States where a smaller city is more impactful(culturally) than their largest city

[gtt99]

Austin, TX

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by gtt99

Austin, TX

Not conclusively, but the fact that Austin is even in the discussion makes for a spirited debate. And depending on how you see things, Fort Worth and San Antonio have their arguments also.

[slowlane3]

Originally Posted by newgensandiego

Considering NC is the 9th most populous state, I find it a pretty forgettable place. I mean, I hear it's a great place to live, but for some reason, I never hear anything interesting or unique originating from the state. I found the cities and metros pretty standard as well- very general suburbia and unspecial downtowns. The scenery isn't particularly special either.

It's odd because I find Virginia and South Carolina to be full of character, or at least have specific or unique places with a lot of character.

It could just be my own life experience (although I have lived on the west coast, northeast, and mid-Atlantic).

Um, think again..... Mount Mitchell, NC, is only the highest mountain in all of the eastern United States - 6,684 feet. (2,200 meters).

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by Aceter

Regarding traditional traits, the people and culture of Atlanta isn't an outlier compared to the people and culture of Georgia.

Meaning what, exactly?

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70

Arguably, Pennsylvania culture is much more defined by Pittsburgh and the smaller steel cities than by Philadelphia which has always felt a world apart from the rest of Pennsylvania. .

Pennsylvania's economy by and large was historically defined by extractive industries (coal mining) and heavy industry, especially steelmaking but also the manufacture of locomotives (Baldwin Locomotive Works in Philadelphia and later GE in Erie).

They mined coal in Northeast Pennsylvania, the area around Reading, and parts of the Southwest. They made steel in the Southwest, though Phoenixville and Coatesville in the Southeast had mills too.

But much of the rest of the state, especially Lancaster County in the southeast, relied on agriculture and food processing.

Yes, the Southeast is a world apart from the rest of Pennsylvania, but to an extent so is the Southwest. Especially politically: the counties containing the two biggest cities (Philadelphia is a county and a city) were and remain solidly Democratic while most of what we call "the T" is overwhelmingly Republican. (Philly's suburbs, once reliably Republican, have taken on a purplish tinge of late (Montgomery, the most populous of them, has pretty much turned blue), while Pittsburgh's surrounding counties, which voted as Allegheny did often enough, went deep red in the last election, as their economies have never recovered from the loss of steel.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that IMO, neither the Southeast or the Southwest "define" Pennsylvania - this state is more varied than that. But there is this: geographically and geologically speaking, most of Pennsylvania lies in Appalachia. The Southeast does not. And the Southeast is part of the Northeast megalopolis, while no other part of the state lies in it (though one can make an argument that the Lehigh Valley has become a sort-of exurb of greater New York and York is becoming a sort-of exurb of Baltimore/Washington).

[Aceter]

Originally Posted by JMatl

Meaning what, exactly?

So you live in Atlanta yet you're unaware that, traditionally, white residents of the Atlanta area and white residents in the rest of Georgia are of the same cultural makeup. Really ?

[MassVt]

Possibly in Wisconsin, where Madison often receives more attention than Milwaukee. Madison does have the state capital, the flagship campus of UW, and has grown considerably over the past 20 years..