SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Second cities (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=238331)

xzmattzx Mar 27, 2019 8:20 PM

Second cities
 
Anyone ever take interest in the second cities of countries, states, provinces, or other subdivisions? Second cities are the second-biggest/secondmost important city in a certain place. Most people visit the primary city in a country or place when traveling: Paris in France, Reykjavik in Iceland, Lisbon in Portugal, St. John's in Newfoundland & Labrador in Canada, Denver in Colorado, and so on.

Ever travel to any second city? Ever visit a second city before the primary city? Do you think that the second city is a better slice of the country's/state's/province's people and culture, since most visitors go to the primary city? Do you like the second city more or less than the primary city?

Here's some examples of second cities:

Bahamas: Freeport
Iceland: Akureyri
Portugal: Porto
Greece: Thessaloniki
Colorado: Colorado Springs
Arizona: Tucson
Nevada: Reno
Newfoundland & Labrador: Corner Brook
Prince Edward Island: Sunnyside

Steely Dan Mar 27, 2019 8:37 PM

in illinois' case, our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest cities (aurora, joliet, and naperville) are now just satellite cities enveloped within the massive chicagoland juggernaut, so they're not really standalone cities.

the largest city in illinois not within chicagoland would be rockford. the second largest metro area entirely within illinois* is peoria.

i can't think of any reason why someone from outside the region would want to visit rockford or peoria instead of chicago, unless they have family there.

i'm not trying to shit on rockford and peoria, it's just the truth.



(*) the metro east area of metro st. louis and the quad cities metro area are larger, but those metros extend substantially into other states.

10023 Mar 27, 2019 8:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzmattzx (Post 8520707)
Iceland: Akureyri

I’ve been to Iceland twice and I’ve never heard of this place.

Anyway, some others:

Russia - St Petersburg
Australia - Melbourne
Spain - Barcelona (which will piss off the Catalans)
Austria - Salzburg
Netherlands - Rotterdam
Poland - Kraków
Norway - Bergen
UK - Edinburgh (at least for tourists)
Thailand - Chiang Mai
Japan - Osaka

Countries like Germany, Italy and even France have too many contenders to choose one. For Germany it’s hard to even pick the first city.

There are also some where the “first city” for tourists is not actually the largest, “most important” city in the country generally speaking. Examples:

Brazil - Rio de Janeiro
Morocco - Marrakech
South Africa - Capetown
Croatia - Split

Crawford Mar 27, 2019 9:03 PM

I think Austrians would consider Graz the second city (and Linz the third), but, yeah, for tourists, definitely Salzburg.

iheartthed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 PM

Busan - Korea
Córdoba - Argentina

Denvergotback Mar 27, 2019 9:13 PM

What would be considered the primary and secondary cities in Texas?

Houston is the "largest city"

but Dallas is the "largest metroplex" but is 'also' the 3rd largest city in the state...


I guess the best example to have is maybe going to San Fransisco, many people visit there before LA, and its the 4th largest city (or something) in the state

iheartthed Mar 27, 2019 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denvergotback (Post 8520809)
What would be considered the primary and secondary cities in Texas?

Houston is the "largest city"

but Dallas is the "largest metroplex" but is 'also' the 3rd largest city in the state...


I guess the best example to have is maybe going to San Fransisco, many people visit there before LA, and its the 4th largest city (or something) in the state

SF is without a doubt the second city in California. I would consider Dallas to be the primary city in Texas, and Houston the second city. But they're probably too close together in population now for first city/second city designation.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8520815)
SF is without a doubt the second city in California. I would consider Dallas to be the primary city in Texas, and Houston the second city. But they're probably too close together in population now for first city/second city designation.

In terms of metro area pop. & GDP Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area and Houston metro area almost equal. So I would consider Houston & Dallas (metro) to almost share #1 status in Texas. Number 3 is more interesting. Is it San Antonio or Austin? SA has it on pop., but on influence & growth, is it Austin? Right now I'd give a slight edge to San Anton., in the future though? Austin does have the fastest growing skyline. San Antonio's skyline grows very slowly for a big Texas city. Not sure why.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:28 PM

# 2 in Ireland
 
Well, if you take the island as a whole, Belfast of course w/ Dublin #1. But for Rep. Ireland (south) is it Cork? Galway? Limerick? Somewhere else?

