Small Cities That Take On The Role Of Much Larger Cities.

[Tom In Chicago]

Why aren't we talking about Winnipeg???

. . .

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I cannot recommend this enough. Portland probably has the best selection of seafood restaurants in the country. Better than anything you'll find in Boston or on the Cape. And Old Port is like a whole other North End to explore.

The Rt 1 seacoast drive is a blast. You'll go through Portsmouth on the way, which is arguably New Hampshire's best city and it too acts as a bigger economic and cultural center than its size would indicate. Bonus: before you hit swanky Portsmouth, you'll get to experience Hampton Beach:

(there are no emojis for tattoo parlors, gun shops, or clam shack/Oxycontin-illegal firework combo stalls)

Haha, Hampton Beach. Tacky AF. Last time I was there there was this misshapen 50-something dude walking around a McDonald's in a Speedo. What was seen could not be unseen.

Agreed about Portsmouth. That town is a gem.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Why aren't we talking about Winnipeg???

. . .

I mean, have you guys even checked out this amazing Winnipeg photo thread?
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=245200

[ue]

Winnipeg definitely takes on a more substantial role than other Canadian cities in its range. Hamilton gets lost in orbit of Toronto and Quebec City is barely envisioned beyond the Old Town and Bonhomme in Anglo Canada.

[Razor]

I initially thought that Des Moines would be analogous to Winnipeg, but I just quickly checked out a map, and it probably is to an extent, but it's still close enough to Omaha and even KC..That said, all roads in Iowa probably lead to De Moines. U.S smaller metros just don't seem to be as isolated as their Canadian counterparts. Both Regina and Saskatoon are other good candidates. They both are the "big city" for their sections of mostly rural Saskatchewan.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ue

I agree. Halifax was the first place that immediately came to mind. It feels somewhat larger than it is, and takes on a role of a city far larger than it is. The city feels perhaps in the 600-800k range and functions at times like a city >1 million. Similarly sized Victoria, on the other hand, doesn't really have as much of this, and is an antidote to the 'bustle' of Vancouver, which takes on the big city draw for BC (and most of Western Canada, really).

A lot of people say these two cities are twins but I don't agree much with that, at least in a Canadian context, because I think they span a significant part of the overall "space" inhabited by Canadian metro areas. They are twins if your level of resolution extends to say rough geographic location (inland vs. coastal) and metropolitan area populations. You don't really hear Americans talk much about East and West Coast twins; in fact they tend to emphasize cultural differences between these regions. And as food for thought think of how often we hear that Quebec City and Winnipeg are twins (same metropolitan population, both on rivers, QED!). One difference is Victoria is a "big province" capital whereas Halifax is more or less capital of its commuter shed plus a few small outlying areas. Another is that Vancouver is a couple hours away while there is no comparable city in the Maritimes.

The Halifax size stuff is interesting because there are many different factors at play. One is that it's older than most Canadian cities so it has inherited more pedestrian-oriented urban fabric. Another is that it's the largest city in the region, however it's debatable what the region is (does it include NL and northern NB?). Then there's the geographical location at a kind of maritime crossroads that is part of why it had a major naval base early on. Most people tend to think of Halifax as a port city and assume that means shipping but the naval base was a much larger driver early on.

[zoomer]

Interesting points Someone123. I think the other reasons the Halifax and Victoria are compared is because they are the only two naval bases, and are relatively historic in their region and in a Canadian context. But other than that, there is little connection, and their histories, evolution and present day course are quite distinct. Canada has so few mid to larger cities the comparisons are inevitable, but as you stated, in the US that wouldn’t even come up.

As for Victoria, the only way it takes on a role of a larger city is being the provincial capital, which is significant. But outside of that it really only has a central or influential role on southern Vancouver Island, not even the full island. If you live close to Nanaimo or north, you don’t need to make the trek to the very tip of the island when Nanaimo will do, or you catch the ferry over to Vancouver from Nanaimo. This small area of influence/centrality due to being on an island and at the very southern tip of that island is why I think Victoria has and will grow more steadily and slowly than many expect.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Razor

I initially thought that Des Moines would be analogous to Winnipeg, but I just quickly checked out a map, and it probably is to an extent, but it's still close enough to Omaha and even KC..That said, all roads in Iowa probably lead to De Moines. U.S smaller metros just don't seem to be as isolated as their Canadian counterparts. Both Regina and Saskatoon are other good candidates. They both are the "big city" for their sections of mostly rural Saskatchewan.

