[Private Dick]

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh


Is there a state that can boast TWO cities as important historically, industrially, culturally, etc. than Pennsylvania?

I don't think so, but I'm certainly interested in hearing other ideas.

[Jelly Roll]

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh


Is there a state that can boast TWO cities as important historically, industrially, culturally, etc. than Pennsylvania?

I don't think so, but I'm certainly interested in hearing other ideas.

California comes to mind with LA and SF.

Texas with Houston and Dallas.

Not really sure how we gauge which is more important.

[the urban politician]

^ Cali and Texas.

Of course, states that huge are bound to have 2 major cities in them

[Evergrey]

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh


Is there a state that can boast TWO cities as important historically, industrially, culturally, etc. than Pennsylvania?

I don't think so, but I'm certainly interested in hearing other ideas.

Alberta

[SDfan]

Kind of a vague criteria.

Historically important to who? Th US? Native peoples? Global history?
Industrially? Which industries? What eras? Blue collar, white collar, service?
Culturally? What culture? US? And if so, what segment? Plus culture is fluid, and depending on the time frame, different from generation to generation.

I mean Philly and P-berg have been important, I suppose, but I wouldn't say they are more significant in ALL areas versus saying that LA and SF are equal to or more so significant in these general fields in California.

So... I don't really know where this discussion would go, or how exactly to respond. I could argue that California and Texas cities are more historically, industrially, and culturally important within their respective states... but that would be based on my own criteria of what history, industry and culture I deem significant to me.

Hmm. Yeah. Not worth fighting boosterism.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I'll throw Ohio's into the mix (Cincinnati and Cleveland)

[Private Dick]

Kind of a vague criteria.

Historically important to who? Th US? Native peoples? Global history?
Industrially? Which industries? What eras? Blue collar, white collar, service?
Culturally? What culture? US? And if so, what segment? Plus culture is fluid, and depending on the time frame, different from generation to generation.

I mean Philly and P-berg have been important, I suppose, but I wouldn't say they are more significant in ALL areas versus saying that LA and SF are equal to or more so significant in these general fields in California.

So... I don't really know where this discussion would go, or how exactly to respond. I could argue that California and Texas cities are more historically, industrially, and culturally important within their respective states... but that would be based on my own criteria of what history, industry and culture I deem significant to me.

Hmm. Yeah. Not worth fighting boosterism.

Not really sure where it could go either... kinda the point, in a way. Definitely thinking importance as far as US history (and related world history) goes.

Though, I'd have to say that California and Texas have cities in LA and SF and Dallas and Houston that while large and important centers of commerce now, certainly pale in comparison to the historical significance -- you know, considering that the nation was basically founded in Philadelphia and modern industrial technology was basically born in Pittsburgh... not to mention all of the "firsts" each city can claim which laid the very foundations of our political and economic landscape.

And... there really is no reason that this should devolve into any mindless boosterism. I'm interested in learning some things about other cities, as we all should be.

[M II A II R II K]

KC and St. Louis perhaps.

[Private Dick]

KC and St. Louis perhaps.

Important US cities, and you might be able to make a case for St. Louis matching up against Pittsburgh, but then there's Philadelphia...

[NYC4Life]

New York - NYC and Buffalo

[Cirrus]

I changed the title of this thread. City versus city (or in this case, state vs state) threads are not allowed at SkyscraperPage, but maybe we can salvage a non-versus discussion about states with multiple important cities.

considering that the nation was basically founded and PhiladelphiaNorfolk and Boston might object to that characterization.

[Private Dick]

I'll throw Ohio's into the mix (Cincinnati and Cleveland)

yeah, again, a case could be made for Cleveland as important as Pittsburgh, but Philly-Cincy kinda ends the comparison

New York - NYC and Buffalo

New York is likely the closest, in my opinion. NYC, of course. But Buffalo... don't think it's quite on par with Pittsburgh. Close -- Buffalo had its day (though short, really) -- but comes up short in political and military history, as well as in industrial significance to Pittsburgh.

[novawolverine]

nm

[Private Dick]

I changed the title of this thread. City versus city (or in this case, state vs state) threads are not allowed at SkyscraperPage, but maybe we can salvage a non-versus discussion about states with multiple important cities.

Norfolk and Boston might object to that characterization.

Well, that's fine, though the intent of the thread topic is completely lost. And it certainly wasn't a city vs. city or state vs. state thing -- yet, I'm well aware that's likely what it would devolve into, as there are far too many immature people on here who can't actually put together coherent, well-supported arguments.

I'm not sure how Norfolk really enters into the picture, when compared with Philadelphia, in terms of the nation's founding. Boston certainly has a claim, though that's it for Massachusetts cities.

[Nowhereman1280]

This question is so absurd because it's based on the rather arbitrary geographical boundaries of states. For example, Milwaukee and Chicago are probably a far more important duo of cities than Philly and Pitts and are much closer to each other, yet they are divided by a completely arbitrary political boundary that was in fact moved north so that Chicago would be included in Illinois explicitly to keep the two ports in separate states. So if you want to ask vague and abstract questions, a better one might be "what two cities are the most historically and economically important given their proximity to one another?".

If you asked that question the answer would probably be a pairing like Chicago and Milwaukee or Washington DC and Richmond or Philly and New York and certainly would not be Philly and Pitts.

yeah, again, a case could be made for Cleveland as important as Pittsburgh, but Philly-Cincy kinda ends the comparison



New York is likely the closest, in my opinion. NYC, of course. But Buffalo... don't think it's quite on par with Pittsburgh. Close -- Buffalo had its day (though short, really) -- but comes up short in political and military history, as well as in industrial significance to Pittsburgh.

I think it's safe to say that Texas and California both blow Pennsylvania out of the water based on your criteria. Los Angeles is easily equal to or greater than Philly and San Francisco blows Pittsburgh out of the water. Then there's the bonus cities such as San Diego.

Or how about Texas with Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Dallas, Houston, and Austin are all at the same level as Philly or Pittsburgh and Texas still throws San Antonio into the mix. Of course I'm sure you'll say none of those cities have the "History" of Philly since it was the capital, etc., but both Houston and Austin were capital of the Republic of Texas and, by the whole "capital of the revolution" logic, that means Texas has not one, but two Philly's, plus Dallas and San Antonio on the side.

[Steely Dan]

I'll throw Ohio's into the mix (Cincinnati and Cleveland)

I'll throw illinois' into the mix (Peoria and Decatur)

[caltrane74]

Florida

Miami and Tampa-St. Petes.

[Private Dick]

I think it's safe to say that Texas and California both blow Pennsylvania out of the water based on your criteria. Los Angeles is easily equal to or greater than Philly and San Francisco blows Pittsburgh out of the water. Then there's the bonus cities such as San Diego.

Or how about Texas with Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Dallas, Houston, and Austin are all at the same level as Philly or Pittsburgh and Texas still throws San Antonio into the mix. Of course I'm sure you'll say none of those cities have the "History" of Philly since it was the capital, etc., but both Houston and Austin were capital of the Republic of Texas and, by the whole "capital of the revolution" logic, that means Texas has not one, but two Philly's, plus Dallas and San Antonio on the side.

You seriously think that Los Angeles is the equal or greater of Philadelphia when it comes to US historical significance politically, militarily, technologically, culturally, etc.? I'd be interested in hearing your rationale.
Otherwise, this will only turn into a stupid city vs. city thread, which threatens fragile egos.

Dallas and Houston are far too new to be considered as important to the political and industrial foundation of the United States. Not even close by a long shot.

[caltrane74]

Hooray for Hollywood!!

LA, LA. - We love LA - we Love IT!

California Love....

To Live and Die in LA....?????

And you know the West side is the Best side.... sucka!

[novawolverine]

You seriously think that Los Angeles is the equal or greater of Philadelphia when it comes to US historical significance politically, militarily, technologically, culturally, etc.? I'd be interested in hearing your rationale.
Otherwise, this will only turn into a stupid city vs. city thread, which threatens fragile egos.

Dallas and Houston are far too new to be considered as important to the political and industrial foundation of the United States. Not even close by a long shot.

Philly has the history and Pittsburgh has economic as far as notable influence are concerned. Philly has a port but has more competition than LA. Technology, military and culture-wise, I think LA and SF win. And this is really just a city vs. city thread. LA was and is a very influential place as far as aerospace/military and culture are concerned. SF has technology and culture as well. Politically, Philly has them all beat overall, but in the last half-century or so, the two California cities are more influential. I'd say in the last 100 yrs, LA, SF > Philly, Pittsburgh.

