# How many people have to live in a city or its metro, to be considered a major city?



## Rwarky (Apr 19, 2005)

How many people have to live in a city or its metropolitan region, in order to be considered a major or large city? How does this vary from each country?


_BTW, let me know if a poll should be added._


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

In the U.S., I'd say a major metro is everything over 1 million.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Population size isn't necessarily a good indicator of how powerful a city is on the international stage. Lagos and Buenos Aires are huge cities, yet they are overshadowed politically and economically by smaller cities such as London and Washington DC. Perhaps the most extreme example is Geneva, which is a very small city population-wise, but with a huge contingent of NGOs based there, it is a very powerful international city.


----------



## Bahnsteig4 (Sep 9, 2005)

It's not about the size but about the influence. Cities like Tallinn or Ljubljana are definitely major cities as they are capital cities and are very important culturally, politically and economically, even though they are rather small by int'l standards. Opposed to that, I wouldn't consider Vicenza or Nuremberg "major cities". (Sorry.)


----------



## spotila (Oct 29, 2004)

In New Zealand I would say a major city is one of 100,000 or more, of which we currently have 5.


----------



## Fabio (Dec 14, 2002)

I would say 1 million, and 5 million to reach a superior stage, here in Brazil.


----------



## dave8721 (Aug 5, 2004)

hudkina said:


> In the U.S., I'd say a major metro is everything over 1 million.


That means there would be 50 "major metros". I think it would put the bar at 2.5 million, that would narrow it down to 20 metros.


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

6 million, I don't know why for me a city of over 6 million looks like a big city.
It might be because there are too much cities with 5 million people.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

I think what other people have already said is true: There is more that makes a city powerful other than population, but population is still a factor. Like someone said about Geneva. It's population is 185,526 (Greater Genva 645,000). In light of that I would say to be considered "major" a city's metro needs to have at least 500,000. This does not mean that any metro over 500,000 is major, not even close. This is just one of the criteria.


----------



## rise_against (Apr 26, 2005)

it depends on if your talking about demestic importance or international importance!


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

One million in Brazil, or maybe a little less.


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

What about such criteria: major city(metro area) = city(metro area) with population of more than 1% country's population.

Then for USA it would be 3 million, UK or France 600,000, and for Slovenia 20,000.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Does it depend on where those cities and metros are located? I'm thinking perhaps about a city like Anchorage. Alaska's population is so small and the state so issolated that Anchorage comes across as a city in a way it never would itn the rest of the country.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Depends... Geneva has less than 0.7mio including suburbs and is for sure a world city. Dhaka has 10mio and is far from being a major city... kinda...


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

dave8721 said:


> That means there would be 50 "major metros". I think it would put the bar at 2.5 million, that would narrow it down to 20 metros.


20 seems to many, isnt 3.5-4 milion to be major more accurate?


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

1,5 million in the city, more than 5 million with its metropolitan area!


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

city:500K+
Metro:1m+


----------



## kebabmonster (Jun 29, 2004)

UK: 450,000+ city / 1million+metro

This would mean the major city areas being London, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

These cities all serve as capitals of their immediate region, bar Liverpool/Manchester which are in the same region and are of joint importance.


----------



## kebabmonster (Jun 29, 2004)

International-tough call. Munich with 1.2 million has got to be more important than countless third world cities of the same size (no offence). I don't think you could go off population on this one, rather companies/institutions/infrastructure.


----------

