pops up in a lot of people’s heads. They think we’re all living glamorous lives in The Village or on Park Avenue. Well, some of us are. But most of us do the same stuff everybody else in the U.S. does–just faster!!</p>
<p>Paris and Barcelona – both of which I think have to count as big cities – are significantly smaller than San Francisco. Barcelona is about 32 square miles, give or take, and Paris about 37 square miles.</p>
<p>As with San Francisco, in both of them you can walk pretty much anywhere you want to go from anywhere else. Unlike San Francisco, when you do that you don’t necessarily get a cardio workout.</p>