Another demonstration of how NYC is the only real city in America and anywhere else is a suburb larping as a metropolis.
You can’t call yourself a metropolis unless half the population uses public transit: change my view.
Ok! As per the marriam-webster definition of a metropolis:
the chief or capital city of a country, state, or region,
the city or state of origin of a colony (as of ancient Greece),
a city regarded as a center of a specified activity,
a large important city.
As per Cambridge:
a very large city, often the most important city in a large area or country.
Collins:
A metropolis is the largest, busiest, and most important city in a country or region.
Britannica:
a very large or important city — usually singular
Oxford:
A very large urban settlement usually with accompanying suburbs. No precise parameters of size or population density have been established. The structural, functional, and hierarchical evolution of global metropolises is rooted as much in the past as in the present: modern information and communications technology may be more advanced than the 19th-century telegraph, but the processes and outcomes are much the same (Daniels (2002) PHG 26). ‘[Berlin’s] wealth of facilities, as well as their scatter across the metropolis, can be understood only in the light of the city’s history and, paradoxically, its troubles.
Longman:
a very large city that is the most important city in a country or area
You:
NYC but only if half the people use public transit
All those definitions use “city”. Does the definition of city require the kind of density that would make relying mostly on self-owned cars impossible? Depends, in america no, in other countries maybe.
Does the definition of city require the kind of density that would make relying mostly on self-owned cars impossible?
Ooooo, self-moving goalposts, nice!
No. “City” is a legal designation for an inhabited area. Some legal frameworks place a minimum population requirement for designation as a city but none (AFAIK) require a population density value.
For example, Oklahoma City is the largest city in the US by land area (or it was a few years ago) because the city limits were drawn that way. Population density was and is very low but it’s still a city.
not OP, but according to some of those definitions (cambridge, collins, longman), NYC would be the only metropolis in the US, as it is the US’ largest, busiest, and most important city.
It goes by region. LA, San Diego, Chicago, Sacramento, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Detroit, Charlotte, Tulsa, San Antonio, Dallas, Atlanta, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Denver, etc… all fall under the definitions of a metropolis. And the most important city in US is not NYC, it’s Washington DC. NYC is just the most populated and industrialized, DC trump’s it in significance because that’s the epicenter of trade, labor, and industry policies
I don’t think they were being literal or looking for a dictionary definition. I think they were saying the definition of a real city should hinge on the use of mass transit.
Personally I think anywhere that’s car dependent isn’t somewhere I’d want to live.
Nah buddy I grew up in Atlanta you can’t convince me it’s a metropolis.
There’s a nice little downtown core and then 99% suburban sprawl. Fuck that
In Amsterdam the mode share for all trips is like 30% for biking and for walking and like 20% for driving and for transit
change my view.
Me and the Sullivan twins would like to have a conversation with you and a few baseball bats in the alley out back if you’re seriously arguing that Boston isn’t a metropolis… and don’t you dare fucking insult the Red Sox, Dunkin’ or the Bruins (actually, we care more if you bad mouth our college hockey teams) unless you’d like to qualify for Medicare early.
50% of Boston’s workforce commutes using the T every day, but it doesn’t show up on the map. I’m assuming because most of those stops are in outlying towns and, therefore, only make up a minority of the commuting workforce in each area. According to the federal government, the T is the third best public transit system in the US due to it being the fastest average commute out of any by at least half an hour, only outclassed by the quality of DC and Seattle (I believe, might be Portland that’s #1? I’d have to look again).
What are u people smoking, cars are awesome.
NYC metro is bankrupt and unmaintained. They can’t even build a link to JFK.
Driving is more fun when there are more viable alternatives. I don’t like driving, but it’s my only real choice where I live so I do it begrudgingly, and you have to share the road with me. Think of all the people who don’t want to drive (on account of it being dangerous, costly and/or mentally taxing) suddenly not being in cars, and how much traffic that would free up for you to zip around instead!
Also, calling a public service “bankrupt” is really weird to me. How many tax dollars are we spending on public highways and freeways again? Do suburbs, which are designed to be car-dependent, provide a net gain or net cost in tax revenue to cities?
Sorry it’s a fact
https://gothamist.com/news/a-48-billion-debt-is-crushing-the-mta-paying-it-off-could-disrupt-the-future-of-nyc-transit
I’m not arguing that in better world this should not be the case. But in current capitalist reality it is the case.
They are legally not allowed to file for bankruptcy
The state should give the city the metro instead of raiding it to save ski resorts upstate.
Also you should either block this community yourself or be banned for it. Fuck off car shill.
Why isn’t public transport popular in the US? It’s cheaper, it’s cleaner, it saves time, it’s overall better if done right.
Well part of it is this conspiracy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
But mostly you can blame Eisenhower for wanting to make US cities harder to nuke, racism for making suburbs appealing for segregationists etc.