In Scotland--is Edinburgh or Glasgow #1? Glasgow is bigger but Edinburgh is the capitol and probably has the most inluence.

Italy- I would say Milan, but Naples defenders might disagree.

France--Lyon or Marseilles? Probably Lyon.

Australia--I do believe Melbourne might be closing the gap with Sydney, but still Sydney by a nose.

China is more complicated. Is Beijing #1 or is it Shanghai?

dubu Mar 27, 2019 9:30 PM

if you consider central oregon (redmond and bend) one city then i think its the second city. if they were connected by train then they would be like one city.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8520815)
SF is without a doubt the second city in California. I would consider Dallas to be the primary city in Texas, and Houston the second city. But they're probably too close together in population now for first city/second city designation.

I would agree. But San Jose and San Diego do have a claim for #2, but as the capitol/"downtown"/"city" of the second largest metro area in the state, plus for a lot of other reasons SF has the #2 crown. L.A. is clearly number one for its gigantic size alone, although SF does lead in some important categories--tech, finance etc. Which is the #1 metro area is more problematic--Is it the greater SF metro area (including San Jose/Oakland etc.) or is it the greater L.A. metro area (including Orange Co., Riverside, San Bern, eastern Ventura)? L.A. metro still is #1 in GDP, but in world importance it could be a tie. They are both gigantic and influential. They may share the title.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:57 PM

Here's a good one...In MO, St. Louis or K.C.?
 
Ignoring the fact that part of K.C. metro is in Kansas and a small part of St. Louis metro is in Illinois, I would call it almost a tie. St. Louis metro is still a bit larger, but K.C. still seems to be growing faster. In the future, co-leaders? One thing is clear--KC rules the west & St. Louis the east.

dimondpark Mar 27, 2019 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8520815)
SF is without a doubt the second city in California.

As far as population yes. As far as power and influence, in 2019, it really depends on what we're talking about.

mousquet Mar 27, 2019 10:01 PM

In France, that would still be Lyon because the economy's always been pretty steady over there.
I would hold it as a pretty aggressive town in business, by tradition.

Although Bordeaux, whose genuine 18th-century historic downtown feels very good and attractive might turn a serious challenger since it's been connected to Paris by a HSR line.
It takes only 2 hours for the 600km ride by train now, like you can almost travel the round trip on a daily basis, given today's work amenities.
As a result, it's been madly gentrifying at faster rate, which of course is causing some issues to the local working and middle class people.

Toulouse is also doing good as the major hub of the aeronautical industry in Europe.
It is actually the fastest growing city in the country, but it's rather suburban. To my knowledge, the way I see it, people like their single-family homes with pools in backyards over there, so it's no real urban reference. That may cause some issues to them too in the end, and I hope they work more seriously on their city density.

Population-wise, Marseille should obviously be a candidate, but their downtown is such an impoverished mess that it's still hard to take it seriously.
It's like an American town in the 1970s/80s. The bourgeoisie lives outside the city proper over there, much like in Toulouse.

Nice is nice and kinda sexy as the largest city on the Riviera, but the local economy's yet too slow to make a nominee of it.

And Lille where I've never been yet is the northernmost larger city of the country, almost Belgian, which doesn't necessarily helps. :haha:
No kidding, it seems to be a pretty cool town however, but I don't see it as a rival of Lyon yet.

So it'd be either Lyon, definitely the most legitimate to date, or Toulouse or Bordeaux as rising challengers.

Boisebro Mar 27, 2019 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 8520840)
In terms of metro area pop. & GDP Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area and Houston metro area almost equal. So I would consider Houston & Dallas (metro) to almost share #1 status in Texas. Number 3 is more interesting. Is it San Antonio or Austin?

I'd put Austin first--mostly because it's the state capitol and has the main UT campus--but both are growing so fast, in about 10 years we'll refer to that region as Austonio.

10023 Mar 27, 2019 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8520901)
In France, that would still be Lyon because the economy's always been pretty steady over there.
I would hold it as a pretty aggressive town in business, by tradition.

