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.
If you're asking what three cities will replace the current big three (NYC, LA, Chicago), that will never happen. Only Houston truly has a shot at cracking the top three, the others will never come close.
And what happens when Houston loses it's economic luster(A lot of jobs and lower cost of living)? I don't think it's a NYC-type of city where it can just sustain itself through sheer global importance and magnitude.
Sorry but this is just really weird. What do Nashville and Portland have in common that you grouped them together? Seattle and Fargo? Oklahoma City and Milwaukee? Or are these just arbitrary agglomerations? Some clarification would be most helpful.
I've heard plenty of comparasions being made with the first group. Thy are hot spots for educated young adults to move to, growing fast, and are not yet major cities. Out of the remaining cities I had in mind the rest are more geographically grouped. They dontbhave to have anything in common. Its just out of the groups listed what group do you think has the best chance in the future to be the "it" cities...the new major cities that people talk about, that become the "new" nycs , Chicago, las etc. If you think none...fine...IG you think one out of the group then day that. Not complicated lol. The groups make it more interesting IMO.
Seattle-Portland-Boise sort of makes sense as a group(in a broad sense)--but including Fargo with Seattle makes no sense. Austin and Nashville might have some things in common but share little with distant Portland. I don't really group Charlotte and Raleigh with Miami either--very different places.
Well I get that but its really not about the groupings. Its about the cities in them. Its about which group has the best chance overall. The groups don't have to make sense. Its based on nothing more than the future of those cities and their potential. That's all.
And what happens when Houston loses it's economic luster(A lot of jobs and lower cost of living)? I don't think it's a NYC-type of city where it can just sustain itself through sheer global importance and magnitude.
Yes, that's true. But right now Houston is earning its global importance through its economic power. Eventually, it will establish itself enough that it will become a self-sustaining juggernaut like NYC, Chicago, and LA.
Either that or it will shrink and become the next Detroit as economic fortunes move elsewhere. Only time will tell.
Well I get that but its really not about the groupings. Its about the cities in them. Its about which group has the best chance overall. The groups don't have to make sense. Its based on nothing more than the future of those cities and their potential. That's all.
If its about the individual cities rather than the groups then why didn't you just make a poll with the individual cities?
Nothing new age about St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans. Probably some of the more mature cities in the country. I also don't understand your groupings.
I think I would have to agree with others in that the grouping of cities seems to be odd. It it's just what three random cities may be another Big 3 of the US it probably would have been better to allow 3 votes. I think this critique is more out of respect to fulfill the OP request and keep the integrity of the question.
Denver's not even on there. Almost all of those cities are old and not "new". Not to mention, your question is truly unclear and vivid.
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.