Second cities

[SLO]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

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.

Totally agree on Texas, neither city would yield to the other, they have a healthy rivalry. Although the Cowboys may push Dallas over the top

As far as California, I definitely see San Francisco as second city regardless of population. San Diego is 3rd and San Jose.....if we are to be honest is really suburban San Francisco.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Some smaller state considerations.

Rapid City is the second city of South Dakota.
Lincoln is the second city of Nebraska.
Reno is the second city in Nevada
Montgomery (I think) is still the second city in Alabama, but is losing pace to Huntsville and Mobile.
Tulsa is the second city in Oklahoma

I guess I got into some more mid-range states so lets keep going...

Is there a second city in North Carolina?
Madison is the second city to Milwaukee... will that hold?
Minnesota, (excluding St. Paul ) is it Duluth as it was historically or is it Rochester now?
Annapolis in Maryland, or is D.C. so dominant that Baltimore is now a second city?

"Is there a second city in North Carolina?"

I think most would say Charlotte is #1 and Raleigh # 2, but if you consider that Raleigh is part of a tri-city aggregation (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) maybe it really is #1 at least as an urban area? It has 3 big universities--N. Carolina State in Raleigh, Univ. North Carolina in Chapel Hill and Duke in Durham. Plus the state capitol. Charlotte has the best skyline though and is HQ for some big banks (Bank of America being the largest).

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Buffalo is definitely New York's second city. They have sports teams and the metro area has Niagara Falls. How many people from California or Texas have been to Buffalo/Niagara Falls? Now how many people from California or Texas have been to Rochester? How many don't even know Rochester exists?

I'm from California and I've been to all the cities you mention, plus Ithaca & Binghamton & Syracuse & even Utica & Olean & Elmira & Cooperstown! Maybe I'm the exception. The finger lakes area is very beguiling.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by JManc

Canada is a little unusual because while Toronto maybe Canada's top city, Montreal is Canada's top francophone city; Quebec has always had its own thing going on. I grew up just south of the border seeing both more or less on an equal footing even if Toronto is the more prominent of the two. Especially now.

I think Montreal is pretty secure and I like it better than Toronto (I'm a bit of a Francophile & Montreal is a charming city, as is Quebec) but deep down isn't there some resentment that Toronto has grown faster over the last few decades? Even as late as 1970, wasn't Montreal the largest city in Canada? Was the huge debt load for the 1976 Olympics a factor in slowing growth, or was it the fear of Quebec separation in the 1970s? Now Montreal is growing gangbusters again, and many skyscrapers are rising. I'm happy to see that.

[CaliNative]

Montana #1: Billings, Missoula or Great Falls? I don't think Great Falls, but not sure if its Billings or Missoula.
Tennessee: Nashville or Memphis? 50 years ago probably Memphis, but now probably Nashville. The 'ol capitol advantage.
Ohio: A few decades ago it would have been Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus. Now? Columbus, Cleveland, Cincy? Again, the capitol-state U. advantage.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I'm from California and I've been to all the cities you mention, plus Ithaca & Binghamton & Syracuse & even Utica & Olean & Elmira & Cooperstown! Maybe I'm the exception. The finger lakes area is very beguiling.

Finger Lakes area has to be some of the most underrated natural scenery east of the Mississippi. It's too far from the NE corridor for weekending, and the road connections aren't very direct, and winters suck, but it's extremely pretty and atmospheric half the year.

You have wine, deep forests, waterfalls, gorges, scenic towns and a foodie scene. Plus Cornell. And it's still fairly cheap.

Upstate NY, on the whole, is very pretty, though the western half a bit less. The good thing is that anywhere more than 2.5-3 hours from Manhattan is still cheap and not crowded. And there's a benefit to the fact that the region has been stagnant for a half century - the rural towns are well preserved, there's little sprawl, and it's still quite wild in parts.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Chicago's second city is Detroit.