[caltrane74]

Mabye 400 years ago man. When the pilgrams came.

[samne]

California, first came to mind for me.

Ontario, not a state but heh Canada's largest city(Toronto) and Canada's capital(Ottawa)....not bad :)

While we're at it....Montreal and Quebec City...up there too...

[Private Dick]

Philly has the history and Pittsburgh has economic as far as notable influence are concerned. Philly has a port but has more competition than LA. Technology, military and culture-wise, I think LA and SF win. And this is really just a city vs. city thread. LA was and is a very influential place as far as aerospace/military and culture are concerned. SF has technology and culture as well. Politically, Philly has them all beat overall, but in the last half-century or so, the two California cities are more influential. I'd say in the last 100 yrs, LA, SF > Philly, Pittsburgh.

NY and CA I think are close to claiming two cities that have had major influence on the history of the nation as a whole. The simple fact that LA was not even founded until 1850 is a major detractor, as far as it's vital importance to US history is concerned. Really, when you think about it, LA wouldn't even exist without the railroads -- of which much of that history is rooted in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Is it really a city vs. city thread? Or is it a logical exploration of US history based on its most important centers of commerce?

It can be either. Though if people can't discuss things rationally, then sure, it's doomed to the retards of the forum.

[novawolverine]

How much you value pre-1900 vs. post-1900 will determine whether you think LA and SF measure up with Philly and Pittsburgh.

[dimondpark]

California, Texas and Florida are the only states that come to mind when it comes to multiple 'great' metro areas.

[Cirrus]

I'm not sure how Norfolk really enters into the picture, when compared with Philadelphia, in terms of the nation's founding.You can't possibly deny the influence the Virginia Tidewater region has had on American history. It is quite literally the cradle of our civilization.

You've heard of Jamestown, I assume, the first permanent English settlement in America? Williamsburg, the colonial intellectual capital where Virginia's constitution and bill or rights (which were models for the US versions) were invented, and where the Virginia gentlemen who wrote the US versions while in Philadelphia were groomed? Yorktown, where George Washington's army finally defeated the British during the Revolutionary War?

All are in the Norfolk metro area.

Philadelphia's influence from the 19th Century on easily eclipses Norfolk's, but up until the end of the 18th Century, Norfolk (or rather the Norfolk area) makes a very, very strong case for being the most important place in the US. Certainly it was the most important in the 17th Century; only the Boston area can compete.

All the major Atlantic cities from Virginia north to New England can make good claims to strong early influence. Ultimately it would be hard to settle which holds the strongest, but at the very least none of them can be denied as "not entering the picture".

[seaskyfan]

A more interesting conversation might be about the differences between states where there is one dominant city (Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, etc.), versus two major metros (Missouri, Pennsylvania, etc.), and states where there are more than that (Ohio, Texas, Florida, California). Otherwise this is a pretty quick trip to City vs. City.

[Expat]

Private Dick, I am suprised you are willing to eliminate St. Louis & Kansas City so quickly. Certainly you realize the importance of westward expansion to our nation. Both St. Louis & Kansas City are centers of wealth & culture for their regions. And both have historic influence at some point in history. You claim to want a mature conversation, but immediately dismiss cities that don't meet your personal criteria of greatness.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I stand down.:cheers:

[Private Dick]

How much you value pre-1900 vs. post-1900 will determine whether you think LA and SF measure up with Philly and Pittsburgh.

In some ways, yes. Though, many of the industrial and scientific innovations which came out of Pittsburgh continued throughout the 20th century, so that is really not a valid point.

Just to name a few off the top of my head from post 1900:

- first baseball stadium
- first nuclear engine
- polio vaccine
- first nuclear power plant
- first radio station brodacast
- first motion picture broadcast
- Gulf Oil founded
- jazz musicians/composers (Art Blakey, Lena Horne, Henry Mancini, Paul Chambers, Billy Strayhorn, Ray Brown, Erroll Garner, Billy Eckstine, Roy Eldridge, George Benson, Ahmad Jamal, Kenny Clarke, Earl Hines, Stanley Turrentine -- damn that's an amazing representation of the history of jazz in the US right there!)

This is to say nothing of the enormous industrial might and influence worldwide of the Pittsburgh steel and metals industry in the 1900s.

[Private Dick]

You can't possibly deny the influence the Virginia Tidewater region has had on American history. It is quite literally the cradle of our civilization.

You've heard of Jamestown, I assume, the first permanent English settlement in America? Williamsburg, the colonial intellectual capital where Virginia's constitution and bill or rights (which were models for the US versions) were invented, and where the Virginia gentlemen who wrote the US versions while in Philadelphia were groomed? Yorktown, where George Washington's army finally defeated the British during the Revolutionary War?

All are in the Norfolk metro area.

Philadelphia's influence from the 19th Century on easily eclipses Norfolk's, but up until the end of the 18th Century, Norfolk (or rather the Norfolk area) makes a very, very strong case for being the most important place in the US. Certainly it was the most important in the 17th Century; only the Boston area can compete.

All the major Atlantic cities from Virginia north to New England can make good claims to strong early influence. Ultimately it would be hard to settle which holds the strongest, but at the very least none of them can be denied as "not entering the picture".

As far as original settlement and military history, sure. But, I just don't see how Norfolk can stack up overall, throughout the centuries. It, by itself, or in combo with the whole Tidewater area hasn't maintained that early level of importance -- not that it's still not very important. And you're correct, I shouldn't have dismissed as "not entering the picture". I appreciate the historical reminder.

Private Dick, I am suprised you are willing to eliminate St. Louis & Kansas City so quickly. Certainly you realize the importance of westward expansion to our nation. Both St. Louis & Kansas City are centers of wealth & culture for their regions. And both have historic influence at some point in history. You claim to want a mature conversation, but immediately dismiss cities that don't meet your personal criteria of greatness.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I stand down.:cheers:

Thanks for the info. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the Missouri cities historical significance, and I didn't mean to be dismissive at all. I just don't see how either can realistically stack up against a city like Philadelphia though -- during US settlement, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, or presently. But hey, let's discuss... I'm very willing to learn something new.

[Boquillas]

Dallas, Houston, and Austin are all at the same level as Philly or Pittsburgh and Texas still throws San Antonio into the mix.

Not to get all boostery or anything on you, but the top 3 cities in TX are still Dallas, Houston and SA. That might not be forever, but right now San Antonio is still much larger in population than Austin, has 5 Fortune 500 headquarters to Austin's 2, 5 military installations to Austin's one (none?), and several world-class medical facilities that Austin does not yet have.

And it was named in 1691, just nine years after Philly. Not a lot of cities in the western US can claim any 17th century heritage.

Austin's a great and important city, but San Antonio is and always has been a real city with real industry and real history. Why folks tend to forget that I don't know.

[Expat]

Thanks for the info. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the Missouri cities historical significance, and I didn't mean to be dismissive at all. I just don't see how either can realistically stack up against a city like Philadelphia though -- during US settlement, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, or presently. But hey, let's discuss... I'm very willing to learn something new.

Well, if the goal of this thread is to determine which cities stack up against Philadelphia, there is really nothing to discuss. I think Philadelphia is one of the best cities on earth. But, trying to prove which cities stack up and don't stack up isn't of interest to me.

[c@taract_soulj@h]

This is kind of a bias thread if you ask me since the author is from the state brought to the table and is rejecting every other suggestion :shrug:

I understand where he's coming from as Philly and Pitt are awesome to visit with a heapful of history that goes back, but still...

At first I thought this was just a thread with sugestions about states with 2 great cities period, but I didn't know this was a pissing match

[mthq]

Fairbanks and Anchorage.




Debate over.

[Expat]

A more interesting conversation might be about the differences between states where there is one dominant city (Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, etc.), versus two major metros (Missouri, Pennsylvania, etc.), and states where there are more than that (Ohio, Texas, Florida, California). Otherwise this is a pretty quick trip to City vs. City.

:previous:Yes, it is too bad we are not having this discussion.

[all of the trash]

Otherwise, this will only turn into a stupid city vs. city thread, which threatens fragile egos.


Really feels like this entirely arbitrary and meaningless thread was created to stroke your own.

[all of the trash]

:previous:Yes, it is too bad we are not having this discussion.

