Smol Is Relative

I love reading stuff like this:

Small, remember, is relative.

Chicago, for the United States, is not small. The city itself is home to more than 2.7 million people, with a metro area population pushing 10 million. It’s the third-largest city, on its own, in the United States.

But are Austin and Nashville really “small”?

Relatively speaking, I suppose.

But relatively speaking, not really.

Here’s the tally:

Austin, Texas. Population of the city alone is 964,254. It’s the 11th-largest city in the country. Its metro area is home to 2.1 million people.

Nashville, Tennessee. Population of the city alone is 669,053. It’s the 24th-largest city in the country. Its metro area is home to 1.9 million people.

I currently live in a city of just over 15,000, nestled next to a city of about 60,000. I lived for ten years in a city of just 1,242. Those are all on the smol end of small, compared to a vast majority of places. They don’t even hit the smol radar of the Chicago Tribune.

So small is relative. Keep that in mind, Chicago Tribune.

ADDENDUM: I had a thought that maybe the Tribune was referring to city surface area in comparing Chicago to the "smaller" cities. Makes sense, considering the article is about pedal transportation (some motorized).

So here are the surface areas of each city:

Chicago, 234 square miles. The "big" city I live near -- Idaho Falls -- has an area of 22 square miles. Smol.

But . .  .

Austin, Texas: 271 square miles.

And Nashville, 526 square miles.

Not smol at all.