Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Outside of the Twin Cities, Minnesota is fairly rural. Being a stand-alone city in an area far away from another city of size, it's where people choose to go, for the "big city" experience, with more opportunities. A big draw from those states mentioned.
Swap "Kansas City" for "the Twin Cities" and "the Central Plains" for "Minnesota" and it's pretty much the same thing.
Someone posted one of those "Top 10 Reasons" videos to the Kansas City board yesterday; it was produced by a guy who does a series of "Top 10 Reasons NOT to Move to..." as well as "Top 10 Reasons to Move to..." videos. He made it plain as he explained the "Top 10 Reasons NOT to Move to Kansas City, Mo." that he actually thought the city was a really nice place to live and that many people would love living there.
But one of those Top 10 reasons was its isolation. The two closest largish cities to it, Wichita and Omaha (both about 3 hours away), are about half KC's size, and the closest comparable city to it, St. Louis, is four hours away.
After that: Two university towns (Columbia, Mo., and Lawrence, Kan., the latter close enough to qualify as an exurb), the Lake of the Ozarks' upper reaches, and...nothing else, really, aside from Topeka and Jefferson City. (Oh, and Des Moines, which is about as far away as St. Louis is.)
Now, this may actually be a little less isolated than the Twin Cities. But it's certainly pretty isolated, and for a large swath of hinterland in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, KC is the big city.
And expanding your observation to the country as a whole, I don't think any other US state has the trifecta in a single metropolitan area.
Ohio comes close: Columbus is home to both the state government and the flagship state university, but Columbus is now sort of one among equals as a commercial center, and Cleveland really hasn't surrendered its historic leading role.
Usually, if the state capital is also the state's commercial center, said capital is also the state's largest city. In the Midwest, that's the case for Iowa and Indiana but none of the others besides Minnesota (and now Ohio, but Columbus isn't the state's largest metro; that honor too still belongs to Cleveland).
Maryland also comes close thanks to the overlapping of metro Baltimore and Greater Washington. The flagship state university is in a suburb of the latter; the state capital, a suburb of the former; and Baltimore is the state's commercial capital, though the Washington suburbs bid to dominate its politics.
In terms of having the government and education yoked together, a situation found in Texas and Louisiana, to name two: Wisconsin joins Minnesota in having its flagship state university in its state capital, but that's it.
However: None of the metropolitan regions ticked off above have the level of city-suburb distrust Metro Detroit has.
I believe there's a decent argument for other regions that have a major commercial center, capital of the state, and major research institutions do exist in close proximity. There are 17 states where the capital and largest city (which is usually the commercial center) are the same city, and Minnesota is sort of the 18th since the two border each other and the cities themselves aren't all that large.
Of those other 17 states where the largest city / commercial center and state capitals are part of the same metropolitan area), I think there can be solid arguments that Phoenix, Denver, Honolulu, Providence, Nashville, Atlanta, and Boston are metropolitan areas that are also host to major research institutions.
I think Columbus isn't really above the other two major Ohio cities as a major commercial center, but it's still a major commercial center with a lot of employment outside of the research institutions and state government. It's also in a fairly populous state where the three major cities are distributed nearly as far apart as possible within the state. I put Columbus pretty high on my list for 2030 overall.
Swap "Kansas City" for "the Twin Cities" and "the Central Plains" for "Minnesota" and it's pretty much the same thing.
Someone posted one of those "Top 10 Reasons" videos to the Kansas City board yesterday; it was produced by a guy who does a series of "Top 10 Reasons NOT to Move to..." as well as "Top 10 Reasons to Move to..." videos. He made it plain as he explained the "Top 10 Reasons NOT to Move to Kansas City, Mo." that he actually thought the city was a really nice place to live and that many people would love living there.
But one of those Top 10 reasons was its isolation. The two closest largish cities to it, Wichita and Omaha (both about 3 hours away), are about half KC's size, and the closest comparable city to it, St. Louis, is four hours away.
After that: Two university towns (Columbia, Mo., and Lawrence, Kan., the latter close enough to qualify as an exurb), the Lake of the Ozarks' upper reaches, and...nothing else, really, aside from Topeka and Jefferson City. (Oh, and Des Moines, which is about as far away as St. Louis is.)
