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.
The OP used IL as an example (Chicago) of a city that doesn't meet these criteria. The Chicago metro area represents a larger proportion of the population of IL than the Seattle metro does of WA. If Chicago doesn't fit the bill, Seattle definitely doesn't.
Not at all, did you read the OP? It specifically mentions that Chicago would not. St Louis draws from its population, the rest of the state hates it, etc.
Each largest city (metro area) of every state EXCEPT California, Texas, and maybe Ohio...
how would that work? it wouldn't work in Missouri (StL, KC) or Ohio (3 C's). even in Illinois it wouldn't work since southern IL has no connection with Chicago and much of IL is drawn to StL, not Chgo.
....and Virginia (NOVA, Richmond & Tidewater), Indiana (Chicagoland & Indy), Iowa (DesMoines & Cedar Rapids/Iowa City), Pennsylvania (Philly and Pittsburgh), NJ (NYC burbs vs Philly burbs + a whole lot of other productive communities across the state)
I considered those, but the poster that I responded to argued that most states outside of those he named had multiple metros with one dominant one. Outside of the states I named, and the ones that poster had acknowledged (TX, OH, TN), I don't think many other states escape that criteria. In Virginia, the DC metro clearly dominates Richmond and the other metros. Indiana, Chicago is clearly a more dominant area than Indy, though its influence in Indiana could be considered minimal enough that Indianapolis could actually be considered more dominant (or they could actually be considered equal due to Chicagoland's smaller presence in Indiana and you could be right). Iowa, Des Moines clearly dominates. Pennsylvania, Philly easily subsumes Pittsburgh. And in NJ, NYC does the same to Philly.
These states contrast with the bipolar examples that have been named, like MO, where StL and KC are close to equality; or OH, where you have the 3 Cs; or TX, where Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso are all rapidly growing alongside each other.
A few years ago, during my first trip to Rhode Island, I bought a guidebook that said that no state is simultaneously more dominated and less dominated by its major city. Now that I live here, I completely understand. This state does largely revolve around Providence -- though the Newport area is kind of its own entity and the extreme southwest corner of the state, namely Westerly, is more in Connecticut's sphere of influence. But every single person in Rhode Island -- except Westerly -- lives in the Providence metropolitan area. In fact, the Providence metropolitan area actually has a larger population than the state of Rhode Island, because it includes parts of Massachusetts!
At the same time, though, each city and town in Rhode Island kind of has its own identity. Nobody really talks about suburbs of Providence. Places like Cranston, Warwick and Lincoln are a stone's throw from Providence, but people tell you they're from Cranston, Warwick and Lincoln, not Providence or the Providence suburbs.
All the same, I think Providence is a strong contender here. It definitely dominates state politics, no question about that. Everyone I know here really likes Providence no matter where they live -- though I know there are people who don't, mostly because they're more suburban or small-town minded and are skittish about its city problems.
The sports thing doesn't work, though. Everyone here -- and I mean everyone -- roots for Boston teams. The Providence area's pro baseball and hockey teams, in fact, are just the minor-league affiliates of the big-league Boston teams. I wouldn't go so far to say that Rhode Island is in Boston's orbit, though. People like going to Boston for the weekend, but they don't consider this to be the Boston area, even though Boston is less than an hour away for a lot of people and it's not unheard of to commute there, Providence being on the Boston commuter rail line.
I considered those, but the poster that I responded to argued that most states outside of those he named had multiple metros with one dominant one. Outside of the states I named, and the ones that poster had acknowledged (TX, OH, TN), I don't think many other states escape that criteria. InVirginia, theDCmetroclearlydominatesRichmondandtheothermetros. .
How does Duluth "block" the Twin Cities? It's a small town in the sticks with an 80,000 (and declining) population. Fargo has more "pull away from the Twin Cities" than Duluth/Superior.
I'd say MN is tops beyond some of the small states out East. I've never felt that the rest of the state "hates" the area as much as IL & Chicago or WI and Madison/Milwaukee, etc., but it would take a Minnesotan to clear that up. Otherwise, seems like the best pick.
I agree that Duluth doesn't block the Twin Cities, as it is nowhere near as large in size, but it definitely isn't some small town in the sticks. It's metropolitan population is still increasing, it has the built environment of a larger city (density, not height), and its port remains massive for the city's size, as the largest freshwater port in the world and the 17th largest port in the United States. It is not a small town by any standards. Fargo is growing because of the oil boom and maybe someday will pass Duluth, but Fargo as of now does not have a larger pull.
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.