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.
It's almost universally accepted that DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC & Boston are the 5 core NE cities.
Baltimore's metro by itself (which is by far the smallest of the lot) generates almost 4x as much as the entire state of Road Island
Providence, Richmond, Jersey City, Newark, Wilmington etc.. are local cities. They don't have the regional, let alone national & international pull the core 5 have in spades.
Providence MSA population is about 1.6M. Baltimore is about 2.8. Boston, the next smallest in the megalopolis, is about 4.9. Most people consider there to be four major East Coast cities. Baltimore is closer in scope to Providence than it is any of the major four metros of the Northeast Corridor. Baltimore has more of a legacy city reputation to it than Providence, which is why it is more widely known.
I agree with those saying Boston-Providence would have been the best option. Of the options, only Baltimore-Washington and Chicago-Milwaukee make sense to me. Admittedly, my knowledge of the LA-San Diego relationship is only hearsay. From SoCal Natives, I hear the two cities really try to distance themselves from one another.
Bay Area- Sacramento makes no sense. "Bay Area" isn't a city. It should have been San Francisco- Oakland.
As OP, of course it could be questioned why i put Bay Area-Sacramento. To start with, SF and Oakland are the same metro area so I had to use "Bay Area" based on my criteria, not SF. If I made a comparison between the two major Texas metropolises, I would have gone with D/FW and Houston.
Providence is a comparable size to Milwaukee and Sacramento.
It is. And what I wrote was no knock against Providence. But neither Milwaukee or Sacramento are located in the northeast corridor and in these tight quarters, the rules are not the same. I googled and found Providence's population is 180,393. Newark's, however, is 285,154, it is New Jersey's largest city and yet it doesn't even get its name in lights in its own metro area. I mean, one can and does speak of SF/Oak, D/FW, Mpls/StP....but nobody speaks of NY/Nwk.
Providence MSA population is about 1.6M. Baltimore is about 2.8. Boston, the next smallest in the megalopolis, is about 4.9. Most people consider there to be four major East Coast cities. Baltimore is closer in scope to Providence than it is any of the major four metros of the Northeast Corridor. Baltimore has more of a legacy city reputation to it than Providence, which is why it is more widely known.
I agree with those saying Boston-Providence would have been the best option. Of the options, only Baltimore-Washington and Chicago-Milwaukee make sense to me. Admittedly, my knowledge of the LA-San Diego relationship is only hearsay. From SoCal Natives, I hear the two cities really try to distance themselves from one another.
You really did narrow in on what I was getting at, Muinteoir.
Based on geography and how they are connected in a structural sense (thus eliminating here what you correctly noted about the LA-SD relationship), among our major cities, I'd say that only three groups would fit my definition of being "major cities in their own right" and close enough together that they do they physically tie in.
On that score, I'd say the following are the three that make the most sense:
Baltimore-Washington (they're closer to each other than any. by far. But their unique history and culture never merged them into "one"...despite being extremely close to each other)
Chicago-Milwaukee
Los Angeles-San Diego
I could but would not include the following:
New York-Philadelphia
I think it is different from the other three in significant ways, mostly tied in with the notion of physical connectivity and the ability to gain a degree of oneness in two nearby metropolitan areas.
In that respect, Baltimore-Washington are so close to each other that there is no open space between and DC's northern burbs and Baltimore's southern ones merge into one. Chicago and Milwaukee get a real boost in their physical connectivity...its the linear line of the Lake Michigan shoreline that brings them together. The corridor between the two is definitely "a thing". And mid-way between the two (where conveniently the state line is drawn), in both IL and WI you have a common zone of attractions that are there because they are half way between Chicago and Milwaukee: Great America amusement park, a indoor water park/resort across the street, two huge outlet malls on either side of the line and other attractions that start a tad north of Kenosha and continue south to Gurnee.
Coastal southern California creates a zone where two major cities, Los Angeles and San Diego, dominate in a region going pretty much from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. Southern California vacations are often made with plans to go to Beverley Hills shops, Disneyland and the San Diego Zoo.
NY-Philly is not like that. Sure you could drive from one to the other and not see much open space, but that could pretty much be true on a Boston-Washington ride. For lack of a better work, I'll use the one I've been using already: zones. And on that score NY/Philly unlike the others doesn't have one.
