Which city is most dominant in its region: Chicago (Midwest), Atlanta (Southeast), or Boston (New England)? (compared, America)
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.
SO Boston shines brightly when it has to compete with NY, Philly and DC??
you must be joking. Or rather, you must not have read the question.
In terms of population Boston is behind of NY, Philly and DC.
In terms of GDP Boston is behind of NY and DC
In terms of political power it is behind of DC and NY.
In terms of Cultural influence it is behind NY, DC and Philly.
In terms of logistics/imp to the region it is behind NY and DC.
In terms of historical significance I guess it would be a 4way tie.
Dominant in the region Boston is not. It is far from ATL, far from Chicago, far from Seattle. Maybe on par with San Jose in Cali competing for significance with SF, Sacramento, SJ and LA
I'm sorry, but Boston's behind Philly in cultural influence? So, that whole universal healthcare and gay marriage doesn't count or something?
I know American history probably better than you. i didn't say regions was based on land size. Where on earth did you read that.
I said why did he choose regions that are as large as the midwest and the SE and then from the NE only pick a fragment of it. a fragment the size of Illinois or Georgia. I would suggest you learn to read before you start calling people ignorant.
He did choose "Southeast" for Atlanta and not just the South, so your point is moot. If you include the entire Northeast, you'd have to include the entire South. And you did compare New England based on land size, because you equated it with Georgia and Illinois...
You know more about American history than me... yet you include places like NY, Philly, or DC with New England...
Atlanta is without a doubt the "capital of the SE" and its the hub with which all Southern spokes radiate, but in terms of share of population and influence, it is not as dominant as Boston's share of New England. The only other cities that get any New England mention in any topic are Hartford and maybe Bridgeport/Stamford (but then do we lump the latter with NYC?). Providence, VT, NH, and ME take a backseat to Boston.
In the South you have Atlanta as the largest, most influential city, but you also have Nashville, Memphis, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Birmingham, New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Richmond, and arguably Louisville, Tampa, and Orlando (maybe even Cincinnati).
Without Boston, New England would just be a mecca of vacation homes, artists, lobstermen, and writers. Maybe throw in a few insurance companies, LoL.
Without Atlanta, the South would still have a network of unique, important, large metropolitan areas that contribute something to the region and to the country.
Chicago? What are we defining as the Midwest and then I maybe can chime in? Is it the Upper Midwest? Are we going over to Ohio? Is Cincinnati Midwest or South? Is Kansas part of this Midwest?
He did choose "Southeast" for Atlanta and not just the South, so your point is moot. If you include the entire Northeast, you'd have to include the entire South. And you did compare New England based on land size, because you equated it with Georgia and Illinois...
my point is the SE, NE and Mid west are similar in size. The south is just too big and New England just too puny.
but this argument is just silly. you are just dragging the thread into the dirt by carrying this further.
my point is the SE, NE and Mid west are similar in size. The south is just too big and New England just too puny.
but this argument is just silly. you are just dragging the thread into the dirt by carrying this further.
You still dismiss your misconceptions as just "silly" and "minor", yet if someone says that Houston was in California (since its West anyway and its all Mexicans there) I bet everyone here, including you, would go nuts over it and rightly so.
Boston wins in a landslide. Of course, New England is only marginally larger than the states of Georgia or Illinois, so it's not a very fair competition.
The Atlanta vs Chicago comparison is more interesting. Not sure how you define Chicago sphere of influence, but imo Atlanta's covers, GA, NC, SC, TN, AL, and northern Florida, and it dominates the region pretty handily. It has some influence in KY, MS, and Central Florida (even a bit in Southern Florida; we're the busiest flight connection with Miami, for instance; I believe the same is true for Orlando and Tampa). Not sure what Chicago people think of their respective area as being.
Without Atlanta, the South would still have a network of unique, important, large metropolitan areas that contribute something to the region and to the country.
The South as a whole might...but would the Southeast? I guess it depends if we're including South Florida as part of the Southeast (sorry to open that can of worms). If not, the only other metro of significance in the SE would be Charlotte.
Atlanta is without a doubt the "capital of the SE" and its the hub with which all Southern spokes radiate, but in terms of share of population and influence, it is not as dominant as Boston's share of New England. The only other cities that get any New England mention in any topic are Hartford and maybe Bridgeport/Stamford (but then do we lump the latter with NYC?). Providence, VT, NH, and ME take a backseat to Boston.
In the South you have Atlanta as the largest, most influential city, but you also have Nashville, Memphis, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Birmingham, New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Richmond, and arguably Louisville, Tampa, and Orlando (maybe even Cincinnati).
Without Boston, New England would just be a mecca of vacation homes, artists, lobstermen, and writers. Maybe throw in a few insurance companies, LoL.
Without Atlanta, the South would still have a network of unique, important, large metropolitan areas that contribute something to the region and to the country.
Chicago? What are we defining as the Midwest and then I maybe can chime in? Is it the Upper Midwest? Are we going over to Ohio? Is Cincinnati Midwest or South? Is Kansas part of this Midwest?
Interpret it as you will, I think its pretty arbitrary. I didn't want to say that all of Ohio is the MW because, like you said, I consider Cincinnati to be more or less a gateway to the South. Same with Pennsylvania (Philly is not the Midwest). Plus, some of the smaller states like the Dakotas seem more Great Plains than Midwestern so I didn't want to specify. I left it undefined on purpose.
Chicago has competition from Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinatti, Milwaukee, Minn/St Paul.
yet again, st. louis is conspicuously absent from this list, even though it the midwest city most intimately and historically connected to chicago.
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.
