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.
Most Northern cities may go by that rule (especially major cities which sit on state lines and have built-up suburbs in neighboring states),
I've found that when outside the area, Kansas Citians say they're from Kansas City, regardless where they may live in the metro area. However, if they live outside the five core metro counties (Jackson, Clay, and Platte in Missouri, Johnson and Wyandotte in Kansas), they may say they're from whatever town they live in and follow that up by saying it's near Kansas City.
But it DOES mean it has the wider sphere of influence and plays the more important role within its region.
And let's not act as though there aren't a bunch of hillbilly hollers in metro Philly. Last time I checked, Philly was still in Pennsylvania.
True, but the Southeast, even its remaining unsubdivided area, is culturally quite different from the rest of the state, whether you're talking Pittsburgh, the coal country of Northeast PA, Amish country next door in Lancaster, or the thinly populated "T", the part sometimes referred to derisively as "Pennsyltucky." (I once said this was an insult to Kentucky.)
The Southeast is part of the Northeast Corridor, the most urbanized part of the most urbanized region of the country. The area around York is a Northeast Corridor exurb thanks to the Baltimoreans who have moved up into it. The rest of the state save for Lancaster, Harrisburg and the Lehigh Valley really have no connection to it.
I think Pine to Vine got the difference exactly backwards regarding Atlanta and Philadelphia, and the difference lies in the surrounding region beyond the metro - the part he referred to derisively as full of hillbillies and peanut farmers. (Perhaps he forgot about the peanut farmer who served as President from 1977 to 1981; he was about as far from a hick as one could be.) The difference is this: When you're 100 miles from Atlanta, there's no other large city near you that might compete for your attention. (Savannah, Macon, Augusta, Columbus, Columbia and Charleston have their charms, but they're all small beer. What charms Birmingham may possess elude me.)
When you travel 100 miles in any direction from Philadelphia save east (you're in the Atlantic Ocean then) or west (you're in Harrisburg), you are either in another large metro or close enough to it that the people around you may be speaking about it rather than Philadelphia. That more than its geographic sprawl may be what makes Atlanta "feel bigger" than Philadelphia.
I recall growing up that for just about everyone west of a line that ran through Des Moines south to Columbia and Jefferson City, Kansas City is "the big city" until you get about 3/4 of the way across Kansas. That's an awfully large territory. Atlanta has a similar hinterland. Philadelphia dosen't.
My last few posts were snarky, and I apologize for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I think Pine to Vine got the difference exactly backwards regarding Atlanta and Philadelphia, and the difference lies in the surrounding region beyond the metro - the part he referred to derisively as full of hillbillies and peanut farmers. (Perhaps he forgot about the peanut farmer who served as President from 1977 to 1981; he was about as far from a hick as one could be.) The difference is this: When you're 100 miles from Atlanta, there's no other large city near you that might compete for your attention. (Savannah, Macon, Augusta, Columbus, Columbia and Charleston have their charms, but they're all small beer. What charms Birmingham may possess elude me.)
When you travel 100 miles in any direction from Philadelphia save east (you're in the Atlantic Ocean then) or west (you're in Harrisburg), you are either in another large metro or close enough to it that the people around you may be speaking about it rather than Philadelphia. That more than its geographic sprawl may be what makes Atlanta "feel bigger" than Philadelphia.
I don’t buy the logic that a city that anchors a larger geographic area is more influential than one that anchors a more populous area. NYC sits on an ocean. About 45 miles south, Philly takes over. But by this logic, Atlanta is more influential than NYC because it reaches the remote mountainsides 100 miles away. Well, guess what? El Paso trumps all 3.
You're definitely reaching now. Your stats have nothing to do with what metro feels larger. Atlanta simply feels like a larger metro.
Another poster raised the notion that Atlanta is more influential than Philly. I disagree. I provided two metrics to back up my assertion. Philly has the larger economy. Seccondly, it’s hard to find a more influential tool than the media. Philly is the 4th largest US media hub while Atlanta is 10th.
I hardly find the fact that a show called Greenleaf(?) is filmed in Atlanta trumps those two metrics.
Agree. Disagree. This is my response to that poster.
