Nine of those cities are part of the NYC MSA and one of them is part of the LA MSA. So I don’t know if that really undermines my point per se, because they’re part of what are considered world class cities.
Seattle has a population of 725k, about the same as Nashville at 691k. But Seattle is more considered a large, world class city than Nashville.
A big part of what makes a city a “major” city is that it has a history of being a major city. Kansas City now has almost 200,000 more people than St. Louis, but St. Louis was “major” before KC was even founded. Heck, Henderson, Nevada has more people than St. Louis, but do even Nevadans consider Henderson to be “major”?
I see by the Wikipedia list that Fresno has more people than Sacramento and Omaha has more than Minneapolis. Clearly, population is only one indicator of majorness.
This is exactly what I was thinking. When I was growing up I had memorized which cities and MLB, NBA, and NFL teams by second grade. I don’t recall that I ever had to study the actual population of American cities. So Pittsburg, St. Louis, and Cincinatti were major cities because they had teams. El Paso, Tucson, and Louisville were minor because they did not.
(And I would never have guessed that Columbus, OH is more than twice as large as Cleveland.)
I call it “the media effect”.
Most people have heard of Harvard, MIT, UCLA, Oxford or Cambridge; ask someone who’s not French to name two French universities and they’ll get stuck at “Sorbonne”. Few people have heard of King’s College, the University of Edinburgh, the Institut Polytechnique de Lyon, or know that the reason the Bologna protocols were signed there is that the University of Bologna is the longest-running one in the world.
How often does any of those get mentioned in the media?
Now apply the same analysis to names of US cities. So, yeah, having a famous university named like your city, or having a popular sports team will put you on the map. Even being used in movies as shorthand for BFE will put you on the map.
LA gets a lot of flack for sprawl, but the geographical constraints mean that its sprawl has to be pretty dense compared to a flat interior city.
San Jose is the king of this. It has no clear identity beyond the general Silicon Valley stereotypes. I spent most of my life not too far away, and I think I’ve only visited 2 or 3 times. All those times were enjoyable, it’s not a bad town, just much larger than it’s reputation.
Many good observations so far, vis-a-vis “cities”.
But I have come to notice a similar dynamic about towns: which is that when going through a town in the rural or rural-ish parts of the US, that the towns/hamlets seem “bigger” compared to their actual populations than similar sized towns ( based on casual appearances ) in suburban/exurban towns. Put another way, and what strikes me most, is I’m surprised of how small a rural town’s population actually is. By appearance it could be a town of 7, 8, 9, 10 thousand people as it would be in the suburbs and exurbs, but a similar appearing town in the rural area might be barely 2000 people.
American cities don’t usually annex their suburbs. European and Asian cities often do. WHich leads to the examples we have of Boston and St Louis, two small cities. with big ass Metro areas.
Yes–after all, there’s a mountain range in the middle of the city, which is mostly uninhabited. If you took away that mountain range, along with the San Fernando Valley–which arguably is a city on its own–the density would most likely increase a lot.
Weird almost simulpost from this thread in a different forum :D:
Like good ole Dee-troit. It has such a giant sprawl of land mass with nothing in it. Its kinda creepy in certain areas. No services no people no life just sprawling silence. And then all of a sudden you’ll come up to a lone house with people living in it. I think Detroit is in the top 10 cities nationwide in geographical size. With a paltry 600,000 population. It isnt even the most populous city in MI any longer.
City limits are relevant if you live there and as it relates to local government and services.
City limit populations are worse than worthless because they are deceiving. Don’t use them for anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
The highest one that is surprising because you don’t think of it as a city is “Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA” I know that it is lumped into LA in the Combined Statistical Areas, so a lot of people consider it part of LA.
Or DFW, which is the fourth largest metro area at 7.5 million people, but Dallas and Fort Worth themselves are 1.3 million and 829,000 people respectively. The DFW metroplex is 11 counties with 14 cities greater than 100,000 each.
Contrast that with Houston and its metro area, which is roughly 7 million, but 2.2 million of that is strictly Houston alone, with only 2 other cities over 100,000 (The Woodlands and Sugar Land). Houston has had a historical policy of aggressive annexation over its history, resulting in 1/3 of the metro area population being within the city limits.
Yes, but this is also an example of the distinction between the city proper and the metropolitan region. Looks like St. Louis is the nation’s 20th lagrest metropolitan area while Kansas City is 31st.
It’s #64 as a city, or #9 by urban area. By density, the metro is #15. A lot of the very large cities by area are in Alaska.
It’s not the most populous city anymore? What is then?
I was wrong. Its still number 1
I must have been thinking of population growth as the marker., for which Grand Rapids was #1. Either that or im just bonkers.
I tend to look at a “city” as any populated areas that are directly connected. Houston, looked at from northwest to southeast for example, starts in The Woodlands and runs all the way to Galveston by this method. San Antonio and Austin are also close to merging along the I-35 corridor. Of course I consider Dallas and Fort Worth (and Arlington) as all part of the same city. As such i disagree with the count on a lot of the cities that are cited in the Wikipedia list.
While I don’t disagree, what’s the limit on population sparseness for you? For instance, between Buffalo and Niagara Falls there is a 2 mile section where not more than 1000 feet is empty at any one place, and the populated roads are a lot sparser than in a genuine city, but those populated roads are completely lined with residences.
You’re referring to Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which are exactly as you describe- the Houston/Woodlands/Sugar Land MSA runs from Dayton/Mount Belvieu to Sealy, and from Conroe to Galveston. The DFW Metroplex runs from Denton to Ennis and from Terrell to Weatherford.
A lot of places end up being smaller individual cities, but part of much larger metropolitan areas- Dallas, for example is the 9th largest city, but is the nucleus of the 4th largest metro area.