Although Bordeaux, whose genuine 18th-century historic downtown feels very good and attractive might turn a serious challenger since it's been connected to Paris by a HSR line.
It takes only 2 hours for the 600km ride by train now, like you can almost travel the round trip on a daily basis, given today's work amenities.
As a result, it's been madly gentrifying at faster rate, which of course is causing some issues to the local working and middle class people.

Toulouse is also doing good as the major hub of the aeronautical industry in Europe.
It is actually the fastest growing city in the country, but it's rather suburban. To my knowledge, the way I see it, people like their single-family homes with pools in backyards over there, so it's no real urban reference. That may cause some issues to them too in the end, and I hope they work more seriously on their city density.

Population-wise, Marseille should obviously be a candidate, but their downtown is such an impoverished mess that it's still hard to take it seriously.
It's like an American town in the 1970s/80s. The bourgeoisie lives outside the city proper over there, much like in Toulouse.

Nice is nice and kinda sexy as the largest city on the Riviera, but the local economy's yet too slow to make a nominee of it.

And Lille where I've never been yet is the northernmost larger city of the country, almost Belgian, which doesn't necessarily helps. :haha:
No kidding, it seems to be a pretty cool town however, but I don't see it as a rival of Lyon yet.

So it'd be either Lyon, definitely the most legitimate to date, or Toulouse or Bordeaux as rising challengers.

As a non-Frenchman, I’d agree with that, but any American city aside from NYC and maybe Chicago would be envious of Marseille’s city center.

Cirrus Mar 27, 2019 10:35 PM

I think we should just accept that some place don't really have this phenomenon. Illinois has one and then everybody else. Kansas' biggest city isn't in Kansas. Technically speaking every place has a second largest subdivision, but only some places have a functional "second city" in practice. That's OK but there's no need to shoehorn in those that don't.

Some more obvious second city candidates:

- Tacoma, WA
- Tulsa, OK
- Baton Rouge, LA
- Pawtucket, RI
- Victoria, BC

10023 Mar 27, 2019 10:41 PM

Has no one mentioned Miami as the second city of Florida?

austlar1 Mar 27, 2019 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boisebro (Post 8520907)
I'd put Austin first--mostly because it's the state capitol and has the main UT campus--but both are growing so fast, in about 10 years we'll refer to that region as Austonio.

Folks that live here will NEVER refer to the region as Austonio. The region may tighten up statistically and demographically, but Austonio just doesn't cut it. Keep in mind the two cities are almost as far apart as NY and Philly, and development in between the two metros is mostly along one highway corridor. Meanwhile, the two cities have vastly different economies.

dubu Mar 27, 2019 11:05 PM

tacoma washington is pretty much seattle, same with sf and san jose. commuter rail connects those cities. 30 years ago or something they might have been different cities. i know san jose and tacoma way more then seattle and sf (i had friends that lived there, i havent talked to them in a long time though). second cities in cities?

Jonesy55 Mar 27, 2019 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 8520848)
Well, if you take the island as a whole, Belfast of course w/ Dublin #1. But for Rep. Ireland (south) is it Cork? Galway? Limerick? Somewhere else?

In Scotland--is Edinburgh or Glasgow #1? Glasgow is bigger but Edinburgh is the capitol and probably has the most inluence.

Italy- I would say Milan, but Naples defenders might disagree.

France--Lyon or Marseilles? Probably Lyon.

Australia--I do believe Melbourne might be closing the gap with Sydney, but still Sydney by a nose.

China is more complicated. Is Beijing #1 or is it Shanghai?

I'd say Cork is #2 for ROI.

Edinburgh is more influential and its the capital of Scotland but Glasgow is the major city in Scotland I'd say, just like Toronto is the main city in Ontario even though Ottowa is the capital of the whole of Canada.

In Italy definitely Milan>Naples, Milan is richer than Rome and bigger than Naples plus a lot richer, its where the main stock market for the country is based etc

For France I'd go for Lyon over Marseille with the others some way behind on size even though some might be richer than Marseille.

