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.
You should probably separate capital and largest city, as in many states it isn't both.
Chicago isn't the capital of Illinois, and I rarely heard rural individuals in IL complain or have a dislike for the actual city of Springfield. Now the political "idea" of Springfield, sure, but that's really a proxy for "Chicago-area politicians," who are the majority of the state legislature.
There was some us-against-them mentality of Western Mass vs. the rest of Mass (i.e., Boston) when I lived there.
In Wisconsin, my in-laws seem to be at best lukewarm towards Milwaukee. Lots of "I wouldn't want to live there..." Now Madison, most really like, but more for the Badgers than much of anything else.
In Maryland, it seems most like the city of Annapolis. Baltimore is basically the butt of most jokes.
Then again, who wouldn't? Annapolis is positively lovely.
There is a lot of animosity from largely conservative Eastern Washington and the many rural parts of Western Washington (honestly, even some Seattle exurbs) towards Seattle. They view it as this syringe-filled, overspending liberal nightmare where free heroin is distributed to people by the government and the streets are filled with homeless maniacs, left-wing anarchists, and beta-male Amazon tech workers.
The funny thing is that Seattle always gets blamed for using “our tax dollars” for all “their liberal spending” when in fact Seattle’s huge tax base actually subsidizes the rest of the state.
Contrary to CD California rhetoric, Sacramento is well received by most Californians. Sacramento is a pretty influential city in the area, certainly more than given credit for, with a sphere of influence that ranges from Redding to Modesto, The Bay to Nevada...
Raleigh is pretty well regarded by North Carolinians ..
It's getting worse in Georgia, from what I can tell.
Due to population and economic growth trends Metro Atlanta is getting more dominant within the state of Georgia, which may make it increasingly difficult for secondary cities, let alone the small towns and rural areas, to have as much of a statewide voice as before. Also the Atlanta suburbs are a lot more diverse and less conservative than they used to be, and thus are aligning more with the urban core and less with other parts of the state.
It's possible Georgia could evolve into a Southern version of Illinois eventually, where the one major metropolitan area pretty much determines on its own how to steer the state, but we aren't quite there yet. Savannah is worth watching however - it has a lot of potential that is just starting to bear fruit, and is far more independent of Atlanta than is true of the fall line cities (Columbus, Macon and Augusta).
It's possible Georgia could evolve into a Southern version of Illinois eventually, where the one major metropolitan area pretty much determines on its own how to steer the state, but we aren't quite there yet.
They're very close: while both states have at least a few million residents residing outside either the Chicago or Atlanta metros, both metros comprise between 60-70% of their entire state population, very similar to the polarity observed in Minnesota vis-a-vis the Twin Cities, Boston vis-a-vis Massachusetts (depending on how you count the metro area), and Arizona vis-a-vis Phoenix (all 60-70% of the entire state's population in one metro area). None of these are quite as polar as Providence/RI or even Las Vegas/Nevada when it comes to state dominance.
They're very close: while both states have at least a few million residents residing outside either the Chicago or Atlanta metros, both metros comprise between 60-70% of their entire state population, very similar to the polarity observed in Minnesota vis-a-vis the Twin Cities, Boston vis-a-vis Massachusetts (depending on how you count the metro area), and Arizona vis-a-vis Phoenix (all 60-70% of the entire state's population in one metro area). None of these are quite as polar as Providence/RI or even Las Vegas/Nevada when it comes to state dominance.
Metro Atlanta in 2017 was estimated at 56% of Georgia's population, which is steadily rising. The metro includes a large number of lightly developed counties that are well outside the main urbanized area but have a sufficient share of their workforce commuting closer to Atlanta.
Atlanta metro - 5,884,736
Georgia - 10,429,379
I think the Illinois and Minnesota comparisons are applicable to Georgia. I don't think Nevada and Arizona work so well because they are far more sparsely settled outside the major metro areas, while Massachusetts and Rhode Island are very small in area.
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.
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.