Even then I don't really think it is interesting, as someone pointed out its an entirely arbitrary criteria to use state boundaries. NY boston and philadelphia are all closer to each other than SF, LA and SD, but are three different states. Would it really add anything to the discussion of the relationship of cities if MA, PA and NY were combined to make one state? Regional rivalries/cultural differences would probably remain.

[MonkeyRonin]

This is kind of a bias thread if you ask me since the author is from the state brought to the table and is rejecting every other suggestion :shrug:

Its almost like a miketoronto thread (just without the stories of the neighbour's daughter's friend's dog moving out to the suburbs).

[Private Dick]

Well, if the goal of this thread is to determine which cities stack up against Philadelphia, there is really nothing to discuss. I think Philadelphia is one of the best cities on earth. But, trying to prove which cities stack up and don't stack up isn't of interest to me.

Okay. But that certainly wasn't the original purpose of the thread. I'm unaware of another state that contains two cities together that have been as prominent in American history (in all its forms) as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Philadelphia can obviously "stack up" with just about any city in the US as far as its importance throughout US history goes, but Pittsburgh is a VERY strong "second city" contender (being more influential on US history than most state's primary city), due to its industrial might unrivaled in the US for a significant period of time, and the innovations in many areas that spurred.

So, I'm not quite sure why you would be bummed out as to why I have an opinion that Missouri with St. Lois and Kansas City aren't really on the same level.

Is a lot of that simply to the age of the state and PA and the cities and their location? Absolutely. That's just how history works. So sorry if that somehow offends the people from Texas or California (very silly when you think about it).

Are Dallas and Houston very powerful places now? Yep. But can we really say they have had the overall importance of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as far as centers of political history, innovation, education, industry, intellectualism, culture, etc? I think it's readily apparent that they are not.

Have the Californian cities more recently become these types of centers? Yes, of course. Though their historical relevance just does not go back to the extent of places on the east coast. And again, those cities would never have developed had technological innovations fostered in places like Philly and Pitt never occurred. These cities truly had a major role in steering how the US would be developed, due to political planning and technological innovations

[novawolverine]

In some ways, yes. Though, many of the industrial and scientific innovations which came out of Pittsburgh continued throughout the 20th century, so that is really not a valid point.

Just to name a few off the top of my head from post 1900:

- first baseball stadium
- first nuclear engine
- polio vaccine
- first nuclear power plant
- first radio station brodacast
- first motion picture broadcast
- Gulf Oil founded
- jazz musicians/composers (Art Blakey, Lena Horne, Henry Mancini, Paul Chambers, Billy Strayhorn, Ray Brown, Erroll Garner, Billy Eckstine, Roy Eldridge, George Benson, Ahmad Jamal, Kenny Clarke, Earl Hines, Stanley Turrentine -- damn that's an amazing representation of the history of jazz in the US right there!)

This is to say nothing of the enormous industrial might and influence worldwide of the Pittsburgh steel and metals industry in the 1900s.

I do think Philly has a pretty underrated influence when it comes to culture. Add in athletes and soul singers, but I don't think either city can stack up entertainment-wise it can stack up with LA.

Pittsburgh and Philly were once cities that people immigrated to in high numbers, but LA and SF have those two beat in this cultural aspect as well. Whether that matters is up for debate.

Economically, I think you have to consider LA's influence in entertainment and aerospace along with the obvious contributions of the Bay Area to academia and technology. Per wikipedia, LA was once a significant area itself w/ respect to oil production.

[JManc]

There is a similar parallel with countries; China, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Australia spread power among several major cities while France, Argentina, UK, Russia, Japan and Mexico concentrate most of the influence in one city which is significantly larger than their respective second cities.

[Private Dick]

This is kind of a bias thread if you ask me since the author is from the state brought to the table and is rejecting every other suggestion :shrug:

I understand where he's coming from as Philly and Pitt are awesome to visit with a heapful of history that goes back, but still...

At first I thought this was just a thread with sugestions about states with 2 great cities period, but I didn't know this was a pissing match

Then contribute and prove me wrong, rather than just complaining. I've said numerous times now that I'm interested in learning more about other cities histories.

:previous:Yes, it is too bad we are not having this discussion.

Have it! I said in my second post that the point is really to have a free-form discussion and see where it goes. It can be interesting, logical discussion of our great urban centers and how they shaped the nation, or it can be shit with people complaining and contributing nothing of value.

Even then I don't really think it is interesting, as someone pointed out its an entirely arbitrary criteria to use state boundaries. NY boston and philadelphia are all closer to each other than SF, LA and SD, but are three different states. Would it really add anything to the discussion of the relationship of cities if MA, PA and NY were combined to make one state? Regional rivalries/cultural differences would probably remain.

Then move on. Real simple.

Different states -- therein lies the major difference (and that is FAR from arbitrary if you understand anything about US history).

[all of the trash]

Clearly this is very important to you.

[all of the trash]

There is a similar parallel with countries; China, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Australia spread power among several major cities while France, Argentina, UK, Russia, Japan and Mexico concentrate most of the influence in one city which is significantly larger than their respective second cities.

This is actually a far more fascinating topic of conversation in my mind. You'd think Russia would develop multiple nodes of power for its size, while Netherlands would have one power center.

[Expat]

Okay. But that certainly wasn't the original purpose of the thread. I'm unaware of another state that contains two cities together that have been as prominent in American history (in all its forms) as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Philadelphia can obviously "stack up" with just about any city in the US as far as its importance throughout US history goes, but Pittsburgh is a VERY strong "second city" contender (being more influential on US history than most state's primary city), due to its industrial might unrivaled in the US for a significant period of time, and the innovations in many areas that spurred.

So, I'm not quite sure why you would be bummed out as to why I have an opinion that Missouri with St. Lois and Kansas City aren't really on the same level.

Is a lot of that simply to the age of the state and PA and the cities and their location? Absolutely. That's just how history works. So sorry if that somehow offends the people from Texas or California (very silly when you think about it).

Are Dallas and Houston very powerful places now? Yep. But can we really say they have had the overall importance of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as far as centers of political history, innovation, education, industry, intellectualism, culture, etc? I think it's readily apparent that they are not.

Have the Californian cities more recently become these types of centers? Yes, of course. Though their historical relevance just does not go back to the extent of places on the east coast. And again, those cities would never have developed had technological innovations fostered in places like Philly and Pitt never occurred. These cities truly had a major role in steering how the US would be developed, due to political planning and technological innovations

Sorry, Private Dick. My mistake. Originally, I assumed it was a thread about states that have two major cities. Having two major cities in a state has it's own set of problems & advantages.

I am not bummed that Philadelphia (& Pittsburgh) outranks St. Louis & Kansas City. I just didn't realize that was the point of the thread. If I had known it was a thread about which states had the most important two cities within in it's boundaries, I would have not entered the discussion.

[Private Dick]

I do think Philly has a pretty underrated influence when it comes to culture. Add in athletes and soul singers, but I don't think either city can stack up entertainment-wise it can stack up with LA.

Pittsburgh and Philly were once cities that people immigrated to in high numbers, but LA and SF have those two beat in this cultural aspect as well. Whether that matters is up for debate.

Economically, I think you have to consider LA's influence in entertainment and aerospace along with the obvious contributions of the Bay Area to academia and technology. Per wikipedia, LA was once a significant area itself w/ respect to oil production.

Right, but the listing I did was for Pittsburgh since 1900... the lesser of the two cities in many ways. Not sure if that's what you understood.

Entertainment-wise, no way can they stack up against LA. But industrially, historically, politically, educationally, culturally... it's really hard to argue with Philly and Pittsburgh... the history just goes back too far, for California cities. California has a strong case with San Francisco, but LA is a poorer substitute when speaking of importance to US history -- it's really just too new.

[Private Dick]

There is a similar parallel with countries; China, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Australia spread power among several major cities while France, Argentina, UK, Russia, Japan and Mexico concentrate most of the influence in one city which is significantly larger than their respective second cities.

Very interesting point. Never thought about that. Do you have any info as far as why that is?

[Private Dick]

Sorry, Private Dick. My mistake. Originally, I assumed it was a thread about states that have two major cities. Having two major cities in a state has it's own set of problems & advantages.

I am not bummed that Philadelphia (& Pittsburgh) outranks St. Louis & Kansas City. I just didn't realize that was the point of the thread. If I had known it was a thread about which states had the most important two cities within in it's boundaries, I would have not entered the discussion.