For Australia both Sydney and Melbourne are ahead of Canberra by some distance even though Canberra is the capital, the two biggest cities there are pretty evenly matched.

China is big enough to have two #1 cities! :)

In the UK it's usually a competition between Birmingham and Manchester, the urban areas are pretty even in terms of population or economy although looking at city boundaries only then Birmingham is double the population because the boundaries of Manchester are much more tightly drawn. Glasgow would come just behind those two for size but none of the three have the political influence of Edinburgh.

Germany is probably the most tricky case, you've got Berlin, Rhein-Ruhr, Frankfurt and Munich all with their own niches of importance for one reason or another, maybe Hamburg is a bit behind those. I think Berlin is the only capital in the EU which is poorer than the national average. Obviously there are unique historical reasons for that, Germany is relatively young as a unified country and Berlin lost a lot of power/influence/economy after WWII when it was split with half behind the iron curtain and the other half isolated.

Plus also:

Japan has an obvious second city in Osaka, much larger than anywhere else outside Tokyo.

In Spain Barcelona might well be more known and visited internationally than Madrid even though it's quite a lot smaller.

India is a toss up between Delhi and Mumbai I guess for #1.

In Turkey Istanbul seems the definite #1 although Ankara is the capital.

Brazil has an odd situation with Brasilia as capital but low profile internationally, Sao Paulo being very dominant domestically but Rio de Janeiro being the most recognised city internationally.

Jonesy55 Mar 27, 2019 11:53 PM

In terms of where people visit then I think it depends on proximity. Most British visitors to France probably go to places outside Paris, though most visitors from the US or China might make that the focus of their trip. NYC might be the most popular destination in the US for many visitors from Europe, but definitely not for Mexicans. Madrid might be most popular for Latin American visitors to Spain but it isn't for Europeans.

samne Mar 28, 2019 1:22 AM

For Canada Toronto is likely #1, but can be very possibly in any order of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver depending what part of the country or world you ask.

Ontario... kinda odd. Toronto is #1 as its the provincial capital and Ottawa #2 as the national capital.

xzmattzx Mar 28, 2019 2:56 AM

As Cirrus said, not every place has a true second city.

And no, to the common man, a suburban municipality is part of the primary city. Cambridge is a part of Boston to a tourist or person who is average at geography.

JManc Mar 28, 2019 3:49 AM

My first time in IL, I flew into ORD, drove into Schaumburg to get dinner then drove back into Chicago. Does that count?

As for Texas, Houston and DFW are both first and second.

suburbanite Mar 28, 2019 1:53 PM

What about other South American countries?

Cordoba for Argentina

Maracaibo as the center for oil production in Venezuela?

Medellin for Colombia?

Arequipa for Peru

What would it be in Chile?

SpawnOfVulcan Mar 28, 2019 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite (Post 8521593)
What about other South American countries?

Cordoba for Argentina

Maracaibo as the center for oil production in Venezuela?

Medellin for Colombia?

Arequipa for Peru

What would it be in Chile?

When I think of Chile, I think of Santiago first, of course, but next I think of Concepcion even though Antofagasta is larger.

Crawford Mar 28, 2019 2:59 PM

For Mexico, either Guadalajara or Monterrey (probably GDL).

Porto, Portugal is a clear second city. Same with Thessaloniki for Greece.

iheartthed Mar 28, 2019 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 8520953)
I think we should just accept that some place don't really have this phenomenon. Illinois has one and then everybody else. Kansas' biggest city isn't in Kansas. Technically speaking every place has a second largest subdivision, but only some places have a functional "second city" in practice. That's OK but there's no need to shoehorn in those that don't.

Chicago's second city is Detroit.

suburbanite Mar 28, 2019 4:00 PM

This phenomenon is pretty easy to spot in most of the Nordic countries

Denmark - Aarhus

Sweden - Gothenburg

Norway - Bergen is always the first that comes to mind for me, but Stavenger seems close enough that I'm not sure you could classify either as a true second city.

