SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   City Discussions (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Second cities (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=238331)

xzmattzx Mar 27, 2019 8:20 PM

Second cities
 
Anyone ever take interest in the second cities of countries, states, provinces, or other subdivisions? Second cities are the second-biggest/secondmost important city in a certain place. Most people visit the primary city in a country or place when traveling: Paris in France, Reykjavik in Iceland, Lisbon in Portugal, St. John's in Newfoundland & Labrador in Canada, Denver in Colorado, and so on.

Ever travel to any second city? Ever visit a second city before the primary city? Do you think that the second city is a better slice of the country's/state's/province's people and culture, since most visitors go to the primary city? Do you like the second city more or less than the primary city?

Here's some examples of second cities:

Bahamas: Freeport
Iceland: Akureyri
Portugal: Porto
Greece: Thessaloniki
Colorado: Colorado Springs
Arizona: Tucson
Nevada: Reno
Newfoundland & Labrador: Corner Brook
Prince Edward Island: Sunnyside

Steely Dan Mar 27, 2019 8:37 PM

in illinois' case, our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest cities (aurora, joliet, and naperville) are now just satellite cities enveloped within the massive chicagoland juggernaut, so they're not really standalone cities.

the largest city in illinois not within chicagoland would be rockford. the second largest metro area entirely within illinois* is peoria.

i can't think of any reason why someone from outside the region would want to visit rockford or peoria instead of chicago, unless they have family there.

i'm not trying to shit on rockford and peoria, it's just the truth.



(*) the metro east area of metro st. louis and the quad cities metro area are larger, but those metros extend substantially into other states.

10023 Mar 27, 2019 8:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzmattzx (Post 8520707)
Iceland: Akureyri

I’ve been to Iceland twice and I’ve never heard of this place.

Anyway, some others:

Russia - St Petersburg
Australia - Melbourne
Spain - Barcelona (which will piss off the Catalans)
Austria - Salzburg
Netherlands - Rotterdam
Poland - Kraków
Norway - Bergen
UK - Edinburgh (at least for tourists)
Thailand - Chiang Mai
Japan - Osaka

Countries like Germany, Italy and even France have too many contenders to choose one. For Germany it’s hard to even pick the first city.

There are also some where the “first city” for tourists is not actually the largest, “most important” city in the country generally speaking. Examples:

Brazil - Rio de Janeiro
Morocco - Marrakech
South Africa - Capetown
Croatia - Split

Crawford Mar 27, 2019 9:03 PM

I think Austrians would consider Graz the second city (and Linz the third), but, yeah, for tourists, definitely Salzburg.

iheartthed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 PM

Busan - Korea
Córdoba - Argentina

Denvergotback Mar 27, 2019 9:13 PM

What would be considered the primary and secondary cities in Texas?

Houston is the "largest city"

but Dallas is the "largest metroplex" but is 'also' the 3rd largest city in the state...


I guess the best example to have is maybe going to San Fransisco, many people visit there before LA, and its the 4th largest city (or something) in the state

iheartthed Mar 27, 2019 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denvergotback (Post 8520809)
What would be considered the primary and secondary cities in Texas?

Houston is the "largest city"

but Dallas is the "largest metroplex" but is 'also' the 3rd largest city in the state...


I guess the best example to have is maybe going to San Fransisco, many people visit there before LA, and its the 4th largest city (or something) in the state

SF is without a doubt the second city in California. I would consider Dallas to be the primary city in Texas, and Houston the second city. But they're probably too close together in population now for first city/second city designation.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8520815)
SF is without a doubt the second city in California. I would consider Dallas to be the primary city in Texas, and Houston the second city. But they're probably too close together in population now for first city/second city designation.

In terms of metro area pop. & GDP Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area and Houston metro area almost equal. So I would consider Houston & Dallas (metro) to almost share #1 status in Texas. Number 3 is more interesting. Is it San Antonio or Austin? SA has it on pop., but on influence & growth, is it Austin? Right now I'd give a slight edge to San Anton., in the future though? Austin does have the fastest growing skyline. San Antonio's skyline grows very slowly for a big Texas city. Not sure why.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:28 PM

# 2 in Ireland
 
Well, if you take the island as a whole, Belfast of course w/ Dublin #1. But for Rep. Ireland (south) is it Cork? Galway? Limerick? Somewhere else?

In Scotland--is Edinburgh or Glasgow #1? Glasgow is bigger but Edinburgh is the capitol and probably has the most inluence.

Italy- I would say Milan, but Naples defenders might disagree.

France--Lyon or Marseilles? Probably Lyon.

Australia--I do believe Melbourne might be closing the gap with Sydney, but still Sydney by a nose.

China is more complicated. Is Beijing #1 or is it Shanghai?

dubu Mar 27, 2019 9:30 PM

if you consider central oregon (redmond and bend) one city then i think its the second city. if they were connected by train then they would be like one city.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8520815)
SF is without a doubt the second city in California. I would consider Dallas to be the primary city in Texas, and Houston the second city. But they're probably too close together in population now for first city/second city designation.

I would agree. But San Jose and San Diego do have a claim for #2, but as the capitol/"downtown"/"city" of the second largest metro area in the state, plus for a lot of other reasons SF has the #2 crown. L.A. is clearly number one for its gigantic size alone, although SF does lead in some important categories--tech, finance etc. Which is the #1 metro area is more problematic--Is it the greater SF metro area (including San Jose/Oakland etc.) or is it the greater L.A. metro area (including Orange Co., Riverside, San Bern, eastern Ventura)? L.A. metro still is #1 in GDP, but in world importance it could be a tie. They are both gigantic and influential. They may share the title.

