US Cities that are Helped/Hurt by being near Larger US Cities

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

meh, i mean i suppose there could be more of that nowadays, but i seriously doubt it. afaik there is still literally nothing between toledo and south detroit to commute to. airport jobs? fairlane maybe? even still that would be 50 miles away. its no 30min ride lol. and then detroit is sixty miles, with as you said many jobs worth commuting to in even further afield northburbia. people just dont do that kind of 50-60-70 miles commute in that area. or its pretty rare anyway.

come to think of it i did know someone back then who long distance commuted the other direction, from temperance to findlay, which is 60 some miles, but that person was actually nutty. and i do know several people now who drive daily that far here in ny, from upstate, danbury and bridgeport into the city, and from much further, the longest being from the poconos to brooklyn, well over a hundred miles each way, so yeah it can be done by some seriously ironclad driver types.

There's a lot, actually. A friend of mine is an engineer at the Fermi nuclear plant, and said that at least 30% of the workers commute from Ohio. Fermi is located in northern Monroe County right on the Wayne County border.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There's a lot, actually. A friend of mine is an engineer at the Fermi nuclear plant, and said that at least 30% of the workers commute from Ohio. Fermi is located in northern Monroe County right on the Wayne County border.

Yep, my ex and his father both commuted to a Toledo automotive plant from Redford Michigan years ago. There is definitely a decent amount people who commute between the two metros, regardless of what some posters seem to think.

[edale]

Originally Posted by north 42

Yep, my ex and his father both commuted to a Toledo automotive plant from Redford Michigan years ago. There is definitely a decent amount people who commute between the two metros, regardless of what some posters seem to think.

I believe that some people do it, sure. I have no idea why anyone would. One can find cheap housing just about anywhere in SE Michigan or NW Ohio. I could maybe see it happening if your spouse worked in one city and you worked in another. Like partner 1 is a professor at University of Michigan and partner 2 has a good job at a company in Toledo. Still seems like there can't be that many people who do this. The cities are just too spread out, and Toledo is pretty small.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by edale

I believe that some people do it, sure. I have no idea why anyone would. One can find cheap housing just about anywhere in SE Michigan or NW Ohio. I could maybe see it happening if your spouse worked in one city and you worked in another. Like partner 1 is a professor at University of Michigan and partner 2 has a good job at a company in Toledo. Still seems like there can't be that many people who do this. The cities are just too spread out, and Toledo is pretty small.

people buy a home and change jobs, but don't wanna buy a new home for whatever reason?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

I believe that some people do it, sure. I have no idea why anyone would. One can find cheap housing just about anywhere in SE Michigan or NW Ohio. I could maybe see it happening if your spouse worked in one city and you worked in another. Like partner 1 is a professor at University of Michigan and partner 2 has a good job at a company in Toledo. Still seems like there can't be that many people who do this. The cities are just too spread out, and Toledo is pretty small.

It's not really that far, though. If you live in Toledo and get a job in the a Downriver suburb of Detroit, you would have almost the same commute as someone coming from a suburb in Oakland or Macomb County. There is a Ford plant in Woodhaven, MI, in southern Wayne County. The commute from Southfield to there is about the same amount of time as the commute from Toledo.

[Centropolis]

i think theres some kind of baked in chicago-milwaukee dynamic that’s hard to pin down but has always been there. i think it slightly favors milwaukee since everyone i know who has ever lived in chicago loves to go spend money in mileaukee. i really don’t think chicago is putting a hurt on wisconsin (at least now).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i think theres some kind of baked in chicago-milwaukee dynamic that’s hard to pin down but has always been there.

a big part of why it can be hard to pin down is the fact that they're close enough to be kinda close, and at the same time they're far enough to be kinda far.

80 miles. it's a bit of an unorthodox tweener relationship, modified by a state border almost exactly in the middle of them.

there's certainly much more interplay betwen them than, say, st. louis and indy, but at the same time, chicago and milwaukee will never share a singular regional identity like "the bay area" or "the metroplex" or any of those other city pairs that are indeed truly much closer to each other, both physically and psychologically.


as an aside, i find it interesting that the DC/baltimore region has never assumed a singular identity either, even though they're roughly as close to each other as SF/SJ or dallas/ft. worth. it probably has to do with the MUCH deeper history of their separate identities.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i think theres some kind of baked in chicago-milwaukee dynamic that’s hard to pin down but has always been there. i think it slightly favors milwaukee since everyone i know who has ever lived in chicago loves to go spend money in mileaukee.

some of the chicago affection for milwaukee is based upon the radical size imbalance.

if chicagoland was closer in size to metro detroit (4.3M) and metro milwaukee was closer in size to the twin cities (3.6M), then there would be a lot more fear involved in the equation.

but as it is, sometimes milwaukee lashes out at its big brother with its silly "FIB" trope, and then chicago pats its little brother on the (cheese)head and says "how cute".

but everyone knows the pecking order so there's really no use arguing over it. the animus mainly stays in the realm of "fuck the packers/fuck the bears".