No, it's Milwaukee!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by harryc

Rock Cut State Park
Troop 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.

Not to mention, it also has an amazingly good, unbelievable CHEAP old-school red gravy Italian restaurant called Capri. Freaking delicious, and did I say CHEAP?!?!?!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I think Montreal is pretty secure and I like it better than Toronto (I'm a bit of a Francophile & Montreal is a charming city, as is Quebec) but deep down isn't there some resentment that Toronto has grown faster over the last few decades? Even as late as 1970, wasn't Montreal the largest city in Canada? Was the huge debt load for the 1976 Olympics a factor in slowing growth, or was it the fear of Quebec separation in the 1970s? Now Montreal is growing gangbusters again, and many skyscrapers are rising. I'm happy to see that.

Quebec separation threats from 1970 to 2000 brought Montreal's economy almost to a standstill. Visiting Montreal at the peak of this time was depressing. "A Louer" (For Rent) signs were everywhere and the city looked grubby. If Quebec had separated in 1995 as it got so close to doing, I guarantee Montreal would have gone through a deep depression that would have taken decades to recover from. I visited Boston in the fall of 1995 on business, just weeks before the referendum, and Americans were oblivious to the potential catastrophe that came ever so close to happening.

It is a lesson that the UK failed to understand through its foolish referendums on Scottish independence and Brexit. As the separation generation dies off, Montreal is again booming. It is so surprising seeing the city shine after all those years of decline, the new confidence and how welcoming the city is again now that language obsessions and tensions have faded. The city now understands that if they want to be a world class city, they need to welcome people, whether tourists, or new residents.

The Quebec separation movement is the reason why Toronto took over as Canada's premier city. There was a clear flow of people, and money between the two cities particularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Montreal's appeal relates to its earlier history as the most cosmopolitan city in Canada, that had a rich cultural, industrial and business base. Toronto historically was a WASP city (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) and despite that it has become arguably the most ethnically diverse city in the world, its 'stiff upper lip' background still lingers. This is clearly lessening over time.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

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

Tacoma is within Seattle's sphere and commute-shed. This has been true since Sea-Tac Airport in 1947 and I-5 in the 1960s. Today it has a substantial jobs/residents imbalance as most of the white collar economy is up north, including Tacoma's former trophy companies. It feels like a legit city with history, institutions, etc., but it's 60% satellite vs. 40% its own city. (Edit: As Dubu mentioned, there's commuter rail to Seattle. But that's rush hours only. Right by the rail station you can also get an express bus that comes every six minutes, or less, at peak.)

Spokane is Washington's second city. It can't be influenced by neighboring cities because the closest bigger one is 300 miles away.

Both are worth a day or two if you're ever in the neighborhood.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most people also said Taco Bell was the best Mexican restaurant in the country too.

I would assume a very small percentage said that. But every other candidate is relatively unknown.

Vanilla once took #1 with 7% of the vote. That doesn't mean various chocolate types didn't collectively get several times that much.

That's not about your city-related point specifically, but it's relevant when people are voting on cities or anything else.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

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

Pawtucket? I would say Rhode Island's second city would have to be Newport, if it has one.

[Razor]

re: New York State's 2nd city.

Definitely Buffalo I feel Like others have mentioned. Having pro sports teams in having both the Bills and the Sabres gives Buffalo more pedigree. There are some real rapid Bills fans up here!The first time I even heard of Rochester, was because of those whacky Great House Of Guitars commercials we got through Rochester being our cable feed city many years ago.Syracuse had those great years with NCAA Basketball, so that's how came to know that city years ago as well..I have since visited both of those cities, and I must say Syracuse has some great bones!..It's actually quite larger then I originally envisioned it to be when I was watching all those great NCAA Madness games a few decades back. I also agree on the Finger Lakes region..Beautiful area with real charming small towns..We enjoyed our stay at the Finger Lakes when we toured Western New York some years back.

