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.
It's a topic that has been discussed here time and time again, but upon thinking about this I think there are only three, yes three American cities that can legitimately be considered world class. Those cities are:
New York City
Los Angeles
San Francisco
That's it.
Others, like Chicago, DC, Philly, and Seattle come very close but aren't quite there. The three cities above are the only cities in America that can play with the likes of London, Paris, Sydney, Tokyo, etc. Agree or disagree?
Not sure why you'd include LA and SF as world class but then leave out Chicago. I get leaving out DC, Boston, Philly, and especially Seattle as not being world class cities, but I'd say Chicago is just as world class as LA and SF. All three cities are world class for different reasons. That being said, I don't think Chicago, LA, or SF can really "play" with the likes of London, Paris, or Tokyo. Sydney, Barcelona, or Milan? Sure.
Not sure why you'd include LA and SF as world class but then leave out Chicago. I get leaving out DC, Boston, Philly, and Seattle as not being world class cities, but I'd say Chicago is just as world class as LA and SF. All three cities are world class in different ways. Still, I don't think Chicago, LA, or SF can really "play" with the likes of London, Paris, or Tokyo. Sydney, Barcelona, Milan or Berlin? Sure.
The articles i listed says otherwise and thus Chicago does play with the likes of london, Paris, etc. Surely they all cannot be lying?
The articles i listed says otherwise and thus Chicago does play with the likes of london, Paris, etc. Surely they all cannot be lying?
Think about it this way. The Miami Heat and Milwaukee Bucks both made the NBA playoffs, but that doesn't mean that both teams are on the same level. Chicago (and likewise LA and SF, maybe even DC) can make the same lists as cities like New York, London, and Paris...but they're still worlds apart in power and influence.
Think about it this way. The Miami Heat and Milwaukee Bucks both made the NBA playoffs, but that doesn't mean that both teams are on the same level. Chicago (and likewise LA and SF, maybe even DC) can make the same lists as cities like New York, London, and Paris...but they're still worlds apart in power and influence.
SF's transit system is terrible. Atlanta's rail is more extensive within the core 49 square miles than SF is. That's how bad it is.... You'd think with such a renowned city, it would have had better transit in the core...it literally runs on one line in the city....like what...
World class cities generally have world class metro systems...SF does not, therefore it's not world class in the sense that NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo are.
The only city that is truly world class is NYC. It is far above the 2nd city below it it's not even funny. NYC is arguably the #1 city in the world with London.
And Chicago does not play with the likes of London and Paris...I mean really?
So much boosting on this forum for SF....I mean, people really believe SF is up there with the big 4 and they really believe it trumps LA which it does not.
SF's transit system is terrible. Atlanta's rail is more extensive within the core 49 square miles than SF is. That's how bad it is.... You'd think with such a renowned city, it would have had better transit in the core...it literally runs on one line in the city....like what...
World class cities generally have world class metro systems...SF does not, therefore it's not world class in the sense that NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo are.
The only city that is truly world class is NYC. It is far above the 2nd city below it it's not even funny. NYC is arguably the #1 city in the world with London.
And Chicago does not play with the likes of London and Paris...I mean really?
So much boosting on this forum for SF....I mean, people really believe SF is up there with the big 4 and they really believe it trumps LA which it does not.
And you are no better. It is not about world class metro systems. ALOT more to it then that. FWIW per those articles here is where US cities that made the top 20 ranked.
#1. NYC
#6. LA
#7. Chicago
#10. Washington DC
#15. Boston
#17. San Francisco
TOP 10
1, NYC
2. London
3. Paris
4. Tokyo
5. Hong Kong
6. LA
7. Chicago
8. Seoul
9. Brussels
10. Washington DC.
Basically a bit depends on movers and shakers. Next would be offering world class amenities and thus see lodging, places to see, fine dining and so forth. Then Population ( cultural diversity etc ) even figures into it a little. ALL of those top 10 have that.
but world class cities SHOULD have world class transit systems. Almost every top 15 city does. LA is probably the only city that doesn't have a world class transit system.
To people who probably don't believe Atlanta's heavy rail transit system trumps SF in it's core 49 square miles, here ya go....
SF has better decent transit in the metro itself, but in the city, it's terrible. The heavy rail portion should be more extensive. For a city like Atlanta to beat SF for heavy rail in the city is pathetic for SF. Atlanta is super sprawl and SF is almost super dense.
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.
