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 break it down into time Zones, the answers are simple... NYC for the Eastern Time zone, Chicago for the Central Time zone, Denver for the Rocky Mountain Time Zone, and Los Angeles for the Pacific Time Zone. I think the more interesting question would be what are the second and third most important cities in these regions.
Personally I think its between Dallas, Atlanta & Miami. Dallas is the larger more powerful city. But culturally I think that Atlanta is southern while Dallas is Texan and Miami is different from both (American & Caribbean flavor mix). So here is the compromise.
Dallas is the capital of Texas
Atlanta is the capital of the south
Miami is the capital of south Florida & the Caribbean
Personally I think its between Dallas, Atlanta & Miami. Dallas is the larger more powerful city. But culturally I think that Atlanta is southern while Dallas is Texan and Miami is different from both (American & Caribbean flavor mix). So here is the compromise.
Dallas is the capital of Texas
Atlanta is the capital of the south
Miami is the capital of south Florida & the Caribbean
Dallas is far from capital of Texas. Austin is the capital of Texas as it has more power over the other cities than the cities have over it. Dallas has no pull over most of the state's area. Dallas can't even keep it's burbs in check.
Atlanta has pull in the south east but not as much for Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Most of Tennessee. That's a lot of the South. Biggest metro in the south east apart from Miami but it's reach is over exaggerated.
Top vote getters by region (current moment):
01. Chicago (Midwest): 34 votes
02. New York (Northeast): 22 votes
03. Atlanta (South): 16 votes
04. Los Angeles (West): 13 votes
Components of each census defined region of the United States:
01. Northeast (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, and PA)
02. Midwest (OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, IA, and MN)
03. South (DE, MD, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, KY, TN, AR, OK, FL, TX, and D.C.)
04. West (MT, WY, UT, ID, CO, NM, AZ, NV, CA, OR, WA, HI, and AK)
Population of each region, 2017:
01. South: 123,658,624
02. West: 77,410,622
03. Midwest: 68,179,351
04. Northeast: 56,470,581
Population of the top vote getter of each region by CSA, 2017:
01. New York CSA: 23,876,155
02. Los Angeles CSA: 18,788,800
03. Chicago CSA: 9,901,711
04. Atlanta CSA: 6,555,956
Gross Domestic Product of the top vote getter of each region by CSA, 2017:
01. New York CSA: $1.903 Trillion
02. Los Angeles CSA: $1.251 Trillion
03. Chicago CSA: $688.194 Billion
04. Atlanta CSA: $409.054 Billion
Population of the top vote getter by region as a proportion of the region's population on the whole, 2017:
01. New York CSA: 42.28%
02. Los Angeles CSA: 24.27%
03. Chicago CSA: 14.52%
04. Atlanta CSA: 5.30%
Gross Domestic Product of the top vote getter by region as a proportion of the region's Gross Domestic Product on the whole, 2017:
01. New York CSA: 47.42%
02. Los Angeles CSA: 24.89%
03. Chicago CSA: 17.26%
04. Atlanta CSA: 6.01%
I would have done other factors like F500/F1000s, foreign-borns, total trade value, total airport traffic, total private investment, total personal income, so on and so forth but the list would look the exact same. Same order and everything. So I saved myself the trouble of doing a long compilation.
I also agree with those that have taken to expanding this topic by instead looking at subregions of regions instead of just the four regions defined by the census. It opens the discussion up to more places that can fit this topic well, instead of the obvious that it is right now.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-19-2018 at 05:43 PM..
I propose this (with some minor adjustments needed):
The adjustment that I am speaking of is splitting the Northeast Corridor into three distinct regions. The head being New England (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT), the body portion being the former Middle Colonies (NY, NJ, PA), and the tail being the Chesapeake Bay Region (MD, VA, WV, D.C.).
I would also move Las Vegas from "Southern California" to the Desert Southwest and add El Paso to that region as well. Or perhaps El Paso would be better off in the Front Range with Albuquerque. Either one of the Desert Southwest or the Front Range would work for El Paso, I suppose.
I would also create a region called "Appalachia" and put Pittsburgh, Knoxville, and Chattanooga in it.