As far as Ontario goes..Based solely on population, definitely Ottawa but I really want to say Hamilton only because of how close it is to Toronto..It's got that one-two thing going on..Ottawa is a lot more isolated and from the GTA, and it kind of stands alone. Toronto/ Hamilton could be analogous to Chicago/Milwaukee when you think about it.

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

"Is there a second city in North Carolina?"

I think most would say Charlotte is #1 and Raleigh # 2, but if you consider that Raleigh is part of a tri-city aggregation (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) maybe it really is #1 at least as an urban area? It has 3 big universities--N. Carolina State in Raleigh, Univ. North Carolina in Chapel Hill and Duke in Durham. Plus the state capitol. Charlotte has the best skyline though and is HQ for some big banks (Bank of America being the largest).

You'd have to include Charlotte's satellite cities of Concord and Gastonia for a more apples to apples comparison. Either way, Charlotte would still be #1.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Pawtucket? I would say Rhode Island's second city would have to be Newport, if it has one.

Pawtucket, the 'Bucket', is a more or less a suburb of Providence. I'd agree with Bristol or Newport.

[emathias]

I don't care enough to join the discussion creating the list of second cities but it was also asked if we'd visited second cities so I'll respond to that.

Though technically no longer the second city of the US, I live in Chicago, still sometimes referred to as The Second City (for more than one reason).

But when traveling I've been to other second cities.

Bergen, Norway
Barcelona, Spain
St. Petersburg, Russia (was actually still Leningrad at the time)
Lyon, France

Which city in China is first, second, third, etc, is probably a discussion to itself, but I've been to the of the five largest cities there (Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou), so I think my visit to China meets at least the spirit of this forum.

As far as individual states, I think a lot of states barely have relevant first cities, let alone second cities. That said, these states I've traveled around enough to have been to their second cities regardless of how it gets defined:

Oregon
Washington
Idaho
California
Indiana
Illinois
Maryland
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Ohio

[MPLS_Const_Watch]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't see international borders as being arbitrary in the same light as city limits or state borders. international borders have very real consequences.



nonsensical, arbitrary, or otherwise, "the midwest" is a term that is still very much popularly used to this day whether you like it or not. and it was in fact the region that was being discussed.

to the best of my knowledge, no part of canada has ever been included in "the midwest", thus the omission of toronto from the discussion was in no way arbitrary, despite your accusations.



chicago is the "1st city" of the midwest.

on that i would think there can be no argument.

detroit is the "2nd city" of the midwest.

but minneapolis is nipping at detroit's heels and that was the basis of what people were talking about.

toronto is the "1st city" of canada and isn't relevant to discussions of the urban pecking order of the midwest.

I know I'm jumping into this pretty late...

In my opinion, Detroit and Minneapolis don't compete for influence in many arenas. If you are arguing which is the 2nd city of the midwest, there are okay supporting arguments for both. But I think the biggest thing is the neither comes close to projecting a 2nd city level of influence across the entire region. Because Chicago is so far above either, and is located directly between the two, there's very little area where they actually compete. Minneapolis projects near zero influence east of Chicago, Detroit projects near zero influence west of Chicago. The only geographic area where both Minneapolis and Detroit project real influence and compete is in the western UP. I would argue that due to the geographic divide caused by Lake Michigan and Chicago's huge center of economic, cultural, and political mass, Minneapolis and Detroit function separately as 2nd cities in different parts of the Midwest and that neither can rightfully lay a claim to be 2nd city for the entire Midwest.

Separately, I would also argue that Minneapolis can lay a more solid claim to being the first city of a much larger region than Detroit can-- the dominant influence that Minneapolis projects across its borders outside of Minnesota across the Dakotas, much of Montana, Wisconsin, and Iowa (and arguably to a lesser extent, parts of the UP and Nebraska) is something entirely different from Detroit's influence outside of Michigan and the relationship that Detroit has with nearby states like Indiana and Ohio.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MPLS_Const_Watch

I know I'm jumping into this pretty late...