No problem. We can do a "states with two major cities" discussion in here. The topic was kind of changed to that by Cirrus, fearing development of a stupid city vs. city / state vs. state thread. I just don't know where to go exactly with a "states with two major cities" thread -- though I guess we can explore the differences between St. Louis and Kansas City. Is one more "Missouri" than the other? Not even sure what that means or if it makes sense.

[novawolverine]

Right, but the listing I did was for Pittsburgh since 1900... the lesser of the two cities in many ways. Not sure if that's what you understood.

Entertainment-wise, no way can they stack up against LA. But industrially, historically, politically, educationally, culturally... it's really hard to argue with Philly and Pittsburgh... the history just goes back too far, for California cities. California has a strong case with San Francisco, but LA is a poorer substitute when speaking of importance to US history -- it's really just too new.

I know you were talking about Pittsburgh, but Philly is relevant to the original topic and has a lot of notable people and accomplishments since 1900. I just think LA and SF has as much since 1900. I personally think the entertainment industry and the significance of LA as a megacity is not a poor substitute. Pittsburgh and Philly's decline over the course of decades isn't irrelevant, either.

[Private Dick]

I know you were talking about Pittsburgh, but Philly is relevant to the original topic and has a lot of notable people and accomplishments since 1900. I just think LA and SF has as much since 1900. I personally think the entertainment industry and the significance of LA as a megacity is not a poor substitute. Pittsburgh and Philly's decline over the course of decades isn't irrelevant, either.


Oh ok, I wasn't sure. Philly certainly has more than Pittsburgh, and I'd agree that LA and SF have as many, probably more, than both since 1900. I would think LA would have to, considering it is the center of the entertainment industry in the US. I just tend to put a lot of weight on the historic factors represented by the PA cities which played major roles in the very development of the nation. It's just hard to argue that any two other cities in a single state have been more important to the political, military, social, economic, industrial, etc. development of the US.

[gtbassett]

States with 2 metros of over 2 million people. I'm going west to east coast just because, it's arbitrary, like state boundries and does not take into account the actual dynamics of life in the region:
California:
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Anna: 12,828,837
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont:4,335,391
Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario: 4,224,851
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos: 3,095,313
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade: 2,149,127
Notable but does not make my arbitrary cut: San Jose-Sunnyvale at 1,836,911

Texas:
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 6,371,773
Houston-Sugarland-Babytown: 5,946,800
San Antonio-New Braunfels: 2,142,508

Missouri:
St Louis: 2,812,896
Kansas City: 2,035,334

Ohio
Cincinnati-Middletown: 2,130,151
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor: 2,077,240
Notable but did not make arbitrary cut: Columbus: 1,836,536

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington: 5,965,343
Pittsburgh: 2,356,285

Florida
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano Beach: 5,564,635
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater: 2,783,243
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford: 2,134,411

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

What makes a great city is completely subjective. Six states have at least two metropolitan areas of over 2 million people, all of these places have contributed in one way or another to the history and culture of the United States. Lets stop with the pissing match now please?

[brickell]

I'm voting for NY. They have Brooklyn and Queens.

This thread needs more charts... and graphs.

http://morganmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HistMetPop.jpg
src: http://morganmaps.com/category/history

[brickell]

Can someone make a list of % of state population in Largest Metro and % of state population in 2 largest metro's... etc.

[UpNorthMI]

If were going to be silly and give cities with "basically" historical significance, then what the hell. I'll throw Detroit and Flint into the mix because they weren't "basically" industrial revolutionists', they were industrial revolutionists'. Or is it because they are basically post-industrial wastelands now, they don't count? What about Tampa and Orlando? Didn't they revolutionize the mega-resort with Disney World, Busch Gardens, Sea World...

[sbarn]

Oh ok, I wasn't sure. Philly certainly has more than Pittsburgh, and I'd agree that LA and SF have as many, probably more, than both since 1900. I would think LA would have to, considering it is the center of the entertainment industry in the US. I just tend to put a lot of weight on the historic factors represented by the PA cities which played major roles in the very development of the nation. It's just hard to argue that any two other cities in a single state have been more important to the political, military, social, economic, industrial, etc. development of the US.

I think you give greater weight to historical developments prior to 1900, however if you look at the political, military, social, economic, industrial, etc. developments of the modern US, then its hard to argue against California. For example:

Political: Gave rise to Ronald Reagan one of the most revered (or reviled) presidents of modern history, home of Cesar Chavez and the organization of Latino Labor.

Military: San Diego is home to the largest defense and military center on the west coast and hosts the largest naval fleet in the world; military and aerospace spending was one of the largest factors to the development of Silicon Valley as a technology center.

Cultural: Home to the nation's entertainment and film industry; leading the world in the creation of motion pictures, television production, video games, and recorded music; arguably the epicenter of the 1960s counterculture movement (for better or worse) that transformed US culture and politics.

Economic/ Industrial: Los Angeles has the third largest metropolitan economy in the world, the largest manufacturing center in the west, and has the busiest port in the US (and western hemisphere) which serves as the gateway to Asia; the Bay Area is home to the Silicon Valley, which serves as the global hub of technology and home to companies such as Apple, Google, HP and others.

I would say these figures are equally important to the development of the United States as we know it as the role PA cities played in revolutionary / civil war era US.

[Clevelumbus]

California, Texas and Florida are the only states that come to mind when it comes to multiple 'great' metro areas.

I'd argue that Cincinnati & Cleveland have any two Florida cities beat, maybe not by size, but everything else (US history / Cincy and Cleve win, International history / Miami wins). I'm guessing you are using Miami and Tampa Bay as your 'great' metro areas.

Here's my completely arbitrary list using TX, PA, OH, FL, and CA's two biggest and the criteria from the OP (in tiers)...

Philadelphia, PA
San Francisco, CA
Los Angeles, CA

Pittsburgh, PA
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH

Dallas, TX
Miami, FL
Houston, TX

Tampa Bay, FL

So.. Cali and Penn, then Ohio, Texas, and Florida... I would possibly put New York with NYC and Buffalo ahead of Florida as well, and possibly Texas - if for NYC alone.... Florida & Texas would definitely jump back ahead of NY if you go into the other metros, but Florida would still be behind Ohio - and Texas and Ohio would be really close depending on how the criteria is weighted.

[MonkeyRonin]

This thread needs more charts... and graphs.

http://morganmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HistMetPop.jpg
src: http://morganmaps.com/category/history


I love things like this.

To go along with it, here's a list of actual population figures dating back to 1790: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html

[Private Dick]

I'd argue that Cincinnati & Cleveland have any two Florida cities beat, maybe not by size, but everything else (US history / Cincy and Cleve win, International history / Miami wins).

Miami really wasn't even a place of any significance whatsoever until the late 1920s. Also, Miami has very little international history to speak of, other than migration of Cubans from the 1950s to the 1980s. Just by Cleveland's massive immigration of European immigrants, I would say Cleveland has more international "history" than Miami does. There is really no history that is deeply important in guiding the nation's development present in Miami. It's just way too new, and has always been a tourism-based economy, with tremendous disconnect with the rest of the nation -- Miami is a more important city for other nations, than it is to the US.

No Florida cities belong anywhere near this thread, if we're being serious.

[MolsonExport]

Fargo and Bismarck

[Owlhorn]

just using US history is a little limiting. Some of these cities were important to the hsitory of other nations. Also each city has its unique history in regards to the history of the US and have meant different things at different times. Sounds more like a thread to prop up two cities instead of an overall thread about states with two important cities.

[Clevelumbus]

Miami is a more important city for other nations, than it is to the US.

No Florida cities belong anywhere near this thread, if we're being serious.

I totally agree. I was debating over using the word history or culture. Visiting Miami today as an American is a much greater (outside) cultural experience then visiting Cleveland today.

I will give Florida St. Augustine, it's not really a 'city' though.

[Private Dick]

just using US history is a little limiting. Some of these cities were important to the hsitory of other nations. Also each city has its unique history in regards to the history of the US and have meant different things at different times. Sounds more like a thread to prop up two cities instead of an overall thread about states with two important cities.

Sure, but what you're suggesting is a different thread topic. Feel free to start that one up -- that wasn't what I happened to be interested in exploring.