Finland - Tampere (but once again Turku might be too close)

Lithuania - Kaunas

Latvia and Estonia seem to more in line with "the capital city and then everything else"

Steely Dan Mar 28, 2019 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8521771)
Chicago's second city is Detroit.

yeah, if we expand things out to the four macro-regions instead of individual states for the US, then we get something like this:


northeast:
1st city - NYC
2nd city - dc? boston? philly?



midwest:
1st city - chicago
2nd city - detroit (possibly the twin cities?)



south:
1st city - atlanta? miami? dallas? houston?
2nd city - atlanta? miami? dallas? houston?



west:
1st city - LA
2nd city - SF



the west and midwest are fairly straightforward, but the 2nd city in the northeast gets a lot trickier.

and the south? forget about it. the south does not fall into a 1st city/2nd city paradigm.

maru2501 Mar 28, 2019 4:16 PM

ATL second city maybe Charlotte

iheartthed Mar 28, 2019 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501 (Post 8521838)
ATL second city maybe Charlotte

Yeah, probably Charlotte.

iheartthed Mar 28, 2019 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8521804)
yeah, if we expand things out to macro-regions instead of individual states for the US, then we get something like this:


northeast:
1st city - NYC
2nd city - dc? boston? philly?

I think NYC is at the nexus of two fairly distinct regions. Boston is the second city of the northeast, while DC is the second city of the mid-Atlantic.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8521804)
south:
1st city - atlanta? miami? dallas? houston?
2nd city - atlanta? miami? dallas? houston?

I think Texas is a different region than Atlanta. Charlotte or Birmingham probably make sense as Atlanta's regional second city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8521804)
west:
1st city - LA
2nd city - SF

I would propose splitting the Pacific Northwest to its own region:
1st city - Seattle
2nd city - Vancouver

Crawford Mar 28, 2019 4:59 PM

I think DC, at this point, is the clear Second City of the NE Corridor. I don't consider it much above Boston or Philly (in terms of urban attributes it's well behind), but it's a pretty obvious #2 overall.

hammersklavier Mar 28, 2019 5:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dubu (Post 8520996)
tacoma washington is pretty much seattle, same with sf and san jose. commuter rail connects those cities. 30 years ago or something they might have been different cities. i know san jose and tacoma way more then seattle and sf (i had friends that lived there, i havent talked to them in a long time though). second cities in cities?

That seems to happen when a dominant metro (e.g. Seattle in this case) captures cities near its fringe and converts them to secondary cities (e.g. Tacoma). In terms of economic independence, Spokane is undoubtedly Washington's second city.

Other examples where this has happened is that DC has captured Baltimore, Minneapolis St. Paul, and Oakland and San José are both fairly clearly in San Francisco's orbit, off the top of my head.

JManc Mar 28, 2019 6:14 PM

DC is an outlier considering the amount of soft power it wields even compared to New York. It's second to no one, nationally or even globally. New York wields economic power second to no one or shares it with London or until they collapse into an apocalypse after Brexit. They share number one. Boston is number 2.

harryc Mar 28, 2019 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8520728)
in illinois' case, our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest cities (aurora, joliet, and naperville) are now just satellite cities enveloped within the massive chicagoland juggernaut, so they're not really standalone cities.

the largest city in illinois not within chicagoland would be rockford. the second largest metro area entirely within illinois* is peoria.

i can't think of any reason why someone from outside the region would want to visit Rockford or peoria instead of chicago, unless they have family there.

i'm not trying to shit on rockford and peoria, it's just the truth.



(*) the metro east area of metro st. louis and the quad cities metro area are larger, but those metros extend substantially into other states.

Rock Cut State Park
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4223/...05724da6_b.jpgTroop 16 - Rock Cut 2017 by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Rockford is working diligently to re-focus after the general industrial slump, bout an hour or so away, well worth the road trip.

iheartthed Mar 28, 2019 6:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8522037)
DC is an outlier considering the amount of soft power it wields even compared to New York. It's second to no one, nationally or even globally.

D.C. has its own area of supremacy for sure, which is the operation of the federal government, but most second cities have an area of domain expertise (SF - tech, Detroit - automotive, Houston - oil). But, can anyone easily name the mayor of D.C. without looking it up? How many people have trouble naming the mayor of New York?

