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.
I wouldn't call Aurora and Denver "twin cities" as much as I would call Boulder and Denver by that particular label. As others have mentioned, Aurora is a vast suburb whose growth is heavily reliant on its proximity to Denver. It's also a composite of several suburbs under the umbrella of one municipal government.
Boulder on the other hand is anchored by one of the best public universities in the country--buoyed by a lot of Federal dollars for research. The surrounding communities, such as Longmont, Lousiville, and even Broomfield, are heavily populated by folks who commute to jobs in Boulder and the immediate surrounding area. On top of all that, Boulder retains a very distinct identity and image than that of Denver.
Boulder has <100,000 people, while Denver has close to 600,000. There is no comparison. Boulder is part of the metro Denver area although it doesn't want to admit it. Many people commute to jobs in Boulder from Denver and vice versa. Most of the students at CU come from Denver and its burbs, so Boulder is very dependent on Denver. People in the other cities mentioned in this post commute to jobs all over the north/west metro area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smith21
the twincities of minneapolis and stpaul have been that for over a hundred years. its hard to see anything else being called that.
There are the twin cities of Champaign and Urbana in Illinios that are also called twin cities and actually do meet at Wright St. They are, of course, much smaller (~100,000 total).
i know other cities might be called that but if you type in twincities in google it will only bring up minneapolis stpaul not dallas fortworth or anywhere else. im not sure but i think minneapolis and stpaul have been called twincities dating back to the 1880s. minneapolis is also 55square miles and stpaul is 52 square miles so there like twins in that sense as well. i know dallas fortworth is more populated but combined they cover 640 square miles where minneapolis stpaul cover 107 combined.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
The only qualified ones on this list as twin cities are Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Dallas/Fort Worth, and Tampa/St. Petersbug These twins grew up as original twin cities with their own identities. MSP, DFW, & TSP actual had dual ties dating back to the 1800's with their own identities yet still somwhat independent of eachother. Tampa and St. Petersburg are very closely linked and as a whole metro area is most often reffered to as Tampa Bay. Minneapolis and St. Paul have been known as the original twin cities for eons and is most identified with the concept. Although Dallas and Fort Worth are a little further apart both cities have been linked for a long time as the DFW metroplex. In the late 1800's they competed with eachother to be the primary rail terminus of North Texas and both cities were hubs for cattle drives before the railroad.
San Jose grew up around the economic drive and expansion of mega suburban growth around San Francisco. Likewise the same for Bellevue and Seattle's eastside could be compared to Orange County's growth linked to LA. Aurora, CO hardly has any indentity as a city independent from Denver.
If anything, Oakland is much more of a sibling to San Francisco and Tacoma for Seattle.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 04-01-2010 at 10:00 AM..
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIATL
To me it was down to DFW and SF Bay, but i chose DFW simply because it was cheaper.
To be honest, I think the OP should have put San Francisco and Oakland together instead of San Jose. San Jose has it's own MSA while San Fran and Oakland both share one. Both San Fran and Oakland have history, their own skylines, their own sports teams, and their own suburbs. Oakland even has it's own medical center. Plus Oakland has historical significance and name recognition due to Malcolm X.
I see San Jose having it's own distinct identity from the Bay area. It has the Silicon Valley, and many call it it's capital.
Oakland: Professional Level
- Raiders
- Golden State Warriors
- Athletics
San Francisco: Professional Level
- 49-ers
- Giants
As you can see Oakland is the home to more of the (Big 4) professional sports teams in the Bay Area.
San Jose grew up around the economic drive and expansion of mega suburban growth around San Francisco. Likewise the same for Bellevue and Seattle's eastside could be compared to Orange County's growth linked to LA. Aurora, CO hardly has any indentity as a city independent from Denver.
San Jose is not analogous to Bellevue at all. Are you kidding? Not only is it older than San Francisco (and Bellevue by nearly a century) but it's 50 miles away, not across a lake.
To be honest, I think the OP should have put San Francisco and Oakland together instead of San Jose. San Jose has it's own MSA while San Fran and Oakland both share one. Both San Fran and Oakland have history, their own skylines, their own sports teams, and their own suburbs. Oakland even has it's own medical center. Plus Oakland has historical significance and name recognition due to Malcolm X.
I see San Jose having it's own distinct identity from the Bay area. It has the Silicon Valley, and many call it it's capital.
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?
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower
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?
