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.
As a St. Paulite who lives in the REAL TWIN CITIES, I got to agree 100% with knke0204. The Twin Cities work together perfectly, flow into each other, yet the culture couldn't be more different. The animosity between the two is much more subdued than say seventy-five years ago, but tension is still there, especially among older residents. We've had two major pro sports arenas built in the last two years and for both of them there were multi-year hissy-fits over which city should get the facilities. Norm Coleman got St. Paul the hockey arena and very nearly got the baseball stadium which would not have gone over well in MPLS.
In fact if I'm remebering my history right, the reason it's the Minnesota TWINS was due to an effort to create some peace between the cities. It has actually worked and the place have worked together much better since.
This is also why in the last few decades most people in the cities refer to themselves as Minnesotans rather than St. Paulites or Minneapolitans. This is different than most major cities where people identify as Chicagoans or Philadelphians or Bostonians.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
That makes total sense, The Twin City is very fortunate to actually have all professional sports teams, the amount that it does have. Haha Las Vegas really got the short end of the stick there.
Not that I don't disagree with most of this post, but San Jose is part of the Bay Area. It's city limits TOUCH San Francisco Bay. Many San Jose residents see themselves as an integral part of the Bay Area. Much of 'Silicon Valley' lies on the San Francisco Peninsula. Palo Alto, for example, isn't even in the Santa Clara Valley, but on the peninsula.
I don't think any place in the Bay Area is a twin city. It's a multipolar region with many different poles. Come to the Bay Area and you'll see for yourself. Everything is decentralized. In fact, many of the Bay Area's important institutions (like Stanford and Berkeley, Chevron's HQ, various military installations) aren't even in SF, Oakland, or San Jose.
However, given the parameters of this thread, San Francisco and Oakland would have made much more sense than San Francisco and San Jose. If SF-SJ is used, why isn't Seattle-Tacoma?
Seattle-Tacoma is used as in "Sea-Tac" International Airport.
I said post 1950's suburbs, and Cal Train is a commuter rail between SF and SJ and BART wants to expand to SJ (imagine that - SJ in the Bay area) I see southern Marin County down to Gilroy and over just past Richmond and Walnut Creek as in the Bay Area. Sure East Bay, Silicon Valley, and just over the Golden Gate have their own dynamic, but it all started in San Francisco. Next came Oakland, and it grew out from there.
Do you realize the size of the area you just described? And you think it all revolves around San Francisco just because there is continuous development? People are not like electricity, flowing from town to town just because the borders touch. Even Oakland would be a poorer example of a twin than MSP because of the water.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Would you classify a city that is very large, sustains it's own international airport or has one shared with yet another large city in the vicinity, has it's own skyline, it's own districts and entertainment, and news stations as a twin city?
[quote=TelecasterBlues;13484912]They might be just a little bit too far apart...but I'd personally take Austin/San Antonio. Eventually, I think these two could grow into Texas' second Metroplex with a fantastic modern/historical offset between the two. Both are growing like crazy with every town in between benefiting from it, I think it's only a matter of time. Austin is already paired with Round Rock to the north and San Marcos to the south to form an MSA; San Marcos is literally the half way point between San Antonio and Austin and would work as an "Arlington" or "Irving" along with New Braunfels which is currently paired with San Antonio to form an MSA. I think there's only a 15-20 mile stretch that separates San Marcos from New Braunfels, so the two metros are basically right on eachother's doorstep.
New Braunfels and San Marcos are 16 miles apart to each city centers/downtowns, if they expand their city limits to touch each other SA/Austin will have continous incorporated cities or suburbs between the two on IH 35. The SA/Austin metros are growing together but more as a corridor than twin cities.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
[quote=BillyH;13638636]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TelecasterBlues
They might be just a little bit too far apart...but I'd personally take Austin/San Antonio. Eventually, I think these two could grow into Texas' second Metroplex with a fantastic modern/historical offset between the two. Both are growing like crazy with every town in between benefiting from it, I think it's only a matter of time. Austin is already paired with Round Rock to the north and San Marcos to the south to form an MSA; San Marcos is literally the half way point between San Antonio and Austin and would work as an "Arlington" or "Irving" along with New Braunfels which is currently paired with San Antonio to form an MSA. I think there's only a 15-20 mile stretch that separates San Marcos from New Braunfels, so the two metros are basically right on eachother's doorstep.
New Braunfels and San Marcos are 16 miles apart to each city centers/downtowns, if they expand their city limits to touch each other SA/Austin will have continous incorporated cities or suburbs between the two on IH 35. The SA/Austin metros are growing together but more as a corridor than twin cities.
Yes, the gap between New Braunsfels and San Marcos is 15-20 miles at the most. I drive through there every once a week to go between San Antonio and Austin.
This is a very good possibility. Both cities are apart of the Texas Golden Triangle.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,720 posts, read 23,621,080 times
Reputation: 14551
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
Do you realize the size of the area you just described? And you think it all revolves around San Francisco just because there is continuous development? People are not like electricity, flowing from town to town just because the borders touch. Even Oakland would be a poorer example of a twin than MSP because of the water.
OK I've really gotten over this. It comes down to I see the Bay Area in a more macro sense, and you see it micro. The fact is San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose are the three nodes of the Bay Area that have grown dependently and independently from eachother. Kinda like a family, there is no metro area in the world quite like it. The Bay area is very well connected from it's massive transbay bridges and tunnels and rail networks that are some of Americas most impressive engineering achievements. When foreigners think of the area San Francisco usually comes to mind first. However the Silicon Valley has a lot of international business so San Jose is on the radar.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by caphillsea77
OK I've really gotten over this. It comes down to I see the Bay Area in a more macro sense, and you see it micro. The fact is San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose are the three nodes of the Bay Area that have grown dependently and independently from eachother. Kinda like a family, there is no metro area in the world quite like it. The Bay area is very well connected from it's massive transbay bridges and tunnels and rail networks that are some of Americas most impressive engineering achievements. When foreigners think of the area San Francisco usually comes to mind first. However the Silicon Valley has a lot of international business so San Jose is on the radar.
The area is quite dense and has things that appeal to just about anyone out there. It has nearly everything. They work together very well when they;re all combined.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,720 posts, read 23,621,080 times
Reputation: 14551
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN55
As a St. Paulite who lives in the REAL TWIN CITIES, I got to agree 100% with knke0204. The Twin Cities work together perfectly, flow into each other, yet the culture couldn't be more different. The animosity between the two is much more subdued than say seventy-five years ago, but tension is still there, especially among older residents. We've had two major pro sports arenas built in the last two years and for both of them there were multi-year hissy-fits over which city should get the facilities. Norm Coleman got St. Paul the hockey arena and very nearly got the baseball stadium which would not have gone over well in MPLS.
In fact if I'm remebering my history right, the reason it's the Minnesota TWINS was due to an effort to create some peace between the cities. It has actually worked and the place have worked together much better since.
This is also why in the last few decades most people in the cities refer to themselves as Minnesotans rather than St. Paulites or Minneapolitans. This is different than most major cities where people identify as Chicagoans or Philadelphians or Bostonians.
Great stories! It's pretty funny how they bicker at eachother like siblings, in their earliest years they fought like kid sisters, lol.
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.