The whole purpose of putting the capital of the federation in D.C., instead of keeping it in NYC or Philadelphia, was to keep the business center separate from the political center. It was literally intended to be a backwater. Two hundred and fifty years later, it still has mostly kept true to that intent.

dimondpark Mar 28, 2019 6:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8522084)
D.C. has its own area of supremacy for sure, which is the operation of the federal government, but most second cities have an area of domain expertise (SF - tech, Detroit - automotive, Houston - oil). But, can anyone easily name the mayor of D.C. without looking it up? How many people have trouble naming the mayor of New York?

The whole purpose of putting the capital of the federation in D.C., instead of keeping it in NYC or Philadelphia, was to keep the business center separate from the political center. It was literally intended to be a backwater. Two hundred and fifty years later, it still has mostly kept true to that intent.

De Blasio.:haha:

manchester united Mar 28, 2019 6:54 PM

World: London (after NYC, of course...)

JManc Mar 28, 2019 7:04 PM

Most people couldn't recall Bill deBlasio by name. He's pretty unforgettable. Giuliani/ Bloomberg, when they were still mayor, yes and that was due to being in the spotlight during 9/11. Bloomberg was also well known for his media empire. Chicago mayors are more well known because of who they are not because they are mayors of Chicago; Rahm Emmanuel was famous nationally before taking the job and the Daley's were a well known dynasty for generations. DC had that mayor who smoked crack. That's one way to get attention.

DC is more than just a leader of an industry; it's the center of power of the most powerful country. Can't compare to Houston or Detroit.

subterranean Mar 28, 2019 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8520901)

Although Bordeaux, whose genuine 18th-century historic downtown feels very good and attractive might turn a serious challenger since it's been connected to Paris by a HSR line.
It takes only 2 hours for the 600km ride by train now, like you can almost travel the round trip on a daily basis, given today's work amenities.
As a result, it's been madly gentrifying at faster rate, which of course is causing some issues to the local working and middle class people.

Well, they have a KFC across from a Burger King, so it has to be good.

iheartthed Mar 28, 2019 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8522109)
DC is more than just a leader of an industry; it's the center of power of the most powerful country. Can't compare to Houston or Detroit.

But none of that power is derived from D.C. itself. The most powerful people in D.C. are from other parts of the country.

It's different from places like London and Paris, where the political leaders are also from those cities.

subterranean Mar 28, 2019 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8522174)
But none of that power is derived from D.C. itself. The most powerful people in D.C. are from other parts of the country.

Same with NY :)

Steely Dan Mar 28, 2019 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8521874)
I think NYC is at the nexus of two fairly distinct regions. Boston is the second city of the northeast, while DC is the second city of the mid-Atlantic.

I think Texas is a different region than Atlanta. Charlotte or Birmingham probably make sense as Atlanta's regional second city.

I would propose splitting the Pacific Northwest to its own region:
1st city - Seattle
2nd city - Vancouver

sure, you can split up the 4 major macro-regions into their sub-units if you want. these kinds of discussions can scale all the way up to global, or all the way down to state-level. none of it is right or wrong.

i just think it's interesting that two of the US macro-regions (the west and midwest) mostly follow the 1st city/2nd city paradigm, while things get way more complicated in the northeast at the secondary level, and the south is just a total clusterfuck.

JManc Mar 28, 2019 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean (Post 8522189)
Same with NY :)

Exactly and that's what makes New York and DC so powerful is that they attract top talent from all over. London and Paris comprise a much larger percentage of the UK's and France's population (respectively) where as the US is far far less decentralized population-wise. And Paris and London are New York and DC squeezed into one city.

iheartthed Mar 28, 2019 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean (Post 8522189)
Same with NY :)

The power brokers in NY don't have to answer to constituents in other parts of the country.

jd3189 Mar 28, 2019 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8520961)
Has no one mentioned Miami as the second city of Florida?

Then what’s the first? Jacksonville? :haha:

JManc Mar 28, 2019 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8522213)
The power brokers in NY don't have to answer to constituents in other parts of the country.

A lot of DC doesn't either. You're thinking elected officials but there's a critical mass of think tanks, policy wonks, lobby groups and other bureaucrats that answer to no one and wield a lot of power and influence.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.