SkyscraperCity Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Is it possible to compare smaller cities to larger cities?

5K views 32 replies 21 participants last post by  i_am_hydrogen 
#1 ·
Discuss.

P.S. I hate to break it to the NY and Chicago folks, but smaller burgs have been known to be 'urban'. Hey, it's been known to happen.

:bash:
 
#6 ·
I think the Washington Metro is a bit of a step above Boston and San Francisco, and if anything can be lumped in NY/Chi/LA because of its wealth and size. But that's complicated because of Washington's zoning laws that prohibit skyscrapers and since it houses the government. DC seems to be more in its own class off to the side because it is so different.

Also, I think that the question was more centered on cities separated by a degree more than the difference between the cities you mentioned, because although NY/LA/DC/Chi/Bos/SanFran an be easily compared, it makes more sense to be trying to determine whether those cities can be compared to Indianapolis or Buffalo, well, that's at least how I interpreted the question, I could be wrong haha.

I think its complicated to compare those cities just because they have such a greater variety of qualities (Metro/Subways/transit etc, skyscrapers, # of Fortune 500 companies if any, etc.) that means that the comparisons are almost useless to the degree that the larger cities are almost certainly going to have better aspects.
 
#4 ·
Anything or anywhere is comparable! The larger the city (in theory) usually
means more of everything such as tourism, landmarks, crime and diversity!
For example: STL has Forest Park, which is larger than Central Park in NYC...
Beautiful Park.. but the cities are not comparable! STL ,KC and MSP are
still a fraction of NYC area... Good luck on your comparison..!
 
#10 · (Edited)
Well, despite whatever your opinion about Chicago or any other city may be, the thread is about comparing larger cities to smaller cities. The facts are that Chicago is 50% smaller than NYC and LA while it is only 10% larger than BalWash (only by population, not GDP or skyline size in which is it smaller and larger respectively). Thus, I objected to edsg's pairing of Chicago with cities it had no business being paired with, especially in a way that unjustly belittles other cities.
 
#21 ·
You can compare a smaller city to a larger one. For example I will compare Topeka to Kansas City. Topeka metro has 250,000 people, KC metro has 2 million people. KC metro has a dense urban core with a higher population than the entire Topeka metro. Kansas City's downtown makes Topeka's look like a ghost town. Let me make a short list of things KC has that Topeka does not.

Pro sports
World Class Art Museum
Viable Public Transportation
A skyline
People living downtown
nice urban neighborhoods
Urban shopping and entertainment


Should I continue, or do you get my point?
 
#24 · (Edited)
What would really be considered a small city, when is a city considered large 5 million people, 3 million people, or 1 milliion? To a lot of people a metro of 1 million is considered large. In my opinion cities like NYC, CHI, LA, DC, PHI, MIA, SF are HUGE metropolises and most of these cities are parts of coastal mega urban chain. Considering cities like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Detroit, Atlanta, Minneapolis and St. Louis are essentially isolated metropolitan areas and remain in the top 20 metro populations, should they be considered large cities? Also I feel it is better to compare cities in the relatively same geographic area, because they are more likely to be similar, large or small.
1 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island NY–NJ–PA 18,747,320
2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana CA 12,923,547
3 Chicago–Naperville–Joliet IL–IN–WI 9,443,356
4 Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,823,233
5 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington TX 5,819,475
6 Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Miami Beach FL 5,422,200
7 Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown TX 5,280,077
8 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria DC–VA–MD–WV 5,214,666
9 Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta GA 4,917,717
10 Detroit–Warren–Livonia MI 4,488,335
11 Boston–Cambridge–Quincy MA–NH 4,411,835
12 San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont CA 4,152,688
13 Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario CA 3,909,954
14 Phoenix–Mesa–Scottsdale AZ 3,865,077
15 Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue WA 3,203,314
16 Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington MN–WI 3,142,779
17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos CA 2,933,462
18 St. Louis MO–IL 2,778,518
19 Baltimore–Towson MD 2,655,675
20 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater FL 2,647,658
 
#26 ·
#27 · (Edited)
That data doesn't include Baltimore. And yes, Washington has arguably the best economy in the country, our GDP grew just under 10% in 2003. Our companion city, Baltimore, has been enjoying an amazing economy too with between 6 and 7% growth in 2003. If you look at page ten of the GWI regional report it shows that our GRP passed Chicago 2 years ago and is pulling away (and the data came from an independent research firm).
 
#28 ·
whatever you say dude-
 
#30 ·
Please my SSC fellows, take it easy! Were all in this US thing together.

Regarding that last image:
Baltimore area isn't part of "Greater Washington" but its part of "Baltimore-Washington" or vice-versa.

"San Francisco" includes Oakland but not the rest of the Bay Area including Silicon Valley.

Conclusion: considering Chicago area's size, it GDP lags. (unless there is more to "Chicago" than what I'm assuming - the whole of Chicagoland and more.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top