And it's definitely not a thread to "prop up two cities". What would be the point? I'm no Pittsburgh booster, and probably one of its harshest critics on here -- someone who's not overly taken with all the positive press and hype the city is getting. However, it's contribution to the history of the US and world, especially from an industrial standpoint, is undeniable. Couple that with Philadelphia giving birth to our nation, and it's a pretty strong combo for the topic.

All I've said from the beginning is for people to contribute info, and display how another state that has two cities that have been more influential and important to the history of the US -- it's founding, development, position in the world.

I don't think it's been done. We've discussed California with LA and SF and Texas with Dallas and Houston. But, other than San Francisco, those places have not been anywhere near as nationally important but for the last 50-60 years. Places like Philly and Pittsburgh literally have over 200 years of history on those places as urban centers of national significance. San Francisco is a historic place, undoubtedly, yet no one would ever confuse it with Philadelphia as far as being one of the major founding centers of our nation.

[Private Dick]

I will give Florida St. Augustine, it's not really a 'city' though.

Yeah, they have St. Augustine which is an historic site, but certainly could not be considered one of the important cities of the US.

[sbarn]

Sure, but what you're suggesting is a different thread topic. Feel free to start that one up -- that wasn't what I happened to be interested in exploring.

And it's definitely not a thread to "prop up two cities". What would be the point? I'm no Pittsburgh booster, and probably one of its harshest critics on here -- someone who's not overly taken with all the positive press and hype the city is getting. However, it's contribution to the history of the US and world, especially from an industrial standpoint, is undeniable. Couple that with Philadelphia giving birth to our nation, and it's a pretty strong combo for the topic.

All I've said from the beginning is for people to contribute info, and display how another state that has two cities that have been more influential and important to the history of the US -- it's founding, development, position in the world.

I don't think it's been done. We've discussed California with LA and SF and Texas with Dallas and Houston. But, other than San Francisco, those places have not been anywhere near as nationally important but for the last 50-60 years. Places like Philly and Pittsburgh literally have over 200 years of history on those places as urban centers of national significance. San Francisco is a historic place, undoubtedly, yet no one would ever confuse it with Philadelphia as far as being one of the major founding centers of our nation.

Your argument makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that the previous 150 years is more significant than the most recent 50 years? Because I would certainly argue that LA and SF are "two cities that have been more influential and important to the history of the US -- it's founding [obviously not the case for CA], development, position in the world." In fact, I think over the last 50 years the U.S. solidified its position as a world powerhouse, a position that arguable may be waning.

[Razor]

What a cool thread..As a Canadian, I was always noticed that Ohio seemed to have some cities that stand out more than other states..Whereas, Pennsylvania may have Philly and Pittsburgh, Ohio has Cinci, Cleveland, Columbus, and to a lesser extent Toledo, and Akron.
Obviously Texas and Cali. have more but Ohio holds it's own IMO for city offerings.

[bnk]

duplicate post

[bnk]

duplicate post

[bnk]

This is easy.

California, Texas.

Some others... Florida, Missouri, Ohio, ... in a smaller and more recient Canada scale , Alberta...


Try to get out of PA some time and broaden your world view, well at least your North America viewpoint. I can see Phili as a historical city. the Pitts has been in a decline for decades. The dense eastern populous state of PA in 2000 dropped from the 5th most populous to the 6th.

Sounds like a thread that would be posted by the myopic JoePa. This whole thread is silly.

[gtbassett]

No Florida cities belong anywhere near this thread, if we're being serious.

It's statements like that that lead me to believe that this is nothing more than a Pennsylvania city boosting thread. Not that there's anything wrong with Penn, hell I'm seriously considering a move to Pittsburgh in the near future if everything works out right. But please, stop trying to mask your homerism with some sense of objectiveness, while you may not think much of Florida's cities, many do not share that opinion, so stop making blanket statements like the one above.

[arkitekte]

Memphis and Nashville.

Both home to popular music genres.
Both have historic value from the Civil War.
Memphis has historic value from the Civil Rights Movement.
Memphis has some alright architectural history.

You should visit both.

[RobertWalpole]

Many states have more than one nice city (e.g., Tex. has Dallas, Houston San Antonio and Austin) but Cal. is the only state with two great cities.

[Xing]

Important US cities, and you might be able to make a case for St. Louis matching up against Pittsburgh, but then there's Philadelphia...

might be? Of course you can make the case.

The funny thing about Missouri is that both its major cities border other states, and are practically surrounded by them, as if trying desperately to escape the Misery of Missouri. The rest of the state is down right creepy compared to its major cities.

I would say Oklahoma is the smallest example, with Tulsa and OKC. Tennessee maybe is another with Memphis and Nashville. California, Texas, Ohio, and PA are the best examples I think.

[Double L]

They didn't name it Missouri for nothing.

[summersm343]

I'm from Philadelphia, and I love my city, but to say that no other city compares to Philadelphia or Pittsburgh is a joke...

There are many great cities in this country that all contributed to the growth and success of this country. There are many great cities in the world.

Just to name a few great cities in the U.S.

Philadelphia
New York
L.A.
Chicago
Boston
Houston
Austin
Dallas
San Francisco
San Diego
Miami
Cincinnati
Clevland
Pittsburgh
New Orleans
Washington D.C.
Atlanta
Portland
Seattle
Charlotte
Baltimore
Virgina Beach

(This list is not in specific order lol)
The list goes on and on

There are also hundreds of great non-american cities.

Every city contributes to every country in different aspects (for the most part, Camden, NJ kinda sucks)... but I digress.

[Private Dick]

It's statements like that that lead me to believe that this is nothing more than a Pennsylvania city boosting thread. Not that there's anything wrong with Penn, hell I'm seriously considering a move to Pittsburgh in the near future if everything works out right. But please, stop trying to mask your homerism with some sense of objectiveness, while you may not think much of Florida's cities, many do not share that opinion, so stop making blanket statements like the one above.

Oh, jesus christ.

Florida cities, as far as importance to the US historically, industrially, culturally, politically, etc... really? Florida, for god's sake? Florida?

I went to college in Florida. lived there, and my fiancee is from there. I love Miami. But come on, Florida cities have no realistic place in this discussion.

There's no "homerism" here. I could not give a crap about what cities are tops in this comparison. It's all opinion anyway. It's just that no one seems to be able to come up with anything to prove otherwise. I'm certainly open to hearing other rationale and support, but maybe I've answered my own question too well? I'm all for hearing how LA and SF or Houston and Dallas have contributed more to the overall history and development of the US, but no one seems to actually be able to speak to it, besides strangely bringing up Ronald Reagan, Cesar Chavez (who are not from any of those cities -- just naming people really has no validity anyway) or because San Diego has the largest naval fleet??

But maybe history is not forumers' strong suits...

[Private Dick]

I'm from Philadelphia, and I love my city, but to say that no other city compares to Philadelphia or Pittsburgh is a joke...

There are many great cities in this country that all contributed to the growth and success of this country. There are many great cities in the world.



Seriously? That's what you're interpreting from this thread? Seriously?

[Private Dick]

I see thread killer bnk has chimed in with typical nothingness...

[gtbassett]

Oh, jesus christ.

Florida cities, as far as importance to the US historically, industrially, culturally, politically, etc... really? Florida, for god's sake? Florida?

I went to college in Florida. lived there, and my fiancee is from there. I love Miami. But come on, Florida cities have no realistic place in this discussion.

There's no "homerism" here. I could not give a crap about what cities are tops in this comparison. It's all opinion anyway. It's just that no one seems to be able to come up with anything to prove otherwise. I'm certainly open to hearing other rationale and support, but maybe I've answered my own question too well? I'm all for hearing how LA and SF or Houston and Dallas have contributed more to the overall history and development of the US, but no one seems to actually be able to speak to it, besides strangely bringing up Ronald Reagan, Cesar Chavez (who are not from any of those cities -- just naming people really has no validity anyway) or because San Diego has the largest naval fleet??

But maybe history is not forumers' strong suits...

What I'm trying to get at, and what you're beautifully managing to evade is the concept that EVERY CITY has had it's contributions "historically, industrially, culturally, politically" and that we should not be getting into a pissing match about who has the best fucking resume as a city.

