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.
Newark and Jersey City, NJ to NYC have to be the biggest ones. Also, Long Beach and Los Angeles.
I don't know if Jersey City and Newark would be much of anything without NYC being right there though. Their economies kind of depend on NYC and a lot of their growth comes from spillover from NYC.
MiMilwauke compared to Chicago- Both are on the lake and are only 90 miles apart between their downtowns. It's reduced to 30 miles considering Chicago's metro ends up north adjacent to Wisconsin's southern border.
Some of Chicago's "exurbs" may qualify like Aurora and Joliet. Aurora has a ppopulation of 200k, which would make it more populated thanssome states largest cities
MiMilwauke compared to Chicago- Both are on the lake and are only 90 miles apart between their downtowns. It's reduced to 30 miles considering Chicago's metro ends up north adjacent to Wisconsin's southern border.
Some of Chicago's "exurbs" may qualify like Aurora and Joliet. Aurora has a ppopulation of 200k, which would make it more populated thanssome states largest cities
Milwaukee is much more a city than Aurora or Joliet. I think Milwaukee and Chicago benefit by their close proximity...and I don't think there is any question which city is more important. However, Milwaukee can (and does) stand on its own.
Fort Worth, Baltimore, Oakland, & St. Paul come to mind.
I think St. Paul is similar to Cambridge, MA. Functionally speaking, it and Minneapolis operate as one city with a couple different nodes within it, tough it's really only in the Prospect Park/Merriam Park West area that there are two residential areas that blend together.
I am talking about actual big cities with a local culture that could do well as cities of their own, but because they are so close geographically to an even larger city, they pretty much become a sort of secondary city.
Oakland comes to mind. Oakland could be a normal big city, in may states Oakland would be the state's largest city, however due to its proximity to San Francisco, Oakland is often just mentioned when San Francisco or the Bay area is mentioned, as a result Oakland somehow doesn't really get all the attention it deserves.
Fort Lauderdale is another example in reference to Miami.
Are there any other big cities that follow that pattern? I suppose southern California or the area around New York city has plenty of cities like that.
Oakland (and San Jose) would probably qualify, as would Fort Worth. On a smaller scale, Durham, NC and whatever the large cities are in the Hampton Roads (VA) area would work as well. I think that Fort Lauderdale, the Inland Empire in southern California, and cities like Newark, Jersey City, and Yonkers benefit dramatically from suburban sprawl and would probably only be midsize cities if it weren't for being close to other major cities.
For cities like St. Paul and St. Petersburg (FL), the "bigger" city isn't big enough to truly make them secondary cities.
With the case of Baltimore and Washington D.C. (and even more so with Philadelphia/New York City, Milwaukee/Chicago, etc.), the spheres of influence are creeping up on each other, but I don't think that these cities are quite at the level of being relegated as "secondary" because of proximity to a larger city, but rather it's just because larger cities get more attention as it is.
Oakland (and San Jose) would probably qualify, as would Fort Worth. On a smaller scale, Durham, NC and whatever the large cities are in the Hampton Roads (VA) area would work as well. I think that Fort Lauderdale, the Inland Empire in southern California, and cities like Newark, Jersey City, and Yonkers benefit dramatically from suburban sprawl and would probably only be midsize cities if it weren't for being close to other major cities.
For cities like St. Paul and St. Petersburg (FL), the "bigger" city isn't big enough to truly make them secondary cities.
With the case of Baltimore and Washington D.C. (and even more so with Philadelphia/New York City, Milwaukee/Chicago, etc.), the spheres of influence are creeping up on each other, but I don't think that these cities are quite at the level of being relegated as "secondary" because of proximity to a larger city, but rather it's just because larger cities get more attention as it is.
This!
I'm seeing posters say places like Minneapolis/St Paul, Dallas/Ft Worth, but Baltimore isn't in a situation like those cities. Baltimore is the primary city in its own Metro, it's just that DC is only 40 miles away, and the suburbs of both cities collide.
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.
