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.
Tourists from around the world are not going to flock to Detroit, or Cleveland, or St. Louis, or Milwaukee, regardless of what virtues they possess. I like the Twin Cities very much, but they are a nice place to live, not a tourist destination. If Chicago is removed from the equation, then the Midwest is quite a diminished place.
I'm saying this as someone who has lived in the Midwest ( Madison), and frequently visits Chicago, and enjoys both very much.
Except you're wrong... again.
The Detroit metro gets about 16 million tourists annually, international tourists "flock" to the city for events like DEMF and the auto show; Cleveland's tourism is also expanding.
Chicago gets most of it's tourists from the "midwest", not globally. So if anything Chicago is diminished without the rest of the region if we're talking purely tourism. Chicago stole business from St. Louis and Cincinnati for decades, those cities would probably look better without Chicago.
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!"
I think Atlanta is the capitol of the South too, but it's debatable. Atlanta definitely doesn't dominate the Southeast.
Not to the extent it used to. Atlanta didn't have much competition until the 1990s. There
wasn't even another professional sports team within 450 miles of the city for over two decades.
For a long time, Atlanta was the de facto capital of the South (excluding Texas and Miami). That's not so true today, but Atlanta has historically been able to throw its cultural weight around its region in a way that NYC was never able to.
Northeast, Midwest, or the West: Which region is most dominated by a single metropolitan region?
Make a case for which of the three regions are the most dominated by a single metropolitan region with regard to social, political, cultural, economic, historic factors. I wont add any further definitions to the factors, since I want to leave as open to individual interpretation as possible.
Metropolitan region = PCSA, in the context that I'm using it as in this comparison.
So which region is most dominated by a single metropolitan region and what is the metropolitan region that dominates this region in this manner?
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.
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.
There wasn't even another professional sports team within 450 miles of the city for over two decades.
Actually...
Quote:
It turned out to be the Cougars' last season in North Carolina. Although they were moderately successful overall and had one of the most loyal fan bases in the ABA, talks toward a ABA–NBA merger were in the final stages, and it had become apparent that a "regional" franchise would not be viable in the NBA. Although the Charlotte/Greensboro/Raleigh axis (the Piedmont Crescent or I-85 Corridor) was beginning an unprecedented period of growth that still continues to this day, neither city was big enough at the time to support an NBA team on its own.
The Detroit metro gets about 16 million tourists annually, international tourists "flock" to the city for events like DEMF and the auto show; Cleveland's tourism is also expanding.
Do you believe Windsor, Toledo, or Cleveland steal some of Detroit's Tourism?
I'm not intending to lessen Detroit. Even to say this ----> but Chicago claims 54+ million visitors/tourist. It's International share is less the 3 million.
Up from 2 million from 52 million.
While domestic visitors were up 3.1 percent, 2016 saw a net drop in international tourism to Chicago, dipping 3.7 percent compared to the year prior.
Though the number of visitors from Asian markets, including China, India and South Korea, was up a solid 22.7 percent, 7.1 percent and 10.2 percent, respectively, tourism dropped from bigger European markets including the United Kingdom, down 18.3 percent; Germany, down 6.1 percent; and Spain, down 14.5 percent. Officials blamed economic uncertainty and unfavorable exchange rates, with international tourism down an estimated 3.7 percent, to 1.56 million.
While 2016 was a cyclical down year for Chicago conventions, 2017 has more bookings. And while 31 major meetings and conventions were held here last year, 35 are planned in 2017.
As many as 3,000 additional Hotel guest rooms are expected to come online this year. Major meetings and conventions are expected to generate 1.04 million room nights in 2017, up 6.4 percent from 2016.
But Chicago gets far far less International Tourist then mighty NYC. But it does match NYC in domestic tourist.
That is ----> by a large portion being from its own REGION the MIDWEST as it is the leading city there.
Maybe Detroit is doing better in International tourism??
Well hello Brussels, I'm Paris. You should know that we dominate you so my opinion here is a bit more important... jk
Did you read any of the rest of my post? I just read your short response, and you know what I noticed? You changed what we're talking about again! Now it's "global city"? Before your arguments was "world class" city, but it doesn't matter as neither one have anything to do with this thread.
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.
There seems to be a disconnect from people who actually live in the Midwest (in a city not named Chicago) and those looking in at the region. I would assume that a big part of that disconnect is occurring because many cities in the Midwest, including St. Louis and Detroit which you mentioned, used to be some of America's premier cities. St. Louis, for example, was one of America's top 10 largest cities for a century.
Thank you for the excellent commentary. I am not a midwesterner -- nothing against the region - I have lived there before, and I will live there again, but I definitely have an outsider's perspective.
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.