While bashing my home state of California you failed to mention how the Bay Area is where the personal computer was invented. I'm sorry, but in the modern world, THAT'S A BIG FUCKING DEAL, on all accounts of historically, industrially, culturally and politically. Whenever somebody manages to bring up any aspect of contributions of a city outside of Pennsylvania, you just dismiss it basically going "nah, fuck that shit, it's not as important or cool as what Pittsburgh did industrially or Philadelphia did politically, it doesn't count".

This thread is bullshit.

[sbarn]

Oh, jesus christ.

Florida cities, as far as importance to the US historically, industrially, culturally, politically, etc... really? Florida, for god's sake? Florida?

I went to college in Florida. lived there, and my fiancee is from there. I love Miami. But come on, Florida cities have no realistic place in this discussion.

There's no "homerism" here. I could not give a crap about what cities are tops in this comparison. It's all opinion anyway. It's just that no one seems to be able to come up with anything to prove otherwise. I'm certainly open to hearing other rationale and support, but maybe I've answered my own question too well? I'm all for hearing how LA and SF or Houston and Dallas have contributed more to the overall history and development of the US, but no one seems to actually be able to speak to it, besides strangely bringing up Ronald Reagan, Cesar Chavez (who are not from any of those cities -- just naming people really has no validity anyway) or because San Diego has the largest naval fleet??

But maybe history is not forumers' strong suits...

No one has said that Philly or Pittsburgh are historically insignificant, many have simply laid out a case that states such California (Texas or others) could also fill the description of "States with two great cities".

I think that you are the one that fails to understand that term history did not end 50 or 60 years ago. Hell yesterday is history. So basically you are saying that because California has only become an economic and cultural powerhouse in the past 50/60 years therefore means it has little to do with the "the overall history and development of the US"? I would argue this is a non-sensical statement. The US became the powerhouse that it is in the years following WWII, the same period that coincided with California's rise to prominence.

While bashing my home state of California you failed to mention how the Bay Area is where the personal computer was invented. I'm sorry, but in the modern world, THAT'S A BIG FUCKING DEAL, on all accounts of historically, industrially, culturally and politically. Whenever somebody manages to bring up any aspect of contributions of a city outside of Pennsylvania, you just dismiss it basically going "nah, fuck that shit, it's not as important or cool as what Pittsburgh did industrially or Philadelphia did politically, it doesn't count".

Well said, exactly.

[texcolo]

Oh, jesus christ.

Florida cities, as far as importance to the US historically, industrially, culturally, politically, etc... really? Florida, for god's sake? Florida?

I went to college in Florida. lived there, and my fiancee is from there. I love Miami. But come on, Florida cities have no realistic place in this discussion.

There's no "homerism" here. I could not give a crap about what cities are tops in this comparison. It's all opinion anyway. It's just that no one seems to be able to come up with anything to prove otherwise. I'm certainly open to hearing other rationale and support, but maybe I've answered my own question too well? I'm all for hearing how LA and SF or Houston and Dallas have contributed more to the overall history and development of the US, but no one seems to actually be able to speak to it, besides strangely bringing up Ronald Reagan, Cesar Chavez (who are not from any of those cities -- just naming people really has no validity anyway) or because San Diego has the largest naval fleet??

But maybe history is not forumers' strong suits...

Florida is the only state where mankind has gone from one planet to the other (ahem... the moon). And will continue to be the only state where mankind can get into space for the forseeable future.

Any lunar shots begin in Philly? I don't think so.

:D

Anyways, TEXAS rules and you all can suck my knob.

:notacrook:

I kid, I kid.

[spark317]

From Cirrus:

You can't possibly deny the influence the Virginia Tidewater region has had on American history. It is quite literally the cradle of our civilization.

You've heard of Jamestown, I assume, the first permanent English settlement in America? Williamsburg, the colonial intellectual capital where Virginia's constitution and bill or rights (which were models for the US versions) were invented, and where the Virginia gentlemen who wrote the US versions while in Philadelphia were groomed? Yorktown, where George Washington's army finally defeated the British during the Revolutionary War?

All are in the Norfolk metro area.

Philadelphia's influence from the 19th Century on easily eclipses Norfolk's, but up until the end of the 18th Century, Norfolk (or rather the Norfolk area) makes a very, very strong case for being the most important place in the US. Certainly it was the most important in the 17th Century; only the Boston area can compete.

All the major Atlantic cities from Virginia north to New England can make good claims to strong early influence. Ultimately it would be hard to settle which holds the strongest, but at the very least none of them can be denied as "not entering the picture".



http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1168/afrround.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/afrround.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Double L]

"Houston" was the first word said from the moon.
Silver medal for Pennsylvania.





...I mean seriously, don't you remember the Alamo?

jk

[bnk]

Oh, jesus christ.

Florida cities, as far as importance to the US historically, industrially, culturally, politically, etc... really? Florida, for god's sake? Florida?

I went to college in Florida. lived there, and my fiancee is from there. I love Miami. But come on, Florida cities have no realistic place in this discussion.

There's no "homerism" here. I could not give a crap about what cities are tops in this comparison. It's all opinion anyway. It's just that no one seems to be able to come up with anything to prove otherwise. I'm certainly open to hearing other rationale and support, but maybe I've answered my own question too well? I'm all for hearing how LA and SF or Houston and Dallas have contributed more to the overall history and development of the US, but no one seems to actually be able to speak to it, besides strangely bringing up Ronald Reagan, Cesar Chavez (who are not from any of those cities -- just naming people really has no validity anyway) or because San Diego has the largest naval fleet??

But maybe history is not forumers' strong suits...

I think you are digging your own hole right now. Keep it up.

My Last post here and in before the lock.

[plinko]

You should read up on western water rights and begin to understand how Los Angeles singlehandedly changed the game for development in the entire southwest. That's nearly 100 years of history that drastically altered the geopolitical landscape of the US (I'm not making a judgement call on whether or not this is a good or a bad thing).

Just to throw something else on the fire.

[fflint]

Two influential, historical cities? Consider:

Beginning in the 1930s, LA intentionally pioneered a whole new form of cityscape, oriented around private cars, that eventually spread throughout the world--and now literally encircles both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for miles in all directions.

LA is the homeland of major global industries--movies and television--that have, since inception, radically and permanently changed how regular people everywhere live, how we experience our lives, and how we perceive the world.

SF literally was California when the region rebelled against Mexico and extended the States to the Pacific shore, and--as a new free state--made the Civil War inevitable. The gold and silver that funded the Union's successful war effort was minted in San Francisco via the city's huge, centralized gold and silver extraction industries. All that wealth precipitated the first transcontinental railroad, created huge banks, like Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and funded technological breakthroughs like the modern elevator as well as more mundane things like the now-common blue jean.

San Franciscan Leland Stanford set up a university down "on the farm" which became a global center of education and which literally created Silicon Valley. In a very real sense, you're enjoying this forum right now via the technology resulting from a rich San Franciscan's gambit to dedicate a new local college in his dead son's honor. SF has played a prominent role in the emergence of computer-related industries whose technologies have revolutionized life throughout the world.

SF was also the US epicenter of political, social and cultural movements that swept the globe in the 1960s and 1970s, also changing how people live their lives and interact with their societies.

Are those cities "historical" enough to go up against Pittsburgh? I think so, but then, I've got a degree in history and I live in San Francisco. Pittsburgh is older, and perhaps--perhaps--played as crucial a role in the life of the planet in the era in which it peaked as LA and SF have during this epoch, but that is up for debate.

[ColDayMan]

I'm not getting the concept of this thread other than a comparison. It seems tailor-made for failure, in all honesty. It's like me starting a thread stating "What states have three great major cities? Ohio bitches!" "Oh, but Texas has four!" "But California can hang!" "We got Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami!" I dunno, it seems too specialized for any sort of valid discussion other than the ambiguity of state histories and personal biases.

But if I'm reading this right, I'd answer California has this on lock. Philadelphia has a fantastic, storied history but I don't think it would negate Los Angeles or San Francisco's American legacies or influences. As you said, perhaps the history of Los Angeles doesn't "stack up" with Philadelphia, but San Francisco's certainly is clearer, perhaps more iconic due to the gold rush/1906 quake, than Pittsburgh's. While Pittsburgh has a storied history, so do Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, and even Albany, New York so that's already a wash there. In terms of pure might, you could simply say New York (New York City and Saratoga Springs!).

But I'm just glad somebody pointed out Hampton Roads historic influence. They are criminally underrated.

[Urbana]

LA, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Philly, quite honestly they are all great cities and if we ignore arbitrary lines on a map they all contribute to this great nation in distinct and crucial ways.