Now, this may actually be a little less isolated than the Twin Cities. But it's certainly pretty isolated, and for a large swath of hinterland in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, KC is the big city.
I feel like it would be so very sensible if the Missouri River Runner train, aside from other improvements, would make a lot of sense if extended out to Lawrence and Topeka. I remember looking at the Amtrak fare and time with the existing once daily Southwest Chief trip and comparing it to the bus services fare and time for the same routes, and it was pretty favorable towards Amtrak service plus train rides are generally a lot more comfortable. Unfortunately, the Southwest Chief only runs once a day, is sometimes heavily delayed due to being a long distance train that doesn’t get signal priority, and its roundtrip is quite early into KC and quite late out. Extending out the Missouri River Runner would be just about perfect.
And expanding your observation to the country as a whole, I don't think any other US state has the trifecta in a single metropolitan area.
Ohio comes close: Columbus is home to both the state government and the flagship state university, but Columbus is now sort of one among equals as a commercial center, and Cleveland really hasn't surrendered its historic leading role.
Usually, if the state capital is also the state's commercial center, said capital is also the state's largest city. In the Midwest, that's the case for Iowa and Indiana but none of the others besides Minnesota (and now Ohio, but Columbus isn't the state's largest metro; that honor too still belongs to Cleveland).
Maryland also comes close thanks to the overlapping of metro Baltimore and Greater Washington. The flagship state university is in a suburb of the latter; the state capital, a suburb of the former; and Baltimore is the state's commercial capital, though the Washington suburbs bid to dominate its politics.
In terms of having the government and education yoked together, a situation found in Texas and Louisiana, to name two: Wisconsin joins Minnesota in having its flagship state university in its state capital, but that's it.
However: None of the metropolitan regions ticked off above have the level of city-suburb distrust Metro Detroit has.
Washington state, New Mexico, and Colorado have this if you count CSAs.
I
The Twin Cities are sort of blessed in essentially having the region and state's commercial, educational, and governmental center all in one general area. That seems to be a formulae that usually works out pretty well in the US.
Actually there is a curse in being the commercial, educational, and state governmental center in one area. These cities always lag behind similar non-state capital counterparts and end up never becoming a megacity. Atlanta, Boston, etc. are never mentioned in the same breath as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Actually there is a curse in being the commercial, educational, and state governmental center in one area. These cities always lag behind similar non-state capital counterparts and end up never becoming a megacity. Atlanta, Boston, etc. are never mentioned in the same breath as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
So there are 5 whole cities ahead of Boston.
Sure Boston/Atlanta aren’t NYC or LA but I wouldn’t really put up Boston or Atlanta not being mega cities are because they are the centers of everything in their states.
Boston, Atlanta, Columbus, Minneapolis, DesMoines, Nashville are all well outpacing their state.
Actually there is a curse in being the commercial, educational, and state governmental center in one area. These cities always lag behind similar non-state capital counterparts and end up never becoming a megacity. Atlanta, Boston, etc. are never mentioned in the same breath as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
I would disagree. As a global city I'd say Chicago and Boston are in a similar stature albeit Chicago being higher. Similarly with DC and SF as well. I catapult LA and NYC in a higher stratosphere altogether given their population, influence and GDP of the overall CSA.
Just one metric out there but as a global city, Boston's definitely on this list.
I would disagree. As a global city I'd say Chicago and Boston are in a similar stature albeit Chicago being higher. Similarly with DC and SF as well. I catapult LA and NYC in a higher stratosphere altogether given their population, influence and GDP of the overall CSA.
Just one metric out there but as a global city, Boston's definitely on this list.
Your graph index chart just defeated your whole argument, LA is no 7 in the world, Chicago is no 8 and Boston no 21. Yet you say Boston and Chicago are in the same basket, and Chicago is outside of the NYC and LA basket. I am going with the graph on this one, sorry.
I would disagree. As a global city I'd say Chicago and Boston are in a similar stature albeit Chicago being higher. Similarly with DC and SF as well. I catapult LA and NYC in a higher stratosphere altogether given their population, influence and GDP of the overall CSA.
Just one metric out there but as a global city, Boston's definitely on this list.
I disagree. Boston and Chicago are not peers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