I don’t buy the logic that a city that anchors a larger geographic area is more influential than one that anchors a more populous area. NYC sits on an ocean. About 45 miles south, Philly takes over. But by this logic, Atlanta is more influential than NYC because it reaches the remote mountainsides 100 miles away. Well, guess what? El Paso trumps all 3.
Like power, influence is a quality that depends on a number of factors and is not fixed, universal, uniform or immutable. It varies according to what one is talking about.
My (inevitable) raising of Kansas City as a case study was meant to illustrate that. In the global hierarchy of cities, it has very little influence or power, but within its region, it's the focal point for a fairly large territory consisting mostly of farms and small towns but also containing several other smaller cities (Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Lincoln, Joplin, Omaha, and to an extent Des Moines and Springfield (Mo). - although in Des Moines' case, the influence may flow almost as strongly in the other direction, given the large media company based there (which owns one of Kansas City's main broadcast TV stations and whose nonprofit foundation paid part of my way through Harvard on a National Merit Scholarship) and some other Des Moines-based businesses that have spread across the Midwest, including the graphic design/T-shirt studio that made my "I lived in Kansas City BEFORE it was cool" T-shirt.)
Atlanta definitely occupies that spot in the Cotton Belt. but on top of this, it is also a national media hub thanks to Ted Turner. Despite its owner being headquartered here, NBC hasn't moved to make Philadelphia its base of national operations - 30 Rockefeller Plaza remains its home, and Comcast, not wishing to fix what's not broken, shows no intention of changing that.
Because of things like CNN, Atlanta enjoys outsize influence on the national stage, influence that puts it on par with both larger cities like Philadelphia and larger markets like it and Chicago (which is also a media branch office in every respect).
Internationally, I'd say Philadelphia has a higher profile than Atlanta, but not by so much as to put it in another league. I haven't checked the foreign-visitor stats, though, and Atlanta's may be skewed by the fact that it's the international gateway for anyone headed to the Southeastern US from other countries while Philadelphia labors in New York's shadow in that respect.
So, yes, relative location to other cities also has some bearing on their influence regionally and globally (not as much nationally, though). And again, connections may also make a difference: were El Paso less isolated, it might be both larger and more influential. Too much distance separates it from other metropolises, and its surrounding hinterlands are much less populous.
Edited to add: And still other factors can come into play in shaping a city's influence. Like weather - which is what enabled Los Angeles to capture the film industry in its early decades. Or availability of natural resources - even with Hollywood, LA couldn't have grown as much as it did had William Mulholland not been able to suck the water out of Northern California and bring it down to that semi-desert city.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 07-08-2018 at 08:05 AM..
Like power, influence is a quality that depends on a number of factors and is not fixed, universal, uniform or immutable. It varies according to what one is talking about.
My (inevitable) raising of Kansas City as a case study was meant to illustrate that. In the global hierarchy of cities, it has very little influence or power, but within its region, it's the focal point for a fairly large territory consisting mostly of farms and small towns but also containing several other smaller cities (Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Lincoln, Joplin, Omaha, and to an extent Des Moines and Springfield (Mo). - although in Des Moines' case, the influence may flow almost as strongly in the other direction, given the large media company based there (which owns one of Kansas City's main broadcast TV stations and whose nonprofit foundation paid part of my way through Harvard on a National Merit Scholarship) and some other Des Moines-based businesses that have spread across the Midwest, including the graphic design/T-shirt studio that made my "I lived in Kansas City BEFORE it was cool" T-shirt.)
Atlanta definitely occupies that spot in the Cotton Belt. but on top of this, it is also a national media hub thanks to Ted Turner. Despite its owner being headquartered here, NBC hasn't moved to make Philadelphia its base of national operations - 30 Rockefeller Plaza remains its home, and Comcast, not wishing to fix what's not broken, shows no intention of changing that.
Because of things like CNN, Atlanta enjoys outsize influence on the national stage, influence that puts it on par with both larger cities like Philadelphia and larger markets like it and Chicago (which is also a media branch office in every respect).