LA - World center for entertainment and media, business, and much more
San Francisco - technology....San Francisco and environs quite simply RUNS OUR LIVES!
Pittsburgh - emerging tech center, corporations
Philly - important business center since the 1600's and into today

I have never seen the point in saying which city is superior, as far as I am concerned each one has something unique and vital to add to the overall prosperity of America, from NYC to Cody, Wyoming. However, it must be said that just looking at facts and exercising a bit of logic, Los Angeles alone exerts more influence that Philly and Pittsburgh combined (that is coming from a guy who lives in and loves the city of Pittsburgh).:tup:

[RobertWalpole]

I equate great with world-class, and to me, only Cal. has two world-class cities. Dallas and Houston are very nice, but neither is in the same league as LA and SF.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5go1gjNQk1qacclxo1_500.png

[Private Dick]

You should read up on western water rights and begin to understand how Los Angeles singlehandedly changed the game for development in the entire southwest. That's nearly 100 years of history that drastically altered the geopolitical landscape of the US (I'm not making a judgement call on whether or not this is a good or a bad thing).

Just to throw something else on the fire.

Two influential, historical cities? Consider:

Beginning in the 1930s, LA intentionally pioneered a whole new form of cityscape, oriented around private cars, that eventually spread throughout the world--and now literally encircles both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for miles in all directions.

LA is the homeland of major global industries--movies and television--that have, since inception, radically and permanently changed how regular people everywhere live, how we experience our lives, and how we perceive the world.

SF literally was California when the region rebelled against Mexico and extended the States to the Pacific shore, and--as a new free state--made the Civil War inevitable. The gold and silver that funded the Union's successful war effort was minted in San Francisco via the city's huge, centralized gold and silver extraction industries. All that wealth precipitated the first transcontinental railroad, created huge banks, like Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and funded technological breakthroughs like the modern elevator as well as more mundane things like the now-common blue jean.

San Franciscan Leland Stanford set up a university down "on the farm" which became a global center of education and which literally created Silicon Valley. In a very real sense, you're enjoying this forum right now via the technology resulting from a rich San Franciscan's gambit to dedicate a new local college in his dead son's honor. SF has played a prominent role in the emergence of computer-related industries whose technologies have revolutionized life throughout the world.

SF was also the US epicenter of political, social and cultural movements that swept the globe in the 1960s and 1970s, also changing how people live their lives and interact with their societies.

Are those cities "historical" enough to go up against Pittsburgh? I think so, but then, I've got a degree in history and I live in San Francisco. Pittsburgh is older, and perhaps--perhaps--played as crucial a role in the life of the planet in the era in which it peaked as LA and SF have during this epoch, but that is up for debate.

Thank you, guys! Thank you for actually contributing thoughtfully.

This is the kind of discussion that is informative and interesting. Actual thought! Rather than just complaints and empty bitching.

[brickell]

We're better than this. Here's something far nerdier. I know you guys are going to trash it but by this account the Dick is right...

Pivoting off the link MonkeyRonin posted - here's the rankings of the top 100 urban place by decade 1790-1990. City limit issues, but you do the work if you find something better. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab01.txt

I assigned a 100 to years without and averaged their overall rank in that time. It's a proxy for population rank over time which I'm attributing to historical significance. The lower the score the higher the average rank. NYC is a 1 and always has been. Burlington, Iowa the lowest (it hit #100 in 1870)

Here's the top 50 cities using this method

New York *............... 1.00
Philadelphia *........... 3.00
Baltimore................ 5.76
Boston *................. 7.81
Washington *............. 18.14
New Orleans *............ 20.57
Pittsburgh *............. 25.19
Cincinnati............... 25.24
St. Louis................ 30.33
Chicago.................. 31.29
Providence *............. 32.43
Detroit.................. 33.43
Buffalo *................ 34.19
Richmond................. 34.76
Cleveland................ 36.24
Louisville............... 37.38
Newark................... 37.57
Milwaukee................ 40.10
San Francisco *.......... 40.95
Rochester *.............. 43.24
New Haven *.............. 44.33
Albany................... 44.65
Indianapolis *........... 47.76
Columbus................. 48.19
Norfolk.................. 50.90
Hartford *............... 51.48
Memphis *................ 53.29
Kansas City *............ 53.43
Los Angeles.............. 54.52
Charleston............... 54.57
Jersey City.............. 55.14
Minneapolis.............. 56.76
Nashville *.............. 57.76
Toledo................... 58.00
Denver *................. 58.48
Worcester................ 59.62
Brooklyn *............... 60.10
Atlanta.................. 60.33
Syracuse................. 61.14
St. Paul................. 62.05
Seattle.................. 62.14
Dayton................... 62.71
New Bedford.............. 65.14
Portland................. 65.14
Oakland.................. 65.19
Salem.................... 65.52
Houston *................ 65.76
Omaha.................... 65.81
Dallas................... 66.10
San Antonio.............. 66.43


And the states and their top 2 city average (same scores as above)

PENNSYLVANIA (22) 14.10 - Phl, Pit
NEW YORK (21) 17.60 - Nyc, Buf
OHIO (12) 30.74 - Cin, Cle
MASSACHUSETTS (30) 33.71 - Bos, Worcester
MISSOURI (3) 41.88 - Stl, KC
VIRGINIA (10) 42.83 - Rich, Norfolk
NEW JERSEY (10) 46.36 - Jersey City, Newark
CALIFORNIA (17) 47.74 - SF, LA
CONNECTICUT (7) 47.90 - New Haven, Hartford
COLUMBIA (3) 48.82 - Washington, Alexandria
MARYLAND (4) 50.29 - Balt, Frederick
RHODE ISLAND (6) 54.10 - PVD, Newport
MICHIGAN (6) 54.24 - Det, GR
TENNESSEE (4) 55.52 - Memph, Nash
LOUISIANA (5) 57.05 - NO, Shrev
MINNESOTA (3) 59.40 - Min, StP
ILLINOIS (6) 60.07 - Chi, Peo
KENTUCKY (4) 61.48 - Lville, Lex
GEORGIA (4) 63.76 - Atl, Sav
TEXAS (12) 65.93 - Hou, Dal
INDIANA (8) 67.71 - Ind, Evansville
WISCONSIN (2) 68.65 - Mil, Mad
WASHINGTON (3) 74.83 - Sea, Spokane
ALABAMA (3) 76.05 - Bhm, Mob
SOUTH CAROLINA (2) 76.64 - Chs, Columbia
COLORADO (3) 77.33 - Den, Co Springs
MAINE (5) 79.45 - Portland, Bangor
OKLAHOMA (2) 80.31 - OKC, Tulsa
NEBRASKA (2) 80.36 - Omaha, Lincoln
FLORIDA (6) 80.83 - Jax, Mia
NEW HAMPSHIRE (5) 81.38 - Portsmouth, Manchester
ARIZONA (3) 86.93 - Phx, Tucson
KANSAS (4) 87.60 - Wichita, KC
IOWA (5) 87.67 - Des Moines, Dubuque
NORTH CAROLINA (6) 92.14 - Clt, Wilmington
MISSISSIPPI (2) 97.95 - Jackson, Natchez

[hudkina]

Florida is home to some of the earliest European colonies in the U.S. The Spanish attempted to settle in the Pensacola area in 1559, though that settlement was destroyed by a Hurricane. In 1564 the French built Fort Caroline in the Jacksonville area. That fort was burned to the ground by the Spanish who in 1565 founded St. Augustine, which happens to be the oldest permanent European settlement in the U.S.

To say that Florida doesn't have a history prior to 1920 is a myth. While Miami was a backwater town until that decade, there is plenty of history in the state. Pensacola and St. Augustine were major towns in the Colonial era. By the 1820's settlements like Jacksonville and Tampa were founded, both of which became relatively large cities by the early 20th century.

[hudkina]

Beginning in the 1930s, LA intentionally pioneered a whole new form of cityscape, oriented around private cars, that eventually spread throughout the world--and now literally encircles both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for miles in all directions.

Detroit was the pioneer. Los Angeles just took it to a whole different level. Detroit from the 1920's to the 1960's became the archetype of the modern American city. The first mile of concrete, the first modern traffic light, the first urban freeway, and the first suburban shopping mall were all built in Detroit.

