Second cities - Page 3

manchester united · #41 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 6:54 PM**

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

JManc · #42 Posted **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 · #43 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet

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 · #44 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

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 · #45 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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 · #46 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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 · #47 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

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 · #48 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

Same with NY

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

jd3189 · #49 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

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

Then what’s the first? Jacksonville?

JManc · #50 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

Obadno · #51 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:05 PM**

I would argue the most powerfull and influential city in the world overall is NYC.

DC is powerfull becasue it is the US capitol but it isnt the "center" of things the way NYC is.

Formerly London, which was relegated to 2nd place about 80 years ago.

iheartthed · #52 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

The bigger difference is that the U.K. and France are unitary states versus our federal system. Federations tend to be decentralized (U.S., Canada, Germany, Brazil, Australia, etc.), and the capital usually serves a single function as just the political center. Off the top of my head, the only federations that I can think of where the capital is also the financial and cultural center are Mexico and Argentina. Berlin has a weird status as the political and cultural center, but not the financial center.

In federations like Canada, Brazil, and Australia, the capital is a geographically isolated and relatively dull place, like it was meant to be in the U.S. (And like it actually was in the U.S. until about the mid-20th century.)

Pulkvedis Pods · #53 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:17 PM**

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

Even so, I'd say for Latvia it would be Liepaja, since there was a fairly heated rivalry going on with Riga during the decade or so before WWI.

For Estonia, Tartu is a contender. History, University, culture put it on the map.

Steely Dan · #54 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

In federations like Canada, Brazil, and Australia, the capital is a geographically isolated and relatively dull, like it was meant to be in the U.S. (And like it actually was in the U.S. until about the mid-20th century.)

yeah, the founding fathers didn't get our capital city far enough away from the east coast.

if they had stuck it out in kentucky or something, it might have had more of the desired effect.

though, the US grew so effing large and globally important in the 20th century, that we likely would have ended up with a big giant capital city wherever it might have been placed.

subterranean · #55 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

I think the shareholders might disagree.

Centropolis · #56 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative

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.

St. Louis is the dominant city of Missouri, with an extra 1,000,000 people or whatever in missouri. But I don't think of KC as being the 2nd city of the state, either, as it's in a different region. Springfield is more likely to come to mind, which is yet again in a different region on the Ozark plateau. Missouri isn't a cohesive archetypal midwestern state.

Steely Dan · #57 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Missouri isn't a cohesive archetypal midwestern state.

yeah, it doesn't have one main city and then 50,000 sq. miles of corn, like iowa or ilinois or indiana.

JManc · #58 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The bigger difference is that the U.K. and France are unitary states versus our federal system. Federations tend to be decentralized (U.S., Canada, Germany, Brazil, Australia, etc.), and the capital usually serves a single function as just the political center. Off the top of my head, the only federations that I can think of where the capital is also the financial and cultural center are Mexico and Argentina. Berlin has a weird status as the political and cultural center, but not the financial center.

In federations like Canada, Brazil, and Australia, the capital is a geographically isolated and relatively dull place, like it was meant to be in the U.S. (And like it actually was in the U.S. until about the mid-20th century.)

The US is a superpower that commands the attention of the entire world. Not only does our federal government have a significant global presence and influence, it's ubiquitous here at home as well which means a vast of concentration of power in DC. You can't compare us to Canada or Brazil.

10023 · #59 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

And London is what it is because it attracts that from all over the EU, which certain political factions want to piss away on some nostalgia trip.

10023 · #60 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

I think the shareholders might disagree.

The shareholders are generally in New York, Boston and a handful of other financial centers too. The end investors aren’t paying attention.