Internationally, I'd say Philadelphia has a higher profile than Atlanta, but not by so much as to put it in another league. I haven't checked the foreign-visitor stats, though, and Atlanta's may be skewed by the fact that it's the international gateway for anyone headed to the Southeastern US from other countries while Philadelphia labors in New York's shadow in that respect.
So, yes, relative location to other cities also has some bearing on their influence regionally and globally (not as much nationally, though). And again, connections may also make a difference: were El Paso less isolated, it might be both larger and more influential. Too much distance separates it from other metropolises, and its surrounding hinterlands are much less populous.
Edited to add: And still other factors can come into play in shaping a city's influence. Like weather - which is what enabled Los Angeles to capture the film industry in its early decades. Or availability of natural resources - even with Hollywood, LA couldn't have grown as much as it did had William Mulholland not been able to suck the water out of Northern California and bring it down to that semi-desert city.
I’m not pursuaded. I can see where some see being a big fish in a small pond trumps being a small(er) fish in a big pond (actually, Philadelphia is the second largest BosWash metro area, though not yet the second most influential). Still, Philly sits smack dab in the middle of what is generally recognized as the nation’s greatest concentration of financial, political, media and educational power. Clearly BosWash carries more power and influence than the cotton and corn belts. As the real estate editor of our city magazine, you yourself regularly point out that our city is ever ascendant. This seems to me to be a pretty sweet spot to find ourselves.
And I was wondering when someone would identify CNN as a factor contributing to Atlanta’s influence. Your example of NBC being headquartered at 30 Rock provides a good rationale for why Atlanta doesn’t get a big national boost from CNN. Just as most people don’t think of Atlanta when they pop open a Coke, I don’t think they associate CNN with Atlanta when they turn on the news. The only backdrops I see on CNN broadcasts are Columbus Circle or the US capitol. As far as these 2 national networks go, Philly and Atlanta are where the bean counters sit.
Last edited by Pine to Vine; 07-08-2018 at 09:56 AM..
Another poster raised the notion that Atlanta is more influential than Philly. I disagree. I provided two metrics to back up my assertion. Philly has the larger economy. Seccondly, it’s hard to find a more influential tool than the media. Philly is the 4th largest US media hub while Atlanta is 10th.
I hardly find the fact that a show called Greenleaf(?) is filmed in Atlanta trumps those two metrics.
Agree. Disagree. This is my response to that poster.
Mentioning only Greenleaf was a horrible attempt at being condescending.
The list didn't even mention all of the movies in TV shows. There are TV that I watch ever week that aren't listed: L&HH, The Braxton's, Growing up Hip-hop, Real Housewives of Atlanta, Married to Medicine, NBA on TNT, The weather channel, CNN. Those are just the shows and networks that I can think of off the top of my head.
Some of the biggest movies of the year aren't listed as well.
The list didn't even mention all of the movies in TV shows. There are TV that I watch ever week that aren't listed: L&HH, The Braxton's, Growing up Hip-hop, Real Housewives of Atlanta, Married to Medicine, NBA on TNT, The weather channel, CNN. Those are just the shows and networks that I can think of off the top of my head.
Some of the biggest movies of the year aren't listed as well.
And I'm only talking about 2018
I’m not going to get into an argument over cable tv shows (although I could list plenty of shows set in Philly*), because I don’t think that metric is of much importance when discussing which city is the more influential. If you think this is important, however, look at the link below and I’ll accept whichever city you think has the (what? . . . most shows? . . . most important shows?) . . . whichever city you feel claims the TV prize.
I’m not going to get into an argument over cable tv shows (although I could list plenty of shows set in Philly*), because I don’t think that metric is of much importance when discussing which city is the more influential. If you think this is important, however, look at the link below and I’ll accept whichever city you think has the (what? . . . most shows? . . . most important shows?) . . . whichever city you feel claims the TV prize.
You brought up TV shows. That list still doesn't match Atlanta. Not even close.
Atlanta is a juggernaut, the likes of which Philly can't compete with. TV, movie, influence, media, hell, the Steelers have a bigger following in PA than the Eagles.
This isn't to say that the two metros are in different classes as they are obviously in the same class of cities, but Atlanta just feels like the bigger, more influential MSA...point blank.
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.
