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.
Sometimes the mentality with metro areas is bigger is better but I don't think that is always the case. What are some states you can think of where the second largest metro outshines or is more desirable than the largest? Here are ones I can think of.
California: San Francisco > Los Angeles
Oklahoma: Tulsa > Oklahoma City
Ohio: Columbus > Cleveland
South Carolina: Charleston > Columbia
Texas: Austin > San Antonio (Not 1st and 2nd but a case of a smaller metro within a state overshadowing a larger one)
Last edited by BigCityBrightLights; 10-29-2013 at 08:49 PM..
Sometimes the mentality with metro areas is bigger is better but I don't think that is always the case. What are some states you can think of where the second largest metro outshines or is more desirable than the largest? Here are ones I can think of.
California: San Francisco > Los Angeles
Oklahoma: Tulsa > Oklahoma City
Ohio: Columbus > Cleveland
South Carolina: Charleston > Columbia
Texas: Austin > Houston/Dallas
How the hell does Austin outshine Houston or Dallas?
KC is the most populated metro in Missouri but it plays second fiddle to St. Louis. As a matter of fact many people think St. Louis is much bigger. It does have a bigger urban core, but KC metro is bigger overall.
KC is the most populated metro in Missouri but it plays second fiddle to St. Louis. As a matter of fact many people think St. Louis is much bigger. It does have a bigger urban core, but KC metro is bigger overall.
My instinct told me Missouri but then I found that St Louis actually does have a larger metro population than Kansas City.
Rapid City might outshine Sioux Falls in South Dakota with the nearby outdoor recreational attractions in the Black Hills and its tourism, but probably not for business.
I have heard that Lawrence has a better reputation as a place to both live and visit and also educationally (Univ of Kansas) than Wichita or Topeka in Kansas. It is also much closer to the Kansas City region than Wichita or Topeka.
My instinct told me Missouri but then I found that St Louis actually does have a larger metro population than Kansas City.
St Louis: 2,795,794
Kansas City: 2,343,008
I wonder if they're including East St. Louis on the Illinois side. Oh well, KC has been the biggest metro for the most part. Perhaps St. Louis population has caught up and surpassed it. In either case, KC was bigger than St. Louis at one point, but people still perceived St. Louis as being the premier city in Missouri. People know almost nothing about KC, and think it's a one horse town, while they look at St. Louis as an actual city that can contend with other midwestern big cities like Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, MLPS, and Cincinnati.
why do you think SF outshines LA? I mean I prefer it... but, that's just a city data thing. In the real world more people are about LA.
San Francisco is more of a "classic" city while Los Angeles is designed primarily around the automobile. The SF Bay Area has a booming economy right now and SF is one of the fastest growing cities with young professionals from all over the country migrating there not just for the jobs but the culture and amenities the city offers. Los Angeles' growth has slowed in the past couple decades, being propped up today by primarily immigration and their unemployment rate is twice San Francisco's rate.
San Francisco is more of a "classic" city while Los Angeles is designed primarily around the automobile. The SF Bay Area has a booming economy right now and SF is one of the fastest growing cities with young professionals from all over the country migrating there not just for the jobs but the culture and amenities the city offers. Los Angeles' growth has slowed in the past couple decades, being propped up today by primarily immigration and their unemployment rate is twice San Francisco's rate.
Not really a fair comparison. SF is a pretty small city which is dense. But in general when you speak of LA, many people include it's surrounding suburbs. If you compare LA's core to SF core, the comparison is a bit uneven. Overall for SF, you probably want to look at the Bay Area as a whole, like you'd look at all of LA's metro area as a whole. And I wouldn't consider every place in the Bay Area a direct suburb of SF. Certainly not San Jose which is bigger than SF. If anything, San Jose outshines LA moreso than SF does.
Columbia may outshine Greenville in SC, but it may be close. Charleston may outshine Huntington in WV.
I didn't realize Greenville was larger than Columbia. SC is unique then in that the third largest city (Charleston) outshines the second (Columbia) which itself outshines the largest (Greenville).
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.
