When does a metro become midsized or large?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

To me, Providence overall feels smaller than JAX which has more of a Houston/ Dallas vibe which gives it the impression of being more massive/ sprawled while PVD has a more quaint/ more compact vibe to it belying just how big it really is. Though there's nothing in Jacksonville that remotely comes close to the urban fabric of Downcity in Providence which punches well above its weight.

if you transported me here without any context or idea of where I am, I'd think I was in quite a decent sized city/metro and judging by the road width, an old one at that!


https://goo.gl/maps/4xQhr8wZ7nTEP9689



https://goo.gl/maps/s46j71vopMsdk3U68

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Razor

You made a good point.There are more cultural amenities it larger cities. Underground sub cultures and different scenes are more accessible in large metros even if they are still fringe. They are non existent in smaller metros. I'll use music for example..If Blues, punk rock or metal are your thing, your more apt to find clubs that cater to that crowd ALL the time vs "punk rock Tuesdays" at some random club in a smaller metro.
There are also more special interest clubs catering to niche hobbies. Having a bonafide big production live theatre scene also adds to bigger city experience. Also, having a noticeable financial district means that you are in place approaching megacity status maybe?

Yes, exactly. Midsized metros tend to develop a single dominant subculture at the heart of their scene. This is a big jump over small metros, where you don't find subcultures, just errant weirdos looking for a home.

But you don't find diverse and thriving subcultures in midsized metros. You'll have, say, a vibrant hardcore scene. That's what everyone gets involved in, whether it's their thing or not, if they're looking for subculture.

In large metros, not only can multiple subcultures thrive, the dominant subculture becomes part of the prevailing, vernacular culture. This is where the city develops a sound. You get Atlanta, or Houston, or Toronto hip hop blasting out of car stereos.



There's a cascading-culture effect that disseminates big city culture to midsized cities. Midsize city populations's aspirational subcultures are informed by those in big cities--generally, the big cities that midsized cities orbit. Looking at Germany for case studies, Rostock (midsized metro) has a maritime punk subculture like a mini Hamburg (big metro). Leipzig has an arty anarchist subculture like a mini Berlin. But you won't find the multiple vibrant subcultures in the midsized metros that you will in the big metros.

[jtown,man]

This depends on who you ask. Someone from a town of 20,000 will have a vastly different answer than most of us.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Wigs

if you transported me here without any context or idea of where I am, I'd think I was in quite a decent sized city/metro and judging by the road width, an old one at that!


https://goo.gl/maps/4xQhr8wZ7nTEP9689



https://goo.gl/maps/s46j71vopMsdk3U68

I knew exactly where those screen grabs were without even clicking on links.

My ex/gf and I spent a lot of time in Providence (almost moved there) and became a huge fan of RI in general. It's definitely worth a visit.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by biguc

There's a cascading-culture effect that disseminates big city culture to midsized cities. Midsize city populations's aspirational subcultures are informed by those in big cities--generally, the big cities that midsized cities orbit. Looking at Germany for case studies, Rostock (midsized metro) has a maritime punk subculture like a mini Hamburg (big metro). Leipzig has an arty anarchist subculture like a mini Berlin. But you won't find the multiple vibrant subcultures in the midsized metros that you will in the big metros.

Yes very true! RE music scenes. Mid sized metros will have a "light weight" version of what big brother has down the road, but they are still large enough to support something that becomes a small part of their make-up. My fingers aren't entirely on the pulse for any of the music scenes here in Ottawa, but it does have a decent blues scene last I checked..Also a small punk scene. Whether or not it takes it's clues from Montreal or Toronto, I just don't know. Regardless, unlike Atlanta with Hip Hop, or with what Detroit had with Soul and Motown, the music scenes here are too small to really make this city identifiable with either genre of music outside of Ottawa. Large cities will have some of their sub cultures almost as noticeable little industries and economies into themselves. mega cities will have entire districts devoted to a particular arts scene ..NYC with Broadway. L.A with their famous Sunset Strip, etc..You know your big, when your city's sub culture(s) become really apparent and re-known.

[ue]

Small: 100,000-400,000
Smallish: 400,000-700,000
Mid-size: 700,000-2,000,000
Upper mid-size: 2,000,000-4,000,000
Large: 4,000,000-10,000,000
Huge: >10,000,000

I think there needs to be more demarcations than just small, mid-size, and large, to allow for more nuance. Like, Vancouver doesn't feel "big" in the same way Toronto does, but it also isn't "mid-sized" in the way Ottawa is. There's an in-between. Same with on the lower end, where a Victoria or Halifax feel more substantial than a Regina or Sherbrooke.

[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)

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

I knew exactly where those screen grabs were without even clicking on links.

My ex/gf and I spent a lot of time in Providence (almost moved there) and became a huge fan of RI in general. It's definitely worth a visit.

I'll have to put it on my "cities to see" list

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

This depends on who you ask. Someone from a town of 20,000 will have a vastly different answer than most of us.

