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 much as I like Denver it is not a twin city. This is because Aurora is not a principal city that grew the same time Denver did but is a suburb that oues its growth to Denver.
I picked Minneapolis/ St Paul because when I think of twin cities I think if that area but Dallas/ Fort Worth is a close second and I think the new emerging twin cities in the Pueblo/ Colorado Springs area.
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.
But traditionally speaking, Minneapolis/St. Paul is the only real anser to this question.
Last edited by TelecasterBlues; 03-27-2010 at 10:00 PM..
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.
But traditionally speaking, Minneapolis/St. Paul is the only real anser to this question.
There also looking into commuter rail between Austin/San Antonio
The listing for the "twin cities" in Washington state should be Seattle-Tacoma, not Seattle-Bellevue. That's particularly true if Dallas-Fort Worth (30 miles apart, about the same as Seattle-Tacoma) are listed as twin cities.
Incidentally, I'd also list the Bay Area twin cities as San Francisco-Oakland rather than San Francisco-San Jose. Really, the Bay Area is more of a tri-cities area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) IMO.
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.
But traditionally speaking, Minneapolis/St. Paul is the only real anser to this question.
San Marcos is distinctly closer to Austin than it is to San Antonio (I think the mileages are something like 30 and 50 miles respectively); New Braunfels has the exact opposite relationship (30 miles to San Antonio, 50 miles to Austin). Really, San Antonio and Austin are too far apart to be twin cities; those two cities and the smaller cities between and a short distance beyond them are more like an emerging corridor (and I definitely agree that is an emerging corridor).
If San Antonio and Austin are classified as twin cities, then we better classify New York-Philadelphia, Philadelphia-Baltimore (and for that matter Baltimore-Washington), Boston-Providence, Cincinnati-Dayton, Chicago-Milwaukee, and the Bay Area-Sacramento as twin cities too. All of those pairs of cities (or trio of Bay Area cities and Sacramento in northern California's case) are a little less than 100 miles from one another, like San Antonio-Austin (and Baltimore-Washington, Boston-Providence, and Cincinnati-Dayton are all much closer to one another than San Antonio-Austin).
I wouldn't consider Denver/ Aurora , Seattle /Bellevue, and San Francisco/San Jose as being on a list of------Twin Cities
I wouldn't either. I would only consider the following cities as twin cities.
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Dallas/Fort Worth
Seattle/Tacoma
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale
Tampa/St.Petersburg
I only did major metro areas all of which are around 3 million or higher.
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.