In fact, people don't see it now, but Detroit and Los Angeles were very similar in their built environments because they grew to such prominence in the early 20th century.

[Private Dick]

We're better than this. Here's something far nerdier. I know you guys are going to trash it but by this account the Dick is right...

Pivoting off the link MonkeyRonin posted - here's the rankings of the top 100 urban place by decade 1790-1990. City limit issues, but you do the work if you find something better. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab01.txt

I assigned a 100 to years without and averaged their overall rank in that time. It's a proxy for population rank over time which I'm attributing to historical significance. The lower the score the higher the average rank. NYC is a 1 and always has been. Burlington, Iowa the lowest (it hit #100 in 1870)

Here's the top 50 cities using this method

New York *............... 1.00
Philadelphia *........... 3.00
Baltimore................ 5.76
Boston *................. 7.81
Washington *............. 18.14
New Orleans *............ 20.57
Pittsburgh *............. 25.19
Cincinnati............... 25.24
St. Louis................ 30.33
Chicago.................. 31.29
Providence *............. 32.43
Detroit.................. 33.43
Buffalo *................ 34.19
Richmond................. 34.76
Cleveland................ 36.24
Louisville............... 37.38
Newark................... 37.57
Milwaukee................ 40.10
San Francisco *.......... 40.95
Rochester *.............. 43.24
New Haven *.............. 44.33
Albany................... 44.65
Indianapolis *........... 47.76
Columbus................. 48.19
Norfolk.................. 50.90
Hartford *............... 51.48
Memphis *................ 53.29
Kansas City *............ 53.43
Los Angeles.............. 54.52
Charleston............... 54.57
Jersey City.............. 55.14
Minneapolis.............. 56.76
Nashville *.............. 57.76
Toledo................... 58.00
Denver *................. 58.48
Worcester................ 59.62
Brooklyn *............... 60.10
Atlanta.................. 60.33
Syracuse................. 61.14
St. Paul................. 62.05
Seattle.................. 62.14
Dayton................... 62.71
New Bedford.............. 65.14
Portland................. 65.14
Oakland.................. 65.19
Salem.................... 65.52
Houston *................ 65.76
Omaha.................... 65.81
Dallas................... 66.10
San Antonio.............. 66.43


And the states and their top 2 city average (same scores as above)

PENNSYLVANIA (22) 14.10 - Phl, Pit
NEW YORK (21) 17.60 - Nyc, Buf
OHIO (12) 30.74 - Cin, Cle
MASSACHUSETTS (30) 33.71 - Bos, Worcester
MISSOURI (3) 41.88 - Stl, KC
VIRGINIA (10) 42.83 - Rich, Norfolk
NEW JERSEY (10) 46.36 - Jersey City, Newark
CALIFORNIA (17) 47.74 - SF, LA
CONNECTICUT (7) 47.90 - New Haven, Hartford
COLUMBIA (3) 48.82 - Washington, Alexandria
MARYLAND (4) 50.29 - Balt, Frederick
RHODE ISLAND (6) 54.10 - PVD, Newport
MICHIGAN (6) 54.24 - Det, GR
TENNESSEE (4) 55.52 - Memph, Nash
LOUISIANA (5) 57.05 - NO, Shrev
MINNESOTA (3) 59.40 - Min, StP
ILLINOIS (6) 60.07 - Chi, Peo
KENTUCKY (4) 61.48 - Lville, Lex
GEORGIA (4) 63.76 - Atl, Sav
TEXAS (12) 65.93 - Hou, Dal
INDIANA (8) 67.71 - Ind, Evansville
WISCONSIN (2) 68.65 - Mil, Mad
WASHINGTON (3) 74.83 - Sea, Spokane
ALABAMA (3) 76.05 - Bhm, Mob
SOUTH CAROLINA (2) 76.64 - Chs, Columbia
COLORADO (3) 77.33 - Den, Co Springs
MAINE (5) 79.45 - Portland, Bangor
OKLAHOMA (2) 80.31 - OKC, Tulsa
NEBRASKA (2) 80.36 - Omaha, Lincoln
FLORIDA (6) 80.83 - Jax, Mia
NEW HAMPSHIRE (5) 81.38 - Portsmouth, Manchester
ARIZONA (3) 86.93 - Phx, Tucson
KANSAS (4) 87.60 - Wichita, KC
IOWA (5) 87.67 - Des Moines, Dubuque
NORTH CAROLINA (6) 92.14 - Clt, Wilmington
MISSISSIPPI (2) 97.95 - Jackson, Natchez

Hmmm, interesting stuff. Thank you for providing some quantitative breakdown to support my thoughts.

[Private Dick]

Florida is home to some of the earliest European colonies in the U.S. The Spanish attempted to settle in the Pensacola area in 1559, though that settlement was destroyed by a Hurricane. In 1564 the French built Fort Caroline in the Jacksonville area. That fort was burned to the ground by the Spanish who in 1565 founded St. Augustine, which happens to be the oldest permanent European settlement in the U.S.

To say that Florida doesn't have a history prior to 1920 is a myth. While Miami was a backwater town until that decade, there is plenty of history in the state. Pensacola and St. Augustine were major towns in the Colonial era. By the 1820's settlements like Jacksonville and Tampa were founded, both of which became relatively large cities by the early 20th century.

Tallahassee is quite old and historic as well. Still, Florida cities are very minor players in American history, for the most part -- having limited significance and spotty settlement. They are major players in Florida history, but can hardly compare in terms of national historical development.

Detroit was the pioneer. Los Angeles just took it to a whole different level. Detroit from the 1920's to the 1960's became the archetype of the modern American city. The first mile of concrete, the first modern traffic light, the first urban freeway, and the first suburban shopping mall were all built in Detroit.

In fact, people don't see it now, but Detroit and Los Angeles were very similar in their built environments because they grew to such prominence in the early 20th century.

Thanks for the info.

[hudkina]

That list is a ranking of relative size. For example, in 1820 a city with less than 10,000 people would be in the Top 15. In 2010, a city would need around 790,000 people to be in the Top 15. The city of Miami today has more people than New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, Washington, Albany, Richmond, Providence, Cincinnati, Norfolk, Pittsburgh, and Louisville combined had in 1820.

The list should be weighted to some extent to factor in the absolute size. For example, a city that ranks 25th but has a population of 408,442 might in some respects be more important on an absolute level than a city that ranks 25th and has a population of 28,785.

[213]

I would suggest, nay assert, that Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are the most nationally significant pair of cities whose names begin with the same letter as the state they're located in.

[hudkina]

That is the biggest slap in the face to Hilo and Honolulu!!! That comment alone is cause for this thread to be locked!!!

[Chicago103]

California with Los Angeles and San Francisco struck me as the obvious choice even before I read all the comments. The so called second city in a state (in this case most important if not largest city proper population) should be the determining factor and no other state has a second city that compares to San Francisco. It is also no coincidence that California happens to be the most populous state because the LA area and Bay area in large part is the reason that it is. Also from a cultural image perspective no state compares to having Los Angeles and San Francisco, in part this is because the movie industry is in California and that both cities are very popular settings for movies but I think it goes beyond that as well.

Illinois is the opposite of California, it has the biggest divide between it's dominant city and second city, if there really even is one here. The second largest city in Illinois is now one of it's own edge city suburbs, Aurora. It is no wonder that Steely Dan can joke about cities like Peoria and Decatur, it's because those cities make Buffalo and Rochester in upstate New York look like metropolises. Even when you compare Albany, NY with Springfield, IL, city proper they have about the same populations but Albany has about million people in it's metro and Springfield just 200K. The second largest IL metro is in fact Metro East, suburbs of Saint Louis, MO, then the quad cities that is shared with Iowa. Peoria and Rockford are really the only sizable metros completely in Illinois and I think even Rockford metro arguably goes into WI a bit.

[HurricaneHugo]

Pittsburgh really drags down Philadelphia in this comparison.

Just using the Global City rankings one can see the clear difference between California and Pennsylvania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Both LA and SF are clear Alpha cities.

Philadelphia comes in as Alpha minus and Pittsburgh brings in the rear as a Gamma city.

Heck San Diego is a Beta minus global city and IMO is a more important city than Pitts. I think only Texas can produce a 2nd city that's better than Cali's 3rd city.

History is important and nobody denies how much of a role Philadelphia played early on but in the last century (you know...about 43% of the United States history....) the California cities have clearly dominated the Pennsylvania cities.