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.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3
In the Bay Area Oakland may not be overshadowed but to the rest of the country its pretty much just some city across the bay from SF.
Not my point. It is overshadowed, as it is relatively small, compared to San Jose and San Francisco. But, in terms of having its own identity, even the statement you make that it is "across the bay from San Francisco" shows that you know where it is located and that you recognize that it is a city and not a suburb of SF. Places that are insignificant in the eyes of Johnny Lunchbox middle-America, like St. Paul and Ft. Worth don't have that.
Pro sports is a good measure of what I am talking about. Teams are not named or located arbitrarily. They associate with a critical mass fan base in order to garner the most sustainable following possible. in instances where the team is located in what is considered a suburb (or place without a distinct identity) or, where the team does not have the critical mass of fan support within a single city and must play to a larger region, the team tends to take the state's identity. That is not the case in Oakland.
Beyond that admittedly superficial example, Oakland has maintained many independent metropolitan characteristics in its own right for decades. It's population, transportation network, economy, corporate presence and infrastructure have been that of an independent city for a long, long time.
Philly really seems to be overshadowed a lot here on C-D. It produces some good posters (kidphilly) but the vast majority of people there seem to have a deep-seated inferiority complex towards NYC, Chicago, and Ft. Collins, CO.
It seems like any city named Columbus or Springfield tends to be overshadowed. The Simpsons made "Springfield" famous, but only as a joke that there are so many generic cities of the same size. When do you ever hear of anything out of Columbus, GA (300K metro) or Columbus, OH (1.8M metro) (not counting Ohio State University)?
I'm thinking it's either between Milwaukee or Philly. Milwaukee is a mid-major city with many cultural amendities and great festivals but its completely overshadowed by Chicago which is only a few hours south of Milwaukee. And Philadelphia used to be a top 5 metro area in the US, but is overshadowed by NYC in national standing.
Is there any other major cities that are overshadowed in the US?
Is Hoboken a City?. If so than my pic is certainly Hoboken, it's beautiful and i love it.
Tampa Bay is overshadowed for a metro it's size. The population size is in the same range as San Diego and Denver metros, which get more attention (at least on CD).
San Jose the city itself may be overshadowed. However, you hear a lot of talk about the Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general, so in a way it is not that overshadowed.
Philly gets a lot of attention CD. In real life it seems to be overshadowed by the other big cities in the Bos-Wash Corridor, with the exception of Baltimore. NYC, Boston, and DC get a lot more recognition than Philly IMO.
St. Louis gets quite a bit of attention on CD, but again, in reality I feel like you don't hear much about it.
I see where you're going with this, but I would not put Tampa in the same tier as Denver or San Diego when it comes to the size of their metro/urban area.
Denver has 2.4 million residents in its 680 square mile urban area for a density of 3,500 per square mile.
San Diego is even larger with 3 million residents in 730 square miles (4,000 peeps per sq mile).
Tampa's urban area is about 950 square miles with 2.4 million residents, about 2,500 a square mile.
Urban density is an excellent indicator regarding the importance of a metropolitan area. Generally, the more densely populated a city or urban area is, the more significance it has in the world. As the density of a city increases, more resources, jobs, sects, and activities become available, such as subways/light rail, multinational firms and research grants, ethnic 'towns' like Chinatown, and globally recognized 'things to do'.
Tampa is better compared with the St. Louis and Minneapolis urban areas.
St. Louis has 2.2 million residents in 923 square miles and a density of 2,350.
Similarly, Minneapolis has 2.65 million residents in 1,021 square miles and a density of 2,600.
The size and scope of Tampa, St. Louis, and Minneapolis are all very similar and I hear about each of these cities relatively equally in CD forums and elsewhere.
I see where you're going with this, but I would not put Tampa in the same tier as Denver or San Diego when it comes to the size of their metro/urban area.
Denver has 2.4 million residents in its 680 square mile urban area for a density of 3,500 per square mile.
San Diego is even larger with 3 million residents in 730 square miles (4,000 peeps per sq mile).
Tampa's urban area is about 950 square miles with 2.4 million residents, about 2,500 a square mile.
Urban density is an excellent indicator regarding the importance of a metropolitan area. Generally, the more densely populated a city or urban area is, the more significance it has in the world. As the density of a city increases, more resources, jobs, sects, and activities become available, such as subways/light rail, multinational firms and research grants, ethnic 'towns' like Chinatown, and globally recognized 'things to do'.
Tampa is better compared with the St. Louis and Minneapolis urban areas.
St. Louis has 2.2 million residents in 923 square miles and a density of 2,350.
Similarly, Minneapolis has 2.65 million residents in 1,021 square miles and a density of 2,600.
The size and scope of Tampa, St. Louis, and Minneapolis are all very similar and I hear about each of these cities relatively equally in CD forums and elsewhere.
I'd say Houston, San Antonio, San Jose, and Phoenix are cities that people don't realize are some of the largest in the country. People may disagree with Houston, but really...how many Americans know that Houston is larger in population than Philly, Boston, or San Francisco?
On a national and global scale I agree. Within the state of Maryland both metro areas pull their own weight.
Of course not in its own backyard.
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.
