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.
None of these wide regions, but within New England, Boston is the only major metro area at all. There are no major cities or metro areas anywhere in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island or Connecticut.
Chicago is very important to be sure but the Midwest has many other important major cities like St. Louis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Omaha and Kansas City.
You could say that Denver dominates the Mountain West.
Did you purposely leave out Detroit in your list of other important Midwestern cities? Because it's the 2nd largest and most important metro after Chicago!
Atlanta no longer dominates the Southeast, even if we exclude Texas and the Washington DC area. Charlotte definitely rivals Atlanta economically and increasingly so and has already surpassed Atlanta as a financial center. Charlotte and Raleigh are most extremely fast growing metro areas. I believe Miami-Ft. Lauderdale also rivals Atlanta in terms of population and while that region is not culturally Southern it IS geographically in the Southeast.
Economically, yes, but not so much culturally (one of the OP's criteria). Charlotte doesn't even have a zoo, which is a testament to how young a city it is.
While it is true that NYC's cultural institutions trump Boston and Philadelphia's (and nearly any city's outside of London and Paris), their institutions are still world-class, and they are far more mature than those in North Carolina.
Charlotte has a lot of ground to make up against Atlanta in terms of cultural institutions. The High Museum, for example, has been an Atlanta institution for more than a century. Charlotte's premiere art museum was established this decade.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 04-24-2017 at 03:49 PM..
While it is true that Chicago has all of those things, you are frankly underselling what the rest of the region has. Due to their former positions, many Midwestern cities actually have some of the finest cultural institutions in the country.
I agree with this line of thinking -- that the more established cities of the Midwest have stronger identities than those in the South -- but I guess the argument for Chicago here is that the relative decline of its peers makes it the focus of its region in a way even NYC is not.
So what other city on the list would be the option above Chicago? Not saying Chicago is the king of owning its region, but given the options there are really only a few choices to go with.
New York for sure on the east coast, but you have many other 5M-6M sized metros, which are elite powerhouses of their own that offer up a high standard of urban living and very strong economies. They shine on the national stage.
Yes NY has the most people, but Boston, Philly and DC are also very prominent cities in their own right.
The Midwest has other large cities like Minneapolis and Detroit, but really for the power that Chicago punches, just in the urban city itself, it's presence on the national scene and its economy - it seems to have its head clearly above the others in its grouping.
That doesn't mean everyone in the Midwest looks up to and drools at Chicago, it just means that given the wider country and world in general, which city in which region tends to be the one at the top, and how far above the others is it?
I would probably say Chicago, just given how I thought of the question in my explanation above.
Doesn't mean I'm right...
Chicago 9 mil
is much closer to Detroit, Minnapolis, Cleveland, St Louis, Kansasa city 2 - 4 mil
Than New York 18 mil
is to Boston, DC, Philly, Baltimore, Buffalo, Providence Pittsburgh 2 to 6 mil metros.
Chicago may be over 4 million larger than the next Midwestern Metro but NYC is more than 10 more than Next East coast metro.
Uh, don't these claims that the city draws in tourists from all over the region and "steals" businesses from other cities kind of support the hypothesis that Chicago is dominant in its region?
"These cities hundreds of miles away from Chicago would look better if only Chicago weren't stealing their businesses -- but don't you dare claim Chicago is dominant you ignorant turds!"
Not really, St. Louis and Cincinnati have been specifically ****ed over by Chicago buying up companies but they're not dependent on Chicago or ever got their business from Chicago, which is the whole point. If Chicago was feeding the rest of the region that would be a different story, then the region would truly need Chicago and that's not the case.
Local tourists only visit Chicago because is the closest sizeable urban default, not because it's got some sort of strong influence, Toronto would simply be the hot tourist destination for the eastern part of the Great Lakes cities if not for Chicago.
I'm sure I'll get all kinds of heck for this. As a Midwesterner I was thinking in terms of culture and honestly all of our mid sized cities really lack in culture relative to anything in the NE or West. Detroit is way out on the peripheral of the Midwest and it does have some culture, but that's a long way from most of the Midwest. No city out here can compare to Boston or Philadelphia, or a handful of other similar sized cities. We simply don't have the history out here. St Louis has some cultural importance, but is it at all comparable to the aforementioned cities? No way. Chicago dwarfs any other Midwestern city in culture and influence. Boston, Philadelphia, and DC are all world class cities and the Midwest has nothing remotely close to them. Are people really comparing Minneapolis, KC, or Indianapolis to Boston, Philadelphia, or DC? Population wise they might not be that far off, but none are similar in culture or influence.