Winnipeg CMA: 830,000
Omaha MSA: 980,000
Kansas City MSA: 2,160,000

Omaha, sure, but KCMO is closer in size to Vancouver than any other Canadian metropolitan area.

But yeah, the US doesn't have many sub 1m metro areas that are very prominent. Off the top of my head, there's Omaha, Boise, Spokane, Anchorage, Honolulu, Reno, maybe New Haven or Green Bay? A lot of the 'smaller' ones that immediately come to mind (Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Hartford, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, etc) still have 1-2m people.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by ue

Winnipeg CMA: 830,000
Omaha MSA: 980,000
Kansas City MSA: 2,160,000

Omaha, sure, but KCMO is closer in size to Vancouver than any other Canadian metropolitan area.

But yeah, the US doesn't have many sub 1m metro areas that are very prominent. Off the top of my head, there's Omaha, Boise, Spokane, Anchorage, Honolulu, Reno, maybe New Haven or Green Bay? A lot of the 'smaller' ones that immediately come to mind (Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Hartford, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, etc) still have 1-2m people.

What I meant by close was geographically. I should of phrased it better.
Thunder Bay would also be a good example..Like it's counterpart "Sudbury" in N/E ON, The home of Paul Schaffer anchors NW Ontario, and is just under 125k. Both Sudbury and TB would be lost in the throngs if they were situated in GTA somewhere.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ue

Winnipeg CMA: 830,000
Omaha MSA: 980,000
Kansas City MSA: 2,160,000

Omaha, sure, but KCMO is closer in size to Vancouver than any other Canadian metropolitan area.

But yeah, the US doesn't have many sub 1m metro areas that are very prominent. Off the top of my head, there's Omaha, Boise, Spokane, Anchorage, Honolulu, Reno, maybe New Haven or Green Bay? A lot of the 'smaller' ones that immediately come to mind (Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Hartford, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, etc) still have 1-2m people.

Portland (Maine), Burlington, Quad Cities (ok maybe not so prominent?), El Paso (though CSA is over 1M but I think that includes Las Cruces?) and Madison come to mind.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ue

Winnipeg CMA: 830,000
Omaha MSA: 980,000
Kansas City MSA: 2,160,000

Omaha, sure, but KCMO is closer in size to Vancouver than any other Canadian metropolitan area.

But yeah, the US doesn't have many sub 1m metro areas that are very prominent. Off the top of my head, there's Omaha, Boise, Spokane, Anchorage, Honolulu, Reno, maybe New Haven or Green Bay? A lot of the 'smaller' ones that immediately come to mind (Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Hartford, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, etc) still have 1-2m people.

The Salt Lake and Sacramento MSAs both exceed 2.3 million, and their CSAs exceed 2.6 million. They may still be considered "small" in the public's imagination, but they have grown rapidly and consistently over recent decades and now rank as mid-sized US metros.

[bnk]

I would say state capital cities take on a larger roll than their size.
Springfield would be closer to Decatur without the presence of being the capital.

Others Madison, Des Moines, Lansing, ect....

[someone123]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Interesting points Someone123. I think the other reasons the Halifax and Victoria are compared is because they are the only two naval bases, and are relatively historic in their region and in a Canadian context.

Their urban form is quite different when you get down to the details. For example Halifax has many prominent Georgian-era buildings and rowhouses and has smaller blocks and narrower streets.

Another difference is that Halifax tended to have more "megaprojects" (not really mega since it isn't a big city, but large and ambitious relative to its size) than Victoria. Scotia Square, Purdy's Wharf, Nova Centre, etc. These are a double-edged sword. They can be impressive and create a more urban feel but they can also be ugly and dysfunctional.

Metro-wise Halifax has more of a freeway network with suburbs hanging off of that, and it had more passenger rail routes before the freeway era. The southern end of Vancouver Island is more cut off by the Malahat.

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

You could make an argument that Greenville-Spartanburg serves this purpose in Upstate South Carolina. You'd expect some largish town to anchor a region of this size, but when you combine two of them, place them midway between two bonafide metropolises, and give them a government that thinks nothing of courting major league companies from Germany, France, and Japan, among others, you end up with a place that is an economic engine far beyond what you'd expect from towns this size in this region. It's to the point that when you consider the region, you wouldn't be able to call it a small one if there was only one focal city. However, because this is a multi-nodal urban area, you have a metro approaching a million people anchored on each end by a smallish city, with little towns in between all swamped by sprawl.