Very true.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by ue

Small: 100,000-400,000
Smallish: 400,000-700,000
Mid-size: 700,000-2,000,000
Upper mid-size: 2,000,000-4,000,000
Large: 4,000,000-10,000,000
Huge: >10,000,000

I think there needs to be more demarcations than just small, mid-size, and large, to allow for more nuance. Like, Vancouver doesn't feel "big" in the same way Toronto does, but it also isn't "mid-sized" in the way Ottawa is. There's an in-between. Same with on the lower end, where a Victoria or Halifax feel more substantial than a Regina or Sherbrooke.

We could definitely go all boxing weight classes with this. I think there's a great case for Super Midsized (but is there Light Big?). For what it's worth, though, I think Ottawa is in the process of crossing that threshold.

I've also heard about some threshold near 750k where the population becomes large enough to self-sustain growth. Import replacement becomes possible, and so forth. So there's a case there for Junior Midsized too.

[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.

[biguc]

Toronto is in the early stages of the megacity metamorphosis. It's a long process. London is in the home stretch of the metamorphosis and it's been going on there for 15 or 20 years.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by biguc

So there's a case there for Junior Midsized too.

Hamilton, Winnipeg, and QC certainly fit that criteria.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by biguc

I've also heard about some threshold near 750k where the population becomes large enough to self-sustain growth. Import replacement becomes possible, and so forth. So there's a case there for Junior Midsized too.

In Canadian history, cities like Saint John had lots of import replacement happening when they had about 40,000 people but much of that collapsed and the economy in some ways became simpler when the railroads/tariffs were brought in and goods could be bought more cheaply from elsewhere (in 1820 you could buy your shoes and barrels and wagons from workshops in your town, and that might be fed by forests and mines 100 km away). I think the population will tend to make the city's economy more diverse and resilient, all else being equal, but there are so many other factors that it would be hard to come up with metro population numbers that have a consistent meaning in different places and times. Venice was heavily trade and import replacement oriented when it had around 150,000 people. At the other end, there are one trick pony branch plant towns with large populations today that do import replacement but may not be all that self-sustaining or resilient.

[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.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Population size doesn't tell the whole story.

It kinda seems like a red flag to make up a classification system for Canadian cities that has 6 bins, with one containing Barrie and St. John's. They have similar census metropolitan area populations but they're pretty different along many other important urbanism axes that have relevance to perceived size.

Statistics Canada is expanding the Halifax metro so it has around 480,000 right now which means it would be on the verge of jumping from being Regina-like to Winnipeg-like. I say this not as some attempt at cheerleading, it's just an example I'm particularly familiar with.

I think there are some aspects of cities that make them feel large that are easy to get an impression of on SSP and others that are subtler. Halifax is one of those cities that feels bigger in person for some subtle reasons:

- It's a regional primate city so it has a lot of regional offices or amenities and people move there from around the region. This covers everything from having a larger than normal airport or convention centre to banks having offices to IKEA being open there.
- It's a hub in general
- It's very old by Canadian standards. It has historic pedestrian-oriented mixed-use neighbourhoods extending several km from downtown with storefront retail strips. There are really only a few Canadian cities like this.

Halifax appears smaller than it is for some reasons too:
- It has height limits and the tallest buildings are not downtown
- Its urban core is multi-nodal or decentralized and a lot of the city is just a medium density blob; it is not that unlike Quebec City in terms of layout but with bad heritage preservation

[someone123]

A while back I saw an urban classification scheme for UK cities based on repeated doublings of population and I think this is a pretty good intuitive framework. We can think of cities that are 2x or 1/2 the size as being "adjacent" size-wise, while some other factors can make up for that. Once you get to 4x or 8x differences becomes pretty noticeable. Sometimes you'll see definitions of primate cities as being a 2x population size difference plus added relative importance. For example the primate is the hub or capital and it is > 2x the next-largest city, whereas if one city is 2x the size of the other but the 1/2 sized city is the hub or capital, maybe the more populated city doesn't get the crown.

I think the "error" in calculating a lot of metro populations is probably up around the 25-50% range. A metro could appear bigger or smaller just based on randomness in how districts boundaries are drawn or how nearby towns formed.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I'll have to put it on my "cities to see" list

Definitely. The rest of RI is worth a visit too since it's like 6 blocks wide. lol Bristol and Newport are must sees.

[Doady]

You can see in Canada, the biggest difference with increasing size of urban area is in terms of transportation. With increasing size also comes increasing distances, and therefore decreasing walkability, unless there is a major increase in density. So the main mode of non-car travel gradually shifts from walking, to cycling, to public transit. In the big city, public transit becomes the main competitor to the car. So nothing gives me more more "big city" feel than seeing streets with buses constantly passing by, and bus stops crowded with riders.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Wigs

if you transported me here without any context or idea of where I am, I'd think I was in quite a decent sized city/metro and judging by the road width, an old one at that!


https://goo.gl/maps/4xQhr8wZ7nTEP9689



https://goo.gl/maps/s46j71vopMsdk3U68

Those are some pretty impressive bones.