Haha to be honest, San Jose and it's suburb of Cupertino are the hubs for family reunions for my family. I have an immense amount of family there, and I visit about 3 times a year at minimum, and what you're saying is true but I have seen that people who live in San Jose also want their city to be more recognized for it's own identity as well.
I think Raliegh/Durham could have been used as well, and Miami/Fort Lauderdale.
Haha to be honest, San Jose and it's suburb of Cupertino are the hubs for family reunions for my family. I have an immense amount of family there, and I visit about 3 times a year at minimum, and what you're saying is true but I have seen that people who live in San Jose also want their city to be more recognized for it's own identity as well.
I think Raliegh/Durham could have been used as well, and Miami/Fort Lauderdale.
Oh Well, I think every city in the Bay Area wants recognition or a change in what they are recognized in, especially Oakland (the SF Chronicle always manages to make ALL of Oakland look like Detroit West, even though the Oakland Hills and Rockridge are amongst the richest places in the Bay Area). I lived in Berkeley for 3 years, and it was interesting being sandwiched between two dangerous cities. I think San Jose is absolutely underrated, if anything. I really wouldn't mind living there at all!
There are plenty of examples of twin cities all over the country. Reno-Sparks, Cincinnati-Dayton, D.C.-Baltimore, San Bernardino-Riverside (own MSA), Raleigh-Durham (even though they're weirdly split up for the census), DFW, MSP, Miami-Ft Lauderdale, Seattle-Tacoma, etc. so its really hard to decide which is the best one. I don't think the Bay Area really qualifies, considering the age difference between all the cities (SF- 1776, SJ- 1779 but as a pueblo, Oakland- 1872 ) and the distance. SJ's population exploded in the 1940s and 1950s, Oakland during the early 1900s, and SF during the 1850s. It's weird to describe the relationship, but they all seem to interconnect (at least, IMO).
BTW- Cupertino is a really nice area! Around 55% of Berkeley's student population came from Monta Vista High or Lynbrook. Only somewhat of an exaggeration.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower
Oh Well, I think every city in the Bay Area wants recognition or a change in what they are recognized in, especially Oakland (the SF Chronicle always manages to make ALL of Oakland look like Detroit West, even though the Oakland Hills and Rockridge are amongst the richest places in the Bay Area). I lived in Berkeley for 3 years, and it was interesting being sandwiched between two dangerous cities. I think San Jose is absolutely underrated, if anything. I really wouldn't mind living there at all!
There are plenty of examples of twin cities all over the country. Reno-Sparks, Cincinnati-Dayton, D.C.-Baltimore, San Bernardino-Riverside (own MSA), Raleigh-Durham (even though they're weirdly split up for the census), DFW, MSP, Miami-Ft Lauderdale, Seattle-Tacoma, etc. so its really hard to decide which is the best one. I don't think the Bay Area really qualifies, considering the age difference between all the cities (SF- 1776, SJ- 1779 but as a pueblo, Oakland- 1872 ) and the distance. SJ's population exploded in the 1940s and 1950s, Oakland during the early 1900s, and SF during the 1850s. It's weird to describe the relationship, but they all seem to interconnect (at least, IMO).
BTW- Cupertino is a really nice area! Around 55% of Berkeley's student population came from Monta Vista High or Lynbrook. Only somewhat of an exaggeration.
Yeah! My cousin's house has a great view of Apple's headquarters! Jk, but it is convenient for him because commuting to downtown San Jose is a lot simpler because companies are spread out to other cities in the bay area. He doesn't have much of a traffic problem at all. However, I must say, San Jose does have one really ugly skyline, haha, but the mountains all around the city truly make up for that. I guess San Jose doesn't really care for a skyline, because they know they've got people coming in and that they're just as important as Oakland and San Francisco.
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.
Well, I think every city in the Bay Area wants recognition or a change in what they are recognized in, especially Oakland (the SF Chronicle always manages to make ALL of Oakland look like Detroit West, even though the Oakland Hills and Rockridge are amongst the richest places in the Bay Area). I lived in Berkeley for 3 years, and it was interesting being sandwiched between two dangerous cities. I think San Jose is absolutely underrated, if anything. I really wouldn't mind living there at all!
) and the distance. SJ's population exploded in the 1940s and 1950s, Oakland during the early 1900s, and SF during the 1850s. It's weird to describe the relationship, but they all seem to interconnect (at least, IMO).
Only somewhat of an exaggeration.
