U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-25-2009, 12:05 AM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,413,118 times
Reputation: 382

Advertisements

LOL...you post made me laugh. Don't try to outsmart the American scholars

Make sure you do some proper reading before posting...!!

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles

America's Global Cities

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles


Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave View Post
These are by far the most important American cities but to say nothing else matters is ridiculous.
1. Chicago has very little influence over many regions in the US, provided you don't trade futures. For people in the South, either D.C, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, etc will have more influence. Influence is a key part of importance. People in the North West will consider Seattle, Vancouver, and even San Fran far more important than Chicago. NYC, LA, and DC have influences that reach the entire US and rival local large cities for influence though.

2. Do you use gasoline for your car? Do you drink Coca Cola, watch CNN, or use Google? That computer your using probably uses technology from San Francisco or Seattle....

3. LA doesn't even dominate California. San Francisco would wield more influence nation-wide if not for the film industry.

4. If the rest of the major cities disappeared you'd feel it quickly. Even NYC is greatly dependent on all of us "flyover" Think the publishing industry in NY would last without all the readers and authors elsewhere? Wall Street wouldn't even exist if not for all the companies throughout America that need to raise capital or the average joe that wants to try his hand in the stock market.

By the way, where do you think a ton of those bankers were educated? In or near Boston!

These 4+San Fran are much more important than the rest but turns out plenty of cities matter. Although I do give you some credit for sharing some power with the other 3 cities unlike some New Yorkers.

 
Old 11-25-2009, 02:25 AM
 
Location: Bethesda
2,876 posts, read 6,021,916 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post
LOL...you post made me laugh. Don't try to outsmart the American scholars

Make sure you do some proper reading before posting...!!

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles

America's Global Cities

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Once again we have a troll posting nothing with substance. I never said those cities aren't America's most important cities. Learn to read and get back to us
Also, NYC is America's only truly top notch global city-go do some traveling.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 02:29 AM
 
Location: Bethesda
2,876 posts, read 6,021,916 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
While that is somewhat true, you do have to realize that Houston is becoming an important city in medical research, nanotechnology, biotechnology,the ports and more. It has a fast growing airport and one of the largest and busiest and fastest growing seaports in the world. Houston learned it's lesson from the oil bust in the 1980s. You would have to believe that the future is setup greatly for them. Houston's energy economy is actually diversifying itself. It doesn't rely on oil in Houston anymore. They have become equal to Austin as the renewable energy capital of the state and Austin is one of the top green cities in the nation.
Good for Houston that they're diversifying and seem to be valueing brain capital increasingly. Yet this doesn't change the fact that it will stand to lose relative influence if it no longer essentially controls the supply of energy to much of the nation. Rivaling other top alternative industry cities doesn't quite carry the same weight as being the energy pipeline.

Still, this is all a moot point as this is some time in the future and just conjecture on our part.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 08:01 AM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,413,118 times
Reputation: 382
Hey decafdave, I quoted you by mistake. My post was to reply to jjohns252525. Indeed, I agreed with most of your points.

Again, sorry. It was late last night


Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave View Post
I never said those cities aren't America's most important cities. Learn to read and get back to us
Also, NYC is America's only truly top notch global city-go do some traveling.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 01:07 PM
 
28 posts, read 40,257 times
Reputation: 12
In my opinion, there are only seven cities that are truly "global" in the U.S., and they are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Washington and Atlanta. New York because it's..well..New York. Chicago because of economic growth. Los Angeles because of the film industry. San Francisco because of technology centers. Boston because of top rate universities. Washington because of goverment and politics. And Atlanta because of the number 1 airport in the world. Every other U.S. city can't compete with these cities. Some honorable mentions: Houston, Dallas, Miami, Seattle and maybe Philadelphia.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,598 posts, read 53,177,590 times
Reputation: 14516
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles

America's Global Cities

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles
I'll let you have ur moment.

After all, its Thanksgiving.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 01:22 PM
 
1,588 posts, read 3,460,939 times
Reputation: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by bergone View Post
In my opinion, there are only seven cities that are truly "global" in the U.S., and they are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Washington and Atlanta. New York because it's..well..New York. Chicago because of economic growth. Los Angeles because of the film industry. San Francisco because of technology centers. Boston because of top rate universities. Washington because of goverment and politics. And Atlanta because of the number 1 airport in the world. Every other U.S. city can't compete with these cities. Some honorable mentions: Houston, Dallas, Miami, Seattle and maybe Philadelphia.
So having the busiest airport makes Atlanta "truly" global? What difference does this make to some random person in Thailand or any other country for that matter? From my travels, most know NYC, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and to a lesser extent Chicago and San Francisco. From there it's all about the cities people have heard of, but don't know much about. Atlanta is in this category as are Houston, Dallas, Miami, Seattle, Philadelphia, and several others.

Last edited by BlackOut; 11-25-2009 at 01:39 PM..
 
Old 11-25-2009, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,128,667 times
Reputation: 4051
Quote:
Originally Posted by bergone View Post
In my opinion, there are only seven cities that are truly "global" in the U.S., and they are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Washington and Atlanta. New York because it's..well..New York. Chicago because of economic growth. Los Angeles because of the film industry. San Francisco because of technology centers. Boston because of top rate universities. Washington because of goverment and politics. And Atlanta because of the number 1 airport in the world. Every other U.S. city can't compete with these cities. Some honorable mentions: Houston, Dallas, Miami, Seattle and maybe Philadelphia.
I would replace Atlanta with Houston, but other than that I would agree.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: West Town, Chicago
633 posts, read 1,224,393 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
What on earth are these "tiers" based on? If it is population, then they have to be redone. If it is your personal taste, that is understandable I guess. But I would argue that if it is city alone, "Tier 1" would be NYC. "Tier 2" would include all of the cities with one million or more people. "Tier 3" would probably include cities with 500 to 1 mil. I think that would be most objective, disregarding personal taste.
How about:

Tier 1: NYC
Tier 2: Chicago, LA
Tier 3: Houston and other cities 1.5M - 2.5M in population.
Tier 4: Rust Belt cities with decimated populations but high name recognition (e.g. Pittsburgh, Detroit)
Tier 5: Cities 1M - 1.49M in population
Tier 6: Cities 500,000-999,999 in population
Tier 7: Cities 40K-499,999K and high name recognition
Tier 8: Cities 40K-499,999K with low name recognition
Tier 9: White Plains, NY: Home of Dementor.
 
Old 11-25-2009, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,128,667 times
Reputation: 4051
So basically your list is based simply on population? Because there's no way you can leave out DC in the second tier...it's more important than Chi and probably more important than LA too.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top