Meanwhile, up in Western North Carolina you have Asheville anchoring that entire part of the state. And because it anchors a good third of the state, and because it is a major hub for tourism to boot, it boasts amenities such as a hospital with an ER that was (and perhaps still is) one of the busiest in the entire country, and shopping and dining opportunities far beyond what you find in most cities of 92,000.

By sheer numbers inside the city limits, due to the difference in annexation laws in North Carolina and South Carolina, Asheville is the largest city between Charlotte and Atlanta despite Greenville having a much larger metro area. Asheville is also the largest city between Columbia and Knoxville.

Not only is SC's restrictive annexation laws responsible for Greenville's and Spartanburg's small city limits, but their counties are littered with all sorts of special purpose districts providing limited services (sewer, water, recreation, etc), some of which are holdovers before home rule was authorized in SC in 1970 and counties were empowered to provide basic services, and others that are local creations because...well, it's SC.. They are basically little fiefdoms with limited accountability to voters and because the SC Legislature is all about mutual back-scratching and palm-greasing, what you end up with is a highly balkanized and inefficient local government structure that has stymied economic development compared to neighboring states. Their functions should be subsumed by cities or counties but for that to happen, they have to agree to this along with other county officials and with a supermajority of affected residents agreeing. It's a damn shame this passes for acceptable government in the 21st century.

[KB0679]

Charleston, WV
Macon, GA
Myrtle Beach, SC
Salisbury, MD
Lafayette, LA
Tallahassee, FL

And although it's a midsized city, New Orleans definitely takes on the role of a much bigger city due to its historic status.

[llamaorama]

Houston has the same thing regarding unincorporated county areas being served by a patchwork of special districts and HOA's. Except in Texas this is a newer invention..

I think the real goal is to ensure that 1) developers of larger subdivisions and master planned communities have an entity to dump responsibility for infrastructure onto and 2) suburban conservatives don't want any of their money subsidizing poorer areas, even if it is less efficient. Municipal governments are too wise to the long-term fiscal sustainability of development projects and demand fees. Also they are too egalitarian, they guarantee a vote and provide services to lower income areas.

This yields a urban landscape that as far as I am concerned, can never be improved or fixed. Around the edges of the fancy subdivisions with their private services and infrastructure, you get low income housing and junky suburban commercial or light industry. So there's pockets of ghetto, but there's no resources for law enforcement, there's no way to efficiently run a bus route to these areas, these people don't have any parks they can use, etc. Also there's no civic interest in making anything better.

IMO, I think in the future we are going to need federal urban renewal again. Except instead of destroying city centers it will buy out large tracts of outdated suburbia and flatten it. And this time it won't be a mistake. What else do you do with a vacant regional mall surrounded by vacant toys r us and circuit city boxes next to some vacant class c office towers that have been empty since before covid?

Here in Houston, I suggest we use the Greenspoint area to calibrate our nation's nuclear arsenal in case of an attack. We need to make sure those nukes from the cold war still work now that ruskies are getting frisky again.

[Dariusb]

Redding CA
Bend OR
Grand Junction CO
Enid OK
Casper WY
Minot ND

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

these people don't have any parks they can use, etc.

I don’t think they really care. The large lot development model is partially premised on living in your own “park” where you don’t have to interact with anyone else. Many people in the types of subdivisions you describe (Houston, DFW, and San Antonio have these aplenty, and the outskirts of Austin does as well) have landscaped and manicured yards with many of the same amenities that public parks offer, yet on site and personally tailored. And many of these subdivisions have an HOA amenities building usually with a pool, bar, grill, deck, etc, that is also rentable for private special events, etc.

Parks are largely extraneous in this model. Why waste the money in these areas on parkland.

[llamaorama]

Parks are largely extraneous in this model. Why waste the money in these areas on parkland.

You are forgetting that there are many subdivisions or parcels of land with houses or trailers that do not have access to those private amenities, comprising a large number of citizens overall. There are a few county parks which are just big tracts of land with little league ball fields on them and that's it. There's the YMCA in Cypress and that's it for an area of like 1.5 million people living in that northern arc from 290 to Spring.

It's not just parks, which are not entirely essential, it's everything. Roads and infrastructure is in terrible shape and drainage only became a priority after Harvey. There are lots of bad areas but law enforcement presence is mostly constables who focus on subdivisions. The mature suburbs of Houston are sort of like a weird patchwork of nice upscale housing developments and then along the major roads like FM 1960 are ghetto-like areas filling in the gaps like mortar between bricks, if that makes sense. There are no sidewalks, everything is a stroad with a drainage ditch full of trash and signs. It's just gross. I don't see a future where someone would want to come in and revitalize or care about these dog turd areas