When does a metro become midsized or large?

[Dariusb]

At what point population wise in your opinion does a metro become midsized or large?

[Steely Dan]

Because I think county mash-ups are dumb, I'll use Urban Areas and say:

Medium UA: >500,000

Large UA: >2,000,000

X-Large UA: >5,000,000

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Because I think county mash-ups are dumb, I'll use Urban Areas and say:

Medium UA: >500,000

Large UA: >2,000,000

X-Large UA: >5,000,000

Since Canada is a smaller nation, here it would probably be

Medium UA: >250,000 (Regina to Halifax)
Medium-Large UA : >500,000 (London to Winnipeg)

Large UA: >1,000,000 (Calgary/Edmonton/Ottawa)

X-Large UA: >2,000,000 (Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver)

[Wigs]

For Canada,

I change my definition

Small UA: <250,000 (St. John's, Kelowna, Barrie, etc.)

Medium UA: >250,000 (Regina to Halifax)

Medium-Large UA : >500,000 (London to Winnipeg)

Large UA: >1,000,000 (Calgary/Edmonton/Ottawa)

X-Large UA: >2,000,000 Vancouver

Mega UA: >4,000,000 (Toronto/Montreal)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Wigs

For Canada,

I change my definition

Small UA: <250,000 (St. John's, Kelowna, Barrie, etc.)

Medium UA: >250,000 (Regina to Halifax)

Medium-Large UA : >500,000 (London to Winnipeg)

Large UA: >1,000,000 (Calgary/Edmonton/Ottawa)

X-Large UA: >2,000,000 Vancouver

Mega UA: >4,000,000 (Toronto/Montreal)

Ok, except maybe I would put Toronto into its own Category, separate from Montreal, as much as it pains me to say it. Greater Montreal is nearly twice the size of Greater Vancouver, and Greater Toronto (Golden Horseshoe, that is) is nearly twice the size of Greater Montreal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ok, except maybe I would put Toronto into its own Category, separate from Montreal, as much as it pains me to say it. Greater Montreal is nearly twice the size of Greater Vancouver, and Greater Toronto (Golden Horseshoe, that is) is nearly twice the size of Greater Montreal.

I think it really comes to a mix of size and (for lack of a better term) "stuff".

Population size doesn't tell the whole story.

I think we could put together a comparative list of stuff that respective cities have or don't have. Which of course would correlate to size more often than not, but not impermeably so.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ok, except maybe I would put Toronto into its own Category, separate from Montreal, as much as it pains me to say it. Greater Montreal is nearly twice the size of Greater Vancouver, and Greater Toronto (Golden Horseshoe, that is) is nearly twice the size of Greater Montreal.

Greater Montreal is nowhere near twice the size of Metro Vancouver though.

Greater Montreal: 4,364,189
Metro Vancouver: 2,737,698

So about 60% larger, but it's important to note that Greater Montreal has been growing a lot simply by including smaller far flung areas in it's metro and the area now covers an almost comically large 4,600 sq km, to Vancouver's 2,800.

Comparing a similar size would contain all of the lower mainland, at about 3.1 million, which puts Montreal only about 40% larger than Vancouver on a more apples to apples measurement.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1710013501

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ok, except maybe I would put Toronto into its own Category, separate from Montreal, as much as it pains me to say it. Greater Montreal is nearly twice the size of Greater Vancouver, and Greater Toronto (Golden Horseshoe, that is) is nearly twice the size of Greater Montreal.

I understand what you're saying, but any Canadian not born/raised in Toronto is still going to appreciate Montreal for how urban and vast it is.

I argue our Canuck version of "mega city" is on a completely different scale than London, Paris, Tokyo etc, given our population of just over 38.4 Million.
Montreal Metro contains over 11% of Canada's population (I just crunched latest estimate numbers I could find), so yeah it's still a HUGE freakin' deal.

[SFBruin]

This gets asked every once in a while, but I would say:

- Megacity: >10M
- Large: 4M - 10M
- Medium: 1M - 4M
- Small: <1M

[BnaBreaker]

Obviously completely subjective, but the way my brain kind of processes it is more or less as follows:

Any metro under a million: Small

One to five million: Medium

Over five million: Large

Over ten million: Huge?

I know a lot of sources like to consider anything over a million to be a "large" metro, but it just doesn't feel right to put, say, Tulsa in the same group as a New York, or even as a Denver or Seattle... although upon further review I guess my arbitrary categories above do just that. lol... but you know what I mean.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Obviously completely subjective, but the way my brain kind of processes it is more or less as follows:

Any metro under a million: Small

One to five million: Medium

Over five million: Large

Over ten million: Huge?

I know a lot of sources like to consider anything over a million to be a "large" metro, but it just doesn't feel right to put, say, Tulsa in the same group as a New York, or even as a Denver or Seattle... although upon further review I guess my arbitrary categories above do just that. lol... but you know what I mean.

Sounds accurate to me., if Chicago is over 10. Can't remember.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Sounds accurate to me., if Chicago is over 10. Can't remember.

The CSA was like 13,000 short of 10M in the 2020 census. MSA at 9.6 million.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The CSA was like 13,000 short of 10M in the 2020 census. MSA at 9.6 million.

And both measures include ~8 billion square miles of corn fields.

Not that it moves the needle a ton, because farmland doesn't have a lot of people to begin with, but going by the far more meaningful UA definition, Chicagoland was at 8.6M in 2010.

We still don't have 2020 UA figures yet, but perhaps Chicagoland inched up to 8.7 - 8.8M on that score?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Not that it moves the needle a ton, because farmland doesn't have a lot of people to begin with, but going by the far more meaningful UA definition, Chicagoland was at 8.6M in 2010.

I tried to do my own research on Metropolitan area sizes a while back and I came up with just under 9.2 million for the Chicago metropolitan area.

Do with that what you will.

[Metro-One]

For me I feel major changes happen at around:

500 000
2 000 000
5 000 000
10 000 000.

Of course there are other factors at play that make a city feel bigger or smaller.

The above it the most basic and generalized markers for me.

[isaidso]

Depends on the country. For Canada, a mid-sized metro is roughly 500,000+ while a large metro is 1 million+. For a country like China, the goal posts move.

[iheartthed]

This is U.S. centric but:

Midsized: 1m ~ 3m
Large/Major: 3m - 8m
Big/Mega: 8m+

Other countries vary. For instance, Barcelona is roughly the same size as Detroit on paper, and it is just a sneeze away from being the largest city in Spain. Yet, it feels like a city several times the size of Detroit.

[xzmattzx]

In the US (and Canada), I consider basically any metro area with one of the four major leagues to be a large metro. Green Bay is a notable exception.

[Steely Dan]

^ the Packers still being located in little old green bay is such a fun and silly anachronism.

At 328K people, Green Bay is the 158th largest MSA in the nation.

The next smallest MSA in the nation with a major league team is Buffalo, the 49th largest MSA.


Up until 1994, the Packers actually played 2 or 3 of their "home" games every season down in Milwaukee's county stadium. They still honor the former season ticket holders of those Milwaukee games with the "gold package" which gives them 1 preseason and 2 regular season games a year up at lambeau.

My father in law, a rabid suburban Milwaukee packers fan, still has his 4 gold package seats nearly 3 decades later. He fully intends to pass them down to his daughters in his will.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Early NFL teams had some odd locations, including Portsmouth, Ohio, of all places. The Packers remaining in Green Bay is a fun little carryover from the earliest days of the NFL.