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.
Why are people trying to turn this into another Houston vs the South thread?
I'm not sure why people are trying to make a case that Atlanta is on the same level as Houston...it's not. It's GDP absolutely wallops Atlanta's. It's the #2 or #3 medical city in the country, and it's the oil/energy king of the country. Atlanta tops Houston in media, and transportation...can't think of much else.
Quote:
What about Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco?
Well all three of those are above Atlanta...I'd put San Francisco above Houston and I'd say Boston is basically tied with Houston. I would consider Philly to be slightly lower on the totem pole.
I'm not sure why people are trying to make a case that Atlanta is on the same level as Houston...it's not. It's GDP absolutely wallops Atlanta's. It's the #2 or #3 medical city in the country, and it's the oil/energy king of the country. Atlanta tops Houston in media, and transportation...can't think of much else.
Agreed. But, expect a huge back lash about Atlanta for that statement. Even in transportation, I would still pick Houston because of the combination of seaport and airport system.
Quote:
Well all three of those are above Atlanta...I'd put San Francisco above Houston and I'd say Boston is basically tied with Houston. I would consider Philly to be slightly lower on the totem pole.
To me, if you include the entire Bay Area, then San Francisco would be in a tier above all three with LA and Chicago. If it's just San Francisco and Oakland, the it would be in a tier with Houston, Boston, Philadelphia, and Dallas/Fort Worth.
Agreed. But, expect a huge back lash about Atlanta for that statement. Even in transportation, I would still pick Houston because of the combination of seaport and airport system.
Bring it on! haha
I stand by the statement. Atlanta is on the tier below SF, Boston, Houston, and Philadelphia.
Quote:
To me, if you include the entire Bay Area, then San Francisco would be in a tier above all three with LA and Chicago. If it's just San Francisco and Oakland, the it would be in a tier with Houston, Boston, Philadelphia, and Dallas/Fort Worth.
I wouldn't go so far as to put it in the next level with Chicago, LA and DC.
My levels would go...(the order of the cities isn't necessarily listed by importance within that tier)
New York City
DC
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco
Boston
Houston
Philadelphia (somewhere in between the SFBosHou Tier and the AtlMiaDal tier)
To me, if you include the entire Bay Area, then San Francisco would be in a tier above all three with LA and Chicago.
This is a sticky situation.
LA and SF are probably tied when it comes to economics. In fact Im inclined to give the edge to SF. LA has a port, but SF seems to have everything else that is relevant to the 21st century economy. Aside from Disney, The Bay Area is home to virtually every iconic company in the state of California.
Im not really convinced that Chicago surpasses SF in that economics either. Considering SF has 2 Million less people, The Bay Area's GDP is basically tied with Chicagoland's. Chicago is a player in finance-SF is the leader in technology. So I don't know.
Culturally, San Francisco through its political and social movements(beatniks, psychodelia, hippies, black panthers, gay rights, environment etc) going back at least half a century has captured so much of the spotlight that Im quite positive it is more culturally influential than Chicago.
Also, many of SFs companies are worldwide leaders in connecting people on a social and personal level. Facebook is a company but people don't think of it that way. Twitter, Google, YouTube etc are more than just business entities-they are fixtures in peoples lives all over the world.
Now LA is more influential in the media, obviously. Images from happenings in LA are beamed across the globe on a daily basis. As far as pop culture, LA is king.
I agree that these 3 constitute a tier by themselves-only I don't know in what order to place them.
DC is the other one that I have a really hard time placing.
Culturally, San Francisco through its political and social movements(beatniks, psychodelia, hippies, black panthers, gay rights, environment etc) going back at least half a century has captured so much of the spotlight that Im quite positive it is more culturally influential than Chicago.
.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. What's more culturally significant than the assimilation of cultures from around the world in America's infancy in Chicago?
Between Jazz, Rap, Indi Rock, etc. I would give Chicago the edge in music.
I would also give Chicago the edge in visual arts, performing arts, and the birth of American foods.
Chicago has also stockpiled much more political clout in it's 176year history than San Francisco could accumulate in another 100 years.
I can't think of another American city which has been more culturally significant than Chicago other than NYC.
I wouldn't go so far as to put it in the next level with Chicago, LA and DC.
My levels would go...(the order of the cities isn't necessarily listed by importance within that tier)
New York City
DC
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco
Boston
Houston
Philadelphia (somewhere in between the SFBosHou Tier and the AtlMiaDal tier)
Dallas
Atlanta
Miami
Who cares after that.
I would only disagree with DC and Dallas. The Federal Government has a lot of power than any other city or state for that matter and IMO, it should be in the same tier as New York.