The other three accomplish their "zone" in part due to incredible closeness (Balt-Wash) on the linear connection of shoreline for the other pairs.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
Which two cities have the closest of relationships of any two in the nation?
By cities, I am talking about those that are not in the same metro areas. So the following would be eliminated from the discussion:
San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Dallas/Ft. Worth
The criteria for closest relationship includes (but is not necessarily restricted to):
• Physically close by- DC-Baltimore
• Relationship trends towards cooperative, not competitive Not sure who wins this
• People from one frequently access the other DC-Baltimore
• Culturally they have much in common - Maybe Orlando-Tampa
• Comparative size would not be a consideration- Not sure I get this
• Spillover development can spread from one to the other (i.e. a restaurant group in one opens in the other) DC-Baltimore obviously
• Can be seen as part of same "economic region" DC-Baltimore
• Both cities are oriented more towards each other than either of them would be to another city DC-Baltimore
There is a poll and since "geographically close" is a criteria, I'm listing only cities (major ones) that I feel meet this criteria. I'll list them in an east to west order to treat each entry as an equal.
San Jose is still a separated metro from SF on paper, even though most consider it to be one core.
DC-Baltimore is the most unique CSA in the country for many reasons, and it's worth noting that yes the cities by many standards can be very much different culturally, and their inner cores can function without the other. Yet they still make up one larger metro region that is separated from the rest of the U.S.. The two also make up the same Urban Agglomeration and Urban Area by Demographia's world standards, so there really are only two metrics remaining that separate DC and Baltimore. There is light years more interactivity between DC-Baltimore and their suburbs surrounding both than any of these cities listed, and that would include Boston-Providence if it were listed.
As always though distinctions should be made with the term "city" and "metro" etc. City proper DC and Baltimore have very much distinction between them, culturally, structurally etc they are unquestioned two different cities. Regionally however, they operate their own two spheres of influence that very much so have now merged into one another creating a larger bubble that expands well beyond the two cities boundaries. There is no real concrete dividing line like Camp Pendelton for LA-SD. There is definitely more distinction with DC-Baltimore, but today the relationship is more similar to a Bay-Area or DFW concept than it is Tampa-Orlando for example or Pittsburgh-Cleveland. This is why it's already an existing combined statistical area and Urban Agglomeration etc.
Providence MSA population is about 1.6M. Baltimore is about 2.8. Boston, the next smallest in the megalopolis, is about 4.9. Most people consider there to be four major East Coast cities. Baltimore is closer in scope to Providence than it is any of the major four metros of the Northeast Corridor. Baltimore has more of a legacy city reputation to it than Providence, which is why it is more widely known.
I agree with those saying Boston-Providence would have been the best option. Of the options, only Baltimore-Washington and Chicago-Milwaukee make sense to me. Admittedly, my knowledge of the LA-San Diego relationship is only hearsay. From SoCal Natives, I hear the two cities really try to distance themselves from one another.
I'm not even knocking Providence, but it's on the scope of Richmond or Milwaukee... not a city that has an economy & population on par with Denver.
Baltimore has always been listed as principle/major city in the NE corridor on virtually every map, statistic & census. The only reason its even downplayed now a days is because it's population has shrunk and it happens to sit in the middle of 4/10 largest metro's in the country.
Raleigh–Durham would be the most symbiotic none conjoined MSA, probably followed by San Jose-San Fransisco.
I have family & friends in both LA & San Diego and can confirm the cities like to distance themselves culturally and economically
I'm not even knocking Providence, but it's on the scope of Richmond or Milwaukee... not a city that has an economy & population on par with Denver.
Baltimore has always been listed as principle/major city in the NE corridor on virtually every map, statistic & census. The only reason its even downplayed now a days is because it's population has shrunk and it happens to sit in the middle of 4/10 largest metro's in the country.
Raleigh–Durham would be the most symbiotic none conjoined MSA, probably followed by San Jose-San Fransisco.
I have family & friends in both LA & San Diego and can confirm the cities like to distance themselves culturally and economically
Nah....Baltimore and Maryland have always been officially classified as Southern by the US Census:
By official census sure.... by any economic & regional standard, DC & Baltimore are almost always universally listed as being part of the greater NE corridor (i.e Amtrak)
Baltimore is a southern city. That can't be argued.
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.
