Better for a State: 1 enormous metro Vs. a few large ones (map, largest)

[Southern Soul Bro]

A state has one very large, enormous metropolitan area of 6 or 7 million, with the rest of the state being small metros and rural towns.

Another state has 3 or 4 metros all ranging from lets say about 1.2-1.5 million in size.


Which benefits a state more? Having 1 enormous, thriving metropolis or a few "large" ones spread out around the state?

[Iconographer]

Hmm...sounds like a GA vs NC situation...
In the case of GA, I do think the presence of a single major metro has been problematic...Atlanta has repeatedly been held back by the antipathy of GA's state legislature. They have presented one obstacle after another in order to prevent the metro from receiving needed transportation funding, etc.
I would imagine that in NC, where there is a more balanced distribution of urban population, Charlotte receives less of a beating from it's state government.

[giantsfan11490]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Hmm...sounds like a GA vs NC situation...
In the case of GA, I do think the presence of a single major metro has been problematic...Atlanta has repeatedly been held back by the antipathy of GA's state legislature. They have presented one obstacle after another in order to prevent the metro from receiving needed transportation funding, etc.
I would imagine that in NC, where there is a more balanced distribution of urban population, Charlotte receives less of a beating from it's state government.

That's interesting.
Conversely, with a state like New York, NYC gets all the attention/funding and upstate/western New York is neglected...
So I guess it differs in every situation.

But I would think it would be better to have some variety...

[rwiksell]

Sounds to me like Illinois vs Missouri. Of course, both states capitals are in very minor cities (unlike Georgia, mentioned by LovinDecatur) and that does make a difference.

But I like Missouri's situation better (biased...) because I think Illinois suffers from being very lop-sided. Chicago has all the biggest problems, and the biggest resources, and the rest of the state gets very over-looked. Just think about how many of the most dangerous cities in the US are in Illinois (areas of Chicago, plus E. St. Louis.) But I think Missouri's attention is spread out better.

Here's a good list of each type of state, for discussion:

States with one metro that towers over the others:
New York
Massachusetts
Maryland (not really room for 2 metros, anyway)
Georgia
Louisiana
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin (and that city is... Chicago. or maybe Milwaukee.)
Nebraska (although Lincoln does give Omaha some competition)
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Nevada
Washington
Oregon

States where there is some competition among several sizable metros
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Florida
Tennessee
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas

That's only 23 states. I intentionally left out:
a) states with no sizable metros (such as New Hampshire or Montana)
b) states with a clearly dominant metro, but which doesn't completely overwhelm its other cities (such as California, New Mexico, or Kentucky)

[kidphilly]

MD kind of has two metros right on top of one another

[testa50]

I would imagine Ohio, Alabama, South Carolina, and Virginia would all fit into the second category.

[grapico]

Think the larger giant metro is better, they provide the critical mass needed for global economy. The others will get more and more left in the dust outside of smaller metros with high research universities. The exception is when the state is large enough to create several large metros such as Texas/California.

[rwiksell]

I can't believe I left Ohio out of the 2nd list. I was thinking about it, then just forgot to add it.

I think Virginia's sort of like a larger version of Kansas (both absent from both lists). They are oddballs, because their largest metro is actually centered out-of-state. So their greatest population is concentrated in the overflow of another state's metro area. Then the rest of the state is sort of divvied up among more moderately-sized cities, none of which can compete with the out-of-state metro.

[testa50]

I think a large metro tends to be better. Lots of corporations need a certain market of specialized services in a city in order to consider locating there, so Georgia is on the map for corporate relocations that Tennessee can't compete for, despite Georgia not being that much larger. Also, when you combine most of the wealth/culture/business in one place, you get some pretty impressive scale efficiencies, while other states have to try to build up this net of services in multiple different places.

Of course, as an Atlantan, I would love to see some of our other cities grow to become freestanding metro areas, rather than seen only in the shadow of Atlanta. Competition is a good thing.

[garmin239]

Several sizable metros. In NY, the whole state has to suffer because of NYC interests and NYC policies that don't work in the other metro areas. There are other metro areas in the state with around 1 million that are stagnant or in bad shape because of policies put forth by NYC interests that create high taxes and a horrible business climate.