I know it's difficult for people who don't live in Texas to realize exactly how fast the DFW has grown and is growing, but it will be extremely prevalent that Dallas (with Fort Worth) is on the same level as Houston, Boston, and San Francisco (arguably) within the next three of four years. Dallas has been experiencing some exponential growth, and doesn't appear to be slowing down anytime soon. IMO for size and GDP alone, would place the city on the same tier. When the new 2010 Census is released, the Metroplex will probably be about 6.5+ million people and it would not surprise me if Dallas' CSA GDP passes Houston's and Boston's with in 3 or 4 years and passes the Bay Area's with in the next 10 or so years. In addition, Dallas has some major renovation projects going on right now and I'm sure you've seen many of them posted on CD.
I agree with Philly being kind of in the "in between" and could go either way. Houston and Boston are certainly in the same tier.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. What's more culturally significant than the assimilation of cultures from around the world in America's infancy in Chicago?
The Gold Rush assimilated cultures from around the world in SF before it happened in Chicago. California and San Francisco became world famous places literally overnight and people from all over the world came to SF.
The first Asian community outside of Asia. Hispanics were a presence in SF decades if not a century before they became prominent in Chicago.
Quote:
Between Jazz, Rap, Indi Rock, etc. I would give Chicago the edge in music.
Well, I wasnt aware rap originated in Chicago. But I see your points.
Quote:
I would also give Chicago the edge in visual arts, performing arts, and the birth of American foods.
Well I don't mind you taking credit for visual and performing arts, but as far as food, the current state of fine dining in America today was defined by Bay Area chefs in the 70s and 80s. What we see today is a result of people like Alice Waters. I suggest reading up.
Quote:
Chicago has also stockpiled much more political clout in it's 176year history than San Francisco could accumulate in another 100 years.
Politically, Chicago has a very bad image. SF has a cooky image, but Chicago is seen as corrupt. I wouldnt brag about political clout.
Futhermore, California's Supreme Court is in SF, and both of California's US Senators and the Speaker of the House of Representatives(America's 3rd ranking politician) lives in SF.
SF is also detested by the right wing more than anywhere else. Its the embodiment of leftist idealism and its known throughout the country and world for that.
Furthermore as far as image, Technology is the only economic sector that isnt despised by the American Public. Govermnent-hated, Media-hated, Wall Street/ Fin. Markets-hated. Energy-hated. Manufacturing-Considered Dead. Agribusiness-hated. Technology-Loved.
And that industry's epicenter is in the Bay Area.
Quote:
I can't think of another American city which has been more culturally significant than Chicago other than NYC.
Well, Im not so sure that Chicago's Art scene is as important to as many people as YouTube is.
I don't think DC is 2nd. I think its more of a 2a of maybe even a 1a. Dunno if that makes sense.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that...could you please explain a little bit more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpmeads
I would only disagree with DC and Dallas. The Federal Government has a lot of power than any other city or state for that matter and IMO, it should be in the same tier as New York.
I think New York is in its own tier. It's one of the Big 4 on the planet (NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo). A $1.434 Trillion GDP is downright silly. Culturally it's on its own level in the United States. Even though DC is home to the Federal Government, I would argue Federal policies are a result of what happens in New York City. What happens in New York City is not a result of policies created in DC. (If that makes sense)
Quote:
I know it's difficult for people who don't live in Texas to realize exactly how fast the DFW has grown and is growing, but it will be extremely prevalent that Dallas (with Fort Worth) is on the same level as Houston, Boston, and San Francisco (arguably) within the next three of four years. Dallas has been experiencing some exponential growth, and doesn't appear to be slowing down anytime soon. IMO for size and GDP alone, would place the city on the same tier. When the new 2010 Census is released, the Metroplex will probably be about 6.5+ million people and it would not surprise me if Dallas' CSA GDP passes Houston's and Boston's with in 3 or 4 years and passes the Bay Area's with in the next 10 or so years. In addition, Dallas has some major renovation projects going on right now and I'm sure you've seen many of them posted on CD.
I definitely agree that Dallas is important, and yes its GDP is very impressive. However, what does Dallas do? The knock against Philadelphia is that it doesn't have a flagship industry which would highlight its contribution to the country. I feel Dallas suffers from this too...so does Atlanta.
New York City - Finance/Media
Washington DC - Government
Los Angeles - Media
Chicago - Finance
San Francisco - Technology/Finance
Boston - Education/Technology/Finance/Healthcare (obviously I'm going to put more qualities here ha)
Houston - Oil/Healthcare
Philly - Pharmaceuticals?
Dallas - .... Oil?
Atlanta - ... Crunk?
Let's get some people to fill in the blanks!
Quote:
I agree with Philly being kind of in the "in between" and could go either way. Houston and Boston are certainly in the same tier.
Agreed.
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.
Even in transportation, I would still pick Houston because of the combination of seaport and airport system. 