CaliNative Mar 27, 2019 9:57 PM

Here's a good one...In MO, St. Louis or K.C.?
 
Ignoring the fact that part of K.C. metro is in Kansas and a small part of St. Louis metro is in Illinois, I would call it almost a tie. St. Louis metro is still a bit larger, but K.C. still seems to be growing faster. In the future, co-leaders? One thing is clear--KC rules the west & St. Louis the east.

dimondpark Mar 27, 2019 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8520815)
SF is without a doubt the second city in California.

As far as population yes. As far as power and influence, in 2019, it really depends on what we're talking about.

mousquet Mar 27, 2019 10:01 PM

In France, that would still be Lyon because the economy's always been pretty steady over there.
I would hold it as a pretty aggressive town in business, by tradition.

Although Bordeaux, whose genuine 18th-century historic downtown feels very good and attractive might turn a serious challenger since it's been connected to Paris by a HSR line.
It takes only 2 hours for the 600km ride by train now, like you can almost travel the round trip on a daily basis, given today's work amenities.
As a result, it's been madly gentrifying at faster rate, which of course is causing some issues to the local working and middle class people.

Toulouse is also doing good as the major hub of the aeronautical industry in Europe.
It is actually the fastest growing city in the country, but it's rather suburban. To my knowledge, the way I see it, people like their single-family homes with pools in backyards over there, so it's no real urban reference. That may cause some issues to them too in the end, and I hope they work more seriously on their city density.

Population-wise, Marseille should obviously be a candidate, but their downtown is such an impoverished mess that it's still hard to take it seriously.
It's like an American town in the 1970s/80s. The bourgeoisie lives outside the city proper over there, much like in Toulouse.

Nice is nice and kinda sexy as the largest city on the Riviera, but the local economy's yet too slow to make a nominee of it.

And Lille where I've never been yet is the northernmost larger city of the country, almost Belgian, which doesn't necessarily helps. :haha:
No kidding, it seems to be a pretty cool town however, but I don't see it as a rival of Lyon yet.

So it'd be either Lyon, definitely the most legitimate to date, or Toulouse or Bordeaux as rising challengers.

Boisebro Mar 27, 2019 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 8520840)
In terms of metro area pop. & GDP Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area and Houston metro area almost equal. So I would consider Houston & Dallas (metro) to almost share #1 status in Texas. Number 3 is more interesting. Is it San Antonio or Austin?

I'd put Austin first--mostly because it's the state capitol and has the main UT campus--but both are growing so fast, in about 10 years we'll refer to that region as Austonio.

10023 Mar 27, 2019 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8520901)
In France, that would still be Lyon because the economy's always been pretty steady over there.
I would hold it as a pretty aggressive town in business, by tradition.

Although Bordeaux, whose genuine 18th-century historic downtown feels very good and attractive might turn a serious challenger since it's been connected to Paris by a HSR line.
It takes only 2 hours for the 600km ride by train now, like you can almost travel the round trip on a daily basis, given today's work amenities.
As a result, it's been madly gentrifying at faster rate, which of course is causing some issues to the local working and middle class people.

Toulouse is also doing good as the major hub of the aeronautical industry in Europe.
It is actually the fastest growing city in the country, but it's rather suburban. To my knowledge, the way I see it, people like their single-family homes with pools in backyards over there, so it's no real urban reference. That may cause some issues to them too in the end, and I hope they work more seriously on their city density.

Population-wise, Marseille should obviously be a candidate, but their downtown is such an impoverished mess that it's still hard to take it seriously.
It's like an American town in the 1970s/80s. The bourgeoisie lives outside the city proper over there, much like in Toulouse.

Nice is nice and kinda sexy as the largest city on the Riviera, but the local economy's yet too slow to make a nominee of it.

And Lille where I've never been yet is the northernmost larger city of the country, almost Belgian, which doesn't necessarily helps. :haha:
No kidding, it seems to be a pretty cool town however, but I don't see it as a rival of Lyon yet.

So it'd be either Lyon, definitely the most legitimate to date, or Toulouse or Bordeaux as rising challengers.

As a non-Frenchman, I’d agree with that, but any American city aside from NYC and maybe Chicago would be envious of Marseille’s city center.

Cirrus Mar 27, 2019 10:35 PM

I think we should just accept that some place don't really have this phenomenon. Illinois has one and then everybody else. Kansas' biggest city isn't in Kansas. Technically speaking every place has a second largest subdivision, but only some places have a functional "second city" in practice. That's OK but there's no need to shoehorn in those that don't.

Some more obvious second city candidates:

- Tacoma, WA
- Tulsa, OK
- Baton Rouge, LA
- Pawtucket, RI
- Victoria, BC

10023 Mar 27, 2019 10:41 PM

Has no one mentioned Miami as the second city of Florida?

austlar1 Mar 27, 2019 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boisebro (Post 8520907)
I'd put Austin first--mostly because it's the state capitol and has the main UT campus--but both are growing so fast, in about 10 years we'll refer to that region as Austonio.

Folks that live here will NEVER refer to the region as Austonio. The region may tighten up statistically and demographically, but Austonio just doesn't cut it. Keep in mind the two cities are almost as far apart as NY and Philly, and development in between the two metros is mostly along one highway corridor. Meanwhile, the two cities have vastly different economies.

dubu Mar 27, 2019 11:05 PM

tacoma washington is pretty much seattle, same with sf and san jose. commuter rail connects those cities. 30 years ago or something they might have been different cities. i know san jose and tacoma way more then seattle and sf (i had friends that lived there, i havent talked to them in a long time though). second cities in cities?


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.