U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which North American city or cities can successfully thrive as a "City-State" if it were o
New York 96 75.00%
Mexico City 52 40.63%
District of Columbia 38 29.69%
Los Angeles 64 50.00%
Chicago 43 33.59%
Toronto 34 26.56%
San Francisco Bay Area 49 38.28%
Montreal 22 17.19%
Other 9 7.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 128. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2015, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
5,580 posts, read 5,373,293 times
Reputation: 3023

Advertisements

Staten Island?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2015, 11:51 AM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
3,982 posts, read 1,944,710 times
Reputation: 2440
eerie timing. is op's question based on this dialog ?:
Attached Thumbnails
If North America had "City-States," which cities could pull it off?-screenshot000.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,239 posts, read 3,482,438 times
Reputation: 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328 View Post
Staten Island?
If you are going to try islands, it would make sense to start with the largest populated island in the US, Long Island. Long island by itself has a population of 7.8 million. For example, the whole Hawaiian archipelago is only 1.4 million people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,577,322 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by missionhill View Post
LA doesn't have as much to gain since its hinterland is already in Calif. Same with Chicago except I suspect 'Chicagoland' does a lot to support central and southern Illinois so let that go and be on its own.
I suppose some are answering it more as "which cities could" as opposed to "which cities should".

Los Angeles County certainly could, though I agree it definitely should not.

I think the Bay Area could. In fact, that insane plan to split CA into 7 states was proposed by a businessman in the Bay Area. It essentially created a state of "Silicon Valley," in other words the Bay Area CSA. I don't think the idea of that state being viable is why the plan is so crazy - it's the Mississippi of the west that would be created by the interior areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
5,580 posts, read 5,373,293 times
Reputation: 3023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
If you are going to try islands, it would make sense to start with the largest populated island in the US, Long Island. Long island by itself has a population of 7.8 million. For example, the whole Hawaiian archipelago is only 1.4 million people.
I was sarcastically referring to Staten Island's desire to succeed from NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
2,378 posts, read 2,487,576 times
Reputation: 1477
I'd say there are already cities which would be better off. Particularly major cities in states which have more than one major city. IE: to my understanding Philly's public transport could seriously use another underground line or faster suburban rail but it's too busy paying for the roads for the rest of the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,724,081 times
Reputation: 7295
A couple of things, small cities aren't apart of this thread but it is okay to mention them here (obviously) but understand that small City-States (or microstates) across the world are a result of constitutional-monarchies. As the purely City-State examples of them are Andorra and Monaco and both are Principalities, meaning they are Constitutional-Monarchy, meaning Prince Albert II is the head of state in Monaco. The United States doesn't have a "Royal Family" so we have no need for small City-States such as Andorra and Monaco.

Also, Vatican City is a religiously autonomic, it was designed to serve as the head of the Roman Catholic order. The United States does not have any religious cities like it for us to warrant a Vatican City type of City-State.

That leaves Hong Kong and Singapore and they are both big cities. I notice some people talking about suburbs and commuter rail, understand Singapore and Hong Kong don't have suburbs, the city is the country and it is linked together and the neighborhoods are strewn together by a mass transit link that serves as much of the city as possible. Now both cities have bedroom communities outside their borders, the Singapore ones are Riau Islands of Indonesia and Johor Bahru across the strait from Singapore. People from these areas commute into Singapore for work or business or just site seeing or shopping among the like.

Think of it this way, if New York (just the city) were a City-State, it would similarly draw people from across the Hudson River for shopping, work, site-seeing, or the like. So commuter rail (or metropolitan areas in general) are not a factor in this thread, save for maybe the San Francisco Bay Area which is a geographic ring around the San Francisco Bay.

So the question is, which city, as it stands now, has the resources, infrastructure, and is generally well off enough to thrive as a City-State if it were one? The way I see it, New Yorkers already import their food and water and everything from other states and other countries as it is, they already have an extensive mass transit network, are built up densely, and have the financial resources to pull it off. I would also give it to Los Angeles, the District of Columbia, and the Distrito Federal (Mexico City) too. How about other cities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2015, 12:29 AM
 
Location: BC Canada
831 posts, read 875,147 times
Reputation: 1118
I would agree that a deep sea port is important but Toronto does qualify that way as well. It doesn't have a large port but is on the Seaway........an international waterway.

I would say NYC, SF, Toronto, L,A, and maybe Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 11:45 AM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
3,982 posts, read 1,944,710 times
Reputation: 2440
boswash. i dont think anything else would really work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 11:59 AM
 
837 posts, read 654,995 times
Reputation: 947
Are we including suburbs? We would have to, most city states have hinterlands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top