It would also be better suited to split the river valley cities of the Midwest like Cincinnati, Saint Louis, and the like into their own region instead of them being a part of the Great Lakes -- a body of water that none of them have anything to do with. I would firmly add Memphis into this region as well.
Also to split Kansas City off from the Great Lakes and create another megaregion for the Great Plains that includes Kansas City, Omaha, Tulsa, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, and Dallas/Fort Worth. Finally, add both Little Rock and Northwest Arkansas (Fayetteville/Bentonville) to the Texas Triangle. Those are the only minor adjustments I would make to an otherwise perfectly graspable map of the American regions.
- New England: Boston
- Former Middle Colonies: New York
- Chesapeake Bay Region: Washington, D.C.
- Appalachia: Pittsburgh
- Piedmont Atlantic: Atlanta
- Florida: Miami
- Gulf Coast: Houston
- Texas Triangle: Dallas
- Great Lakes: Chicago
- Great Plains: Fort Worth or Kansas City (TBD)
- Midwestern River Valley: Saint Louis
- Front Range: Denver
- Desert Southwest: Phoenix
- Cascadia: Seattle
- Northern California: San Francisco
- Southern California: Los Angeles
I think that's fair.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-19-2018 at 06:41 PM..
Dallas is far from capital of Texas. Austin is the capital of Texas as it has more power over the other cities than the cities have over it. Dallas has no pull over most of the state's area. Dallas can't even keep it's burbs in check.
Atlanta has pull in the south east but not as much for Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Most of Tennessee. That's a lot of the South. Biggest metro in the south east apart from Miami but it's reach is over exaggerated.
Dallas is clearly the more dominant metro in Texas, don't be absurd. You may like Austin better, but clearly Dallas with a population and GDP three times Austin's is going to win.
Atlanta has a more southern culture than Dallas, that's why not just me but other people have placed Atlanta as the capital of the south.
Dallas is clearly the more dominant metro in Texas, don't be absurd. You may like Austin better, but clearly Dallas with a population and GDP three times Austin's is going to win.
You are omitting Houston here. Dallas is certainly more dominant than Austin but Houston's influence simply cannot be ignored.
Quote:
Atlanta has a more southern culture than Dallas, that's why not just me but other people have placed Atlanta as the capital of the south.
Correction I got 3 out of 3 right
He's right; Atlanta's influence is mostly within the Southeast. The South as a whole is a HUGE region and Atlanta has little to no influence in most of the South Central subregion (LA, TX, AR, OK) and in areas bordering the mid-Atlantic/Northeast and Midwest. So it's much more accurate to say that Atlanta is the capital of the Southeast, not the South as a whole.
You are omitting Houston here. Dallas is certainly more dominant than Austin but Houston's influence simply cannot be ignored.
He's right; Atlanta's influence is mostly within the Southeast. The South as a whole is a HUGE region and Atlanta has little to no influence in most of the South Central subregion (LA, TX, AR, OK) and in areas bordering the mid-Atlantic/Northeast and Midwest. So it's much more accurate to say that Atlanta is the capital of the Southeast, not the South as a whole.
Houston cannot be ignored, but Dallas is the larger city. This would be a much closer match than Austin. However I would still give Dallas the edge and it will probably be the first to overtake Chicago in some decades to come. Dallas is the archetypal large Texan city. Not super liberal, big houses, big freeways, big business, just big. It's not that Houston isn't large, its just there is a slight edge to Dallas.
The issue with the south is that there really are only four large major cities in a huge area Dallas, Houston, Atlanta & Miami. If you try to make any specific one king, its not going to define everywhere. However I think many people will note that Texas is distinct with its focus on independence, cowboys & the like. Other deep south states like Mississippi may not fall under the umbrella of any of the large metros. So I placed Atlanta as a more generic to the southern tradition despite the fact that Mississippi may not be the best fit. For those areas they don't really have any city that would be the leader. So if asked I would pick Atlanta in general even if it doesn't work in MS, LA or AR. Between say Dallas Texas and Atlanta with probably the only exception of Birmingham, it really is a dead-zone. The only other city would be New Orleans and it definitely isn't like Mississippi.
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.