NYC is an amazing city and it's the most influential city in the country, but it's also surrounded by other world class cities. I don't think voting either way is necessarily wrong, it all depends on what one is looking at.
Atlanta no longer dominates the Southeast, even if we exclude Texas and the Washington DC area. Charlotte definitely rivals Atlanta economically and increasingly so and has already surpassed Atlanta as a financial center. Charlotte and Raleigh are most extremely fast growing metro areas. I believe Miami-Ft. Lauderdale also rivals Atlanta in terms of population and while that region is not culturally Southern it IS geographically in the Southeast.
Also from a cultural standpoint I believe Nashville and New Orleans also surpass Atlanta. Atlanta is only known for rap music while Nashville and New Orleans are known for a wide range of genres in terms of its musical contributions to American culture.
Your nick picking industries, A city may specialize in one areas but Atlanta generally dominate in nearly everything else in the south east.
New Orleans is a different beast altogether when it could to history, but Nashville being more diverse than Atlanta musically you couldn't be more wrong.
For starters R&B and Rap music are different genres. Usher, Monica, TLC, 112, jagged edge, xscape, bobby v, Ciara, keri hilson, The Dream, Blaque, and etc aren't rappers. Atlanta started to become a huge full into R&B in the 90's artists like Whitney Houston, mariah carey, toni braxton recored some their hits in Atlanta. As far as Rap goes that whole genre.
I'm sure I'll get all kinds of heck for this. As a Midwesterner I was thinking in terms of culture and honestly all of our mid sized cities really lack in culture relative to anything in the NE or West. Detroit is way out on the peripheral of the Midwest and it does have some culture, but that's a long way from most of the Midwest. No city out here can compare to Boston or Philadelphia, or a handful of other similar sized cities. We simply don't have the history out here. St Louis has some cultural importance, but is it at all comparable to the aforementioned cities? No way. Chicago dwarfs any other Midwestern city in culture and influence. Boston, Philadelphia, and DC are all world class cities and the Midwest has nothing remotely close to them. Are people really comparing Minneapolis, KC, or Indianapolis to Boston, Philadelphia, or DC? Population wise they might not be that far off, but none are similar in culture or influence.
NYC is an amazing city and it's the most influential city in the country, but it's also surrounded by other world class cities. I don't think voting either way is necessarily wrong, it all depends on what one is looking at.
This what I was responding to my other post.
NYC dominate over those 4 to 5 million "word city" metros
More than
Chicago dominates over those 2 to 4 mil mid size midwestern cities metro.
New York is 20.2 million
If you took Detroit, Minneapolis and combine them would equal 7.7 mill that's not bad to Chicago size 9 mil.
but if you took DC, Philly and combine them would equal around 12 mil that sort of NY by like 8 mil.
Also Detroit might be far from Kansas city but not from Chicago.
Paris dominates Brussels? Did I miss when it became the capital of Europe? Kidding ... we've got our hands full debating US cities without putting European ones into the mix.
You insist on using figures and statistics, which I don't think is always necessary when comparing cities because there are intangibles that should be taken into account, but I will attempt It. New York City's GDP is approximately 3.3 times larger than its nearest peer in the Northeast region (Washington D.C.) and about three times larger than Philadelphia's and Boston's. Chicago's GDP is only 2.5 times larger than its nearest peers in the Midwest, Detroit and Minneapolis. Chicago is over four times larger than the next closest city in the region, St. Louis, but at this point it's silly to compare .. Chicago's overall GDP national ranking is #2 and St. Louis' is #21. St. Louis is a unique American city with a great history and hopefully a great future, but when you start comparing #2 to #21, things have gotten a bit silly. Chicago clearly towers over St. Louis.
Three is greater than 2.5, so technically NYC is more dominant in its region than Chicago, but there are three other "contending" cities and in the Midwest only two. Furthermore, all three of these other northeastern cities are in the top ten of the largest national GDPs (DC #6, Philadelphia # 8, and Boston # 9). Detroit and Minneapolis are # 13 and 14. The gap between # 2 to # 13 and 14 is much greater than from # 1 to #6. That's why people feel like Chicago is so much more dominant than all other Midwestern cities. There's a reason why Chicago keeps winning this poll.
It's kind of a weird dichotomy in my opinion about the Midwest. On one hand, I really don't think that the Chicago area dominates the Midwest at all. I live about 3.5 hours away from Chicago and it's barely relevant here. On the other hand, I've observed that if you want to experience a city in the Northeast, that Washington, Boston, and Philadelphia are viable options in addition to New York City. In the Midwest, it's basically Chicago and that's it. People visit other Midwestern cities, but not so much just to experience them.
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.
