Do you consider these to be "their own cities"? (live, airport)

[jFug]

Would you consider the following cities to be "their own city". By this, I mean, are they culturally and economically distinct from their larger core city, or are they just a glorified incorporated suburb? I'm sure the answers will be very subjective.

-Newark, NJ
-Oakland, CA
-Long Beach, CA
-Scottsdale, AZ

I decided against putting "twin" cities on the list (MSP or DFW) and specifically wanted to put satellite/neighboring cities that are sizably smaller than their core cities. I also made sure to include cities that are within the same metro area. Thoughts?

[l1995]

I only have experience with Newark, but yes, Newark is its own city. I also hear that Oakland is different enough from SF.

And I would guess the same about Long Beach, my cousin lives there and she doesn't claim to be an Angelena.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

These days, Scottsdale is a job center, tons of offices have gone up along the Loop 101 freeway.

So I would say that all 4 are independent of their main metro city

[sav858]

Oakland is definitely culturally distinct from SF. Hard to really say any city in a metro area is "economically independent" but Oakland and Long Beach would have their own economies without their larger, core cities due to the large ports. Without the rest of the Bay Area (Peninsula, SF, South Bay, and North Bay) the East Bay looks and would function as its own metro area. BART and freeways converge in Oakland and it has its own airport and sea port.

Scottsdale wouldn't really exist without Phoenix and to me is glorified suburb.

[908Boi]

Newark is definitely its own city.

[gladhands]

Newark and Oakland were strong, independent cities before intra-city commuting became the norm.

[Mutiny77]

Newark, most certainly.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by sav858

Oakland is definitely culturally distinct from SF. Hard to really say any city in a metro area is "economically independent" but Oakland and Long Beach would have their own economies without their larger, core cities due to the large ports. Without the rest of the Bay Area (Peninsula, SF, South Bay, and North Bay) the East Bay looks and would function as its own metro area. BART and freeways converge in Oakland and it has its own airport and sea port.

Scottsdale wouldn't really exist without Phoenix and to me is glorified suburb.

A ton of white collar workers (if they can afford housing of course) can both live AND work in Scottsdale, I think of a dependent suburb as a place like Gilbert, where everyone works in other Valley cities who live there, since there aren't many jobs in Gilbert

[sav858]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

A ton of white collar workers (if they can afford housing of course) can both live AND work in Scottsdale, I think of a dependent suburb as a place like Gilbert, where everyone works in other Valley cities who live there, since there aren't many jobs in Gilbert

That's nice, lots of suburbs are like that. Without Phoenix though there is no Scottsdale.

[aquest1]

I would say Long Beach would only be as much its own city as Santa Monica, Venice Beach, et al. (Culturally distinct to a point, but a definite extension of LA). The others cities you mentioned are all noticeably more independent, imho.