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.
New Jersey is a tough state to pick a number 2, mostly because it's hard to pick a number 1.
Newark is the largest city and JC is the second, but they're all part of the NYC metro area. You could look at SW Jersey, but much of that is part of the Philly area. If we can take Philly and NYC out of the picture, I'd argue that Hudson County is number 1 and second could be Bergen or Essex Counties or Trenton (city).
I recognize that I'm citing counties and cities, but it seems to be the only way to make this classification in the state
I don't think it's that difficult. Newark is number one due to its population and cultural relevance (Devils play there, Nets used to not so long ago, concerts are held at the Pru Center, college basketball teams play there, too), and also it's a transit hub. Airport, NJT, PATH, Amtrak. JC is great for PATH service and the tunnel but nothing beats Newark's transit options, IMO. I know people have a bad view of Newark, and it's mostly deserved, but it's still our first city, and JC is a close second. It may surpass Newark, but without having the cultural aspects that Newark has, I'm not sure if it truly can. And it might be hard for JC to get a sports team and the like considering it's already part of the NYC metro area and right across the river. It's easier for Newark to stand out a bit more than JC because at least it's like 10 miles inland rather than right there and was a much more important city years ago, before NYC became the true cultural powerhouse it is today, so at least it has that recognition. I doubt a venue like the Prudential Center would work in JC, and I doubt a sports team or anything similar will ever go there. I think JC will rise in popularity due to its location, and I think it will become more of a cool place to live and hang out in, more than anything. Jersey City has a better skyline, though, IMO - which has only been built up in the last decade or so so it's rather new. Back in the 90s and early 2000s JC looked like nothing from across the river while Newark's had its little skyline for years.
AC I guess is third. But a more distant third. Atlantic City is really on a downswing. High crime, many casinos are closing which means a loss of jobs for the area, making it a more depressed area and lacking a bit in cultural importance. AC has a nice skyline, IMO, and the boardwalk is still a classic but it needs to be saved before it can again become what it once was. Newark and JC at least are doing well, AC is just getting worse. I don't expect people not from NJ to know this though, which partly explains why so many are choosing Atlantic City.
Not a baseball fan, so my bad. The Rangers did not win the World Series, but they were just in it four years ago, which is way better than any of the Houston teams have done this decade. Everything else I said was spot on, though.
Not a baseball fan, so my bad. The Rangers did not win the World Series, but they were just in it four years ago, which is way better than any of the Houston teams have done this decade. Everything else I said was spot on, though.
If success of professional sports teams determine which city was the number 1 city in its state then Green Bay would be the number 1 city in Wisconsin , Pittsburg would be the number 1 city in Pa, so you are placing way to much importance on sports and pop culture when assessing the relative import of various cities. That whole mentality that sports and pop culture are the most important factors in a cities relevance is sophomoric to say the least. Like I said before the media spotlight is fleeting and is full of ulterior motives. There is a reason so many more foreign Consulates are located in Houston rather than some other city in Texas. The common folk of those countries may recognize Dallas first but the people who count in their governments know that Houston is where they need to be. Not to mention a international business presence in Houston that is unmatched in the state.
There is no Bangor, MD. Maryland has three very imperfect candidates for second city:
Frederick - Historic, prosperous, and substantially larger than Annapolis. Not totally independent of DC area.
Hagerstown - Smaller than Frederick but not part of another metro area. Weak economy. Not much bigger than Annapolis
Annapolis - Historic and extremely prosperous but tiny. Not a city at all in my opinion. Included in Baltimore metro area.
I would say that Maryland doesn't have a real second city. Maybe Frederick someday.
I agree. I see Maryland more as a 1 and 1a with Baltimore and the DC burbs respectively. With Maryland, I would say we are looking for a third city.
I disagree based on economics. Huntsville has the larger GDP at 22 billion to Mobile's 16 billion. Huntsville is also the second largest metro area, and is growing significantly faster as well. Huntsville is Alabama's second city.
But Mobile is more historic (the most historic of the state's large cities) and seen as more of a destination with the nation's first Mardi Gras and beaches nearby. I think that's more than enough to make it a contender for second city status in Alabama despite a smaller economy and metro area. This is pretty much why a couple of people here think of Columbia as SC's second city, presumably after Charleston which has a smaller city and metro population and GDP.
First of all the Rangers have NOT won any world championships. As far as the OP is concerned you are confusing most notoriety with most important and they are not the same. Economically and historically Houston is the more important if not best known city in all of Texas. As you have inferred media attention is cyclical and moves around from time to time. The attention on Austin will fade just as the attention on DFW faded as did the attention that Houston has received from time to time over the last 180 years or so. You also do not take into account that maybe Houston just doesn't seek the attention and validation that DFW and Austin does from the national media...
I like how San Antonio (the oldest major city in Texas) just sits back and lets the other cities fight over whichever is more important. To me if San Antonio had a more diverse population it would hands down be the best city in that state. The architecture is better in SA as well.
I like how San Antonio (the oldest major city in Texas) just sits back and lets the other cities fight over whichever is more important. To me if San Antonio had a more diverse population it would hands down be the best city in that state. The architecture is better in SA as well.
Ahh, now best city is a whole other subject. In many cases the 1st or the 2nd city may not be the "best" city in the state. I believe Houston is the best in Texas but that is beside the point of the OP.
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.