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i think theres some kind of baked in chicago-milwaukee dynamic that’s hard to pin down but has always been there. i think it slightly favors milwaukee since everyone i know who has ever lived in chicago loves to go spend money in mileaukee. i really don’t think chicago is putting a hurt on wisconsin (at least now).

I assure you that the cheeseheads come down to Navy Pier and O'Hare much more than the FIBs go check out the Old Third Ward or Milwaukee Art Museum.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by north 42

Yep, my ex and his father both commuted to a Toledo automotive plant from Redford Michigan years ago. There is definitely a decent amount people who commute between the two metros, regardless of what some posters seem to think.

i would like to know what you call a decent amount or the other poster calls a lot, because 50-60-70 mile commutes are exceedingly rare anywhere. even 30-40 mile commutes would probably not give you a decent amount of commuters between toledo and detroit, especially in that area. there is very little south of detriot, plus the work sites and sprawl are mostly all north and west. not saying it doesn't exist though, i mean we all gave examples.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i would like to know what you call a decent amount or the other poster calls a lot, because 50-60-70 mile commutes are exceedingly rare anywhere. even 30-40 mile commutes would probably not give you a decent amount of commuters between toledo and detroit, especially in that area. there is very little south of detriot, plus the work sites and sprawl are mostly all north and west. not saying it doesn't exist though, i mean we all gave examples.

Well, first, I think you guys underestimate how normal it is to drive a long distance to work in the Detroit area. It has the worst job sprawl in the country for a reason. Second, there are a lot of jobs in Metro Detroit that are in the one hour drive range from Toledo.

Nobody is saying that the majority of people in Toledo commute to Detroit, but it just doesn't make sense that it's so rare. It's pretty easy to do.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, first, I think you guys underestimate how normal it is to drive a long distance to work in the Detroit area. It has the worst job sprawl in the country for a reason. Second, there are a lot of jobs in Metro Detroit that are in the one hour drive range from Toledo.

Nobody is saying that the majority of people in Toledo commute to Detroit, but it just doesn't make sense that it's so rare. It's pretty easy to do.

You're talking about 'super commuters,' and the region around Detroit is not notable for having a lot of them.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

You're talking about 'super commuters,' and the region around Detroit is not notable for having a lot of them.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about distance traveled to work. See page 20:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...sproximity.pdf

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

No, I'm not. I'm talking about distance traveled to work. See page 20:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...sproximity.pdf

None of that supports the claim that Detroit has the worst 'job sprawl' in the US, nor that a lot of people commute between Toledo's metro and Detroit's. Average commute mileage in Detroit ranks fifth or sixth among the listed metros, and in the Toledo metro the average commute is six miles.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

None of that supports the claim that Detroit has the worst 'job sprawl' in the US, nor that a lot of people commute between Toledo's metro and Detroit's. Average commute mileage in Detroit ranks fifth or sixth among the listed metros, and in the Toledo metro the average commute is six miles.

Umm, what are you talking about? If you cared, you could have Googled it yourself. It's the first result when you literally Google "worst job sprawl".

https://www.mlive.com/business/detro..._sprawl_i.html

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I assure you that the cheeseheads come down to Navy Pier and O'Hare much more than the FIBs go check out the Old Third Ward or Milwaukee Art Museum.

Not sure I'd agree with that. Milwaukee (and Wisconsin in general) attractions have a heavy Illinois presence in their parking lots. It's a much easier and affordable trip than going the other way, which boasts traffic issues, tolls, and higher costs.

[jayden]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Of all the cities hurt by proximity to NYC, probably the most hurt would be Newark, NJ. If it was split off as a metro area, the metro would be about 2.2 million, according to Wiki. It sort of can't get much of the break, as the spillover of businesses and development from NYC seems to have mostly benefitted Jersey City. Newark seems to have been left in the dust by a revitalized Jersey City.

Revitalization is certainly making it's way to Newark.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

Not sure I'd agree with that. Milwaukee (and Wisconsin in general) attractions have a heavy Illinois presence in their parking lots. It's a much easier and affordable trip than going the other way, which boasts traffic issues, tolls, and higher costs.

Probably true for outdoors stuff in Wisconsin, just suspect the average Milwaukeeite visits Chicago more than vice versa (though of course there are a LOT more Chicagoans so maybe in raw numbers you're right about Milwaukee too).

[tech12]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Some others:

Oakland is hurt by its proximity to San Fran.

I disagree

SF and Oakland aren't just close to each other, they border each other, with downtowns that are faster to get between than it is to get from downtown SF to outer SF neighborhoods. SF and Oakland may technically be separate cities, but they feel more like two parts of a whole than a situation where there's a big city and a smaller city that gets "hurt" by proximity. They're extremely interdependent on each other...when one does well, so does the other. Like other cities in the region, they have a shared Bay Area identity (and also a shared identity as the region's main "big city downtown zone"), but at the same time have strong and well known identities of their own. It's kinda like boroughs of new york, if they had never combined as one city.