In my opinion, Detroit and Minneapolis don't compete for influence in many arenas.

Just Ford Field and US Bank Stadium.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MPLS_Const_Watch

I know I'm jumping into this pretty late...

In my opinion, Detroit and Minneapolis don't compete for influence in many arenas. If you are arguing which is the 2nd city of the midwest, there are okay supporting arguments for both. But I think the biggest thing is the neither comes close to projecting a 2nd city level of influence across the entire region. Because Chicago is so far above either, and is located directly between the two, there's very little area where they actually compete. Minneapolis projects near zero influence east of Chicago, Detroit projects near zero influence west of Chicago. The only geographic area where both Minneapolis and Detroit project real influence and compete is in the western UP. I would argue that due to the geographic divide caused by Lake Michigan and Chicago's huge center of economic, cultural, and political mass, Minneapolis and Detroit function separately as 2nd cities in different parts of the Midwest and that neither can rightfully lay a claim to be 2nd city for the entire Midwest.

Separately, I would also argue that Minneapolis can lay a more solid claim to being the first city of a much larger region than Detroit can-- the dominant influence that Minneapolis projects across its borders outside of Minnesota across the Dakotas, much of Montana, Wisconsin, and Iowa (and arguably to a lesser extent, parts of the UP and Nebraska) is something entirely different from Detroit's influence outside of Michigan and the relationship that Detroit has with nearby states like Indiana and Ohio.

good post. when talking about "2nd city of the midwest" i wasn't meaning it in a sense that the city exerts any kind of special power or influence over the entire midwest region, just what would be considered the 2nd most important city in the region after chicago. today i think that's detroit, but it's probably better to say that there is no stand-out #2 in the midwest and what we really have is a 2A and a 2B situation.

and as i said earlier in the thread, these things work at all different kinds of scales. the midwest is a fucking HUGE region, and both detroit and minneapolis stand alone as #1 cities in their own right in their respective parts of the midwest. chicago might be a lot bigger than either of them, but it doesn't really exert a considerable amount of influence over them as far as i can tell.

if we break the scale down to a more meaningful size, then i think what really starts to crystallize is that milwaukee is chicago's true "2nd city".

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MPLS_Const_Watch

I know I'm jumping into this pretty late...

In my opinion, Detroit and Minneapolis don't compete for influence in many arenas. If you are arguing which is the 2nd city of the midwest, there are okay supporting arguments for both. But I think the biggest thing is the neither comes close to projecting a 2nd city level of influence across the entire region. Because Chicago is so far above either, and is located directly between the two, there's very little area where they actually compete. Minneapolis projects near zero influence east of Chicago, Detroit projects near zero influence west of Chicago. The only geographic area where both Minneapolis and Detroit project real influence and compete is in the western UP. I would argue that due to the geographic divide caused by Lake Michigan and Chicago's huge center of economic, cultural, and political mass, Minneapolis and Detroit function separately as 2nd cities in different parts of the Midwest and that neither can rightfully lay a claim to be 2nd city for the entire Midwest.

Separately, I would also argue that Minneapolis can lay a more solid claim to being the first city of a much larger region than Detroit can-- the dominant influence that Minneapolis projects across its borders outside of Minnesota across the Dakotas, much of Montana, Wisconsin, and Iowa (and arguably to a lesser extent, parts of the UP and Nebraska) is something entirely different from Detroit's influence outside of Michigan and the relationship that Detroit has with nearby states like Indiana and Ohio.

i think this is along the lines of what i was trying to express. they are in seperate domains, and as such exposes the fact that there are seperate domains of the midwest (divided by vast space, if not fixed barriers), and there's only one city that has influence in all of them. i also think there's a basket of midwestern cities that straddle and have influence in multiple regions in a secondary or tertiary way. i would also be in agreement of the idea that behind chicago, minneapolis-st. paul would come next in so far as quantifying projected influence across space.