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.
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.
Correction I got 3 out of 3 right
You are being rediculous. I have little affinity for Austin but I like Dallas a lot.
But that has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Austin is the capital and has far more control over Dallas than Dallas has over Austin.
Population and GDP doesn't automatically equate to prominence son. If that were true then Mexico City Being far larger than DC would be the North American King.
And don't be biased. Look how large the South is. I doubt if even New York could be deemed to be king of an area that large let alone a metro as small as Atlanta. Look at the stats posted above. Atlanta is only 5% of the South. And that's CSA, the most generous of metrics. Certainly it towers in the South East, but elsewhere it's Atlanta who?
Y'all are just too much. Letting petty homerism get in the way of objectivity. Dude I would take Dallas in a minute over Austin. Just discuss facts and don't accuse people of bias when is you exhibiting bias
You are being rediculous. I have little affinity for Austin but I like Dallas a lot.
But that has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Austin is the capital and has far more control over Dallas than Dallas has over Austin.
Population and GDP doesn't automatically equate to prominence son. If that were true then Mexico City Being far larger than DC would be the North American King.
And don't be biased. Look how large the South is. I doubt if even New York could be deemed to be king of an area that large let alone a metro as small as Atlanta. Look at the stats posted above. Atlanta is only 5% of the South. And that's CSA, the most generous of metrics. Certainly it towers in the South East, but elsewhere it's Atlanta who?
Y'all are just too much. Letting petty homerism get in the way of objectivity. Dude I would take Dallas in a minute over Austin. Just discuss facts and don't accuse people of bias when is you exhibiting bias
Try looking up the GDP of Mexico City and comparing it to large US cities before responding next time. Actually if you knew anything you would know that population and GDP are extremely important. Why is NYC regularly regarded as the top city of the US? Obviously it's the largest in both population and GDP. Trying to ignore this point just means that you are a fool who can't even spell ridiculous.
Try looking up the GDP of Mexico City and comparing it to large US cities before responding next time. Actually if you knew anything you would know that population and GDP are extremely important. Why is NYC regularly regarded as the top city of the US? Obviously it's the largest in both population and GDP. Trying to ignore this point just means that you are a fool who can't even spell ridiculous.
There you go again making wild assumptions.
I never said that population and GDP was not important and I did not compare Mexico City's GDP.
If you read instead of just throwing insults you would see that what I said is that size and GDP does not automatically equate to dominance. Then I said that if it was then a city like Mexico City, if you didn't know, it's the largest city and metro in North America, but what I said is that if that was true then it would be tops in North America.
New York is tops because it's just so darn good.
Dude stop throwing insults and learn to make cogent arguments.
You are not being convincing, you are being a bully. Calm down you are not running for President.
Boston has a smaller GDP and metro than Houston or Dallas, but I think it tops those two.
San Francisco has a smaller metro than Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, etc etc etc but I think it's more dominant. But other factors cone into play. Like SF anchoring a greater region where together the population and Industry of that region is far more dominant. Simply looking at GDP and population without context dies not tell us much.
Though just looked at the results so far and they are about right.
Nyc, La , Chi really do have the biggest regional pulls and dominance in their respective zones ..
Ofcourse NYC transcends any American zone ... as does LA , Chicago less so ... Atlanta even less so.
Here we have the puzzle. American cities can dominate their own zone/region but be less dominant globally form other cities who don't are not the first city in their respective region. For example, Atlanta is doing well in this poll , and clearly is the dominant city in the south, but is Atlanta more globally dominant than say SF ? Or Seattle ? Or Boston ? I don't think so .... so ofcourse each region/zone needs "rating ponts" ...
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.
Actually Houston is the largest city in Texas while Dallas-Fort Worth is the largest metro. Houston and DFW are peer metros in practically every respect so I fail to see how anyone can definitely call either one the "capital" of Texas in terms of size and influence. DFW certainly has north Texas on lock but Houston also has its enormous sphere of influence within the state.
Quote:
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.
But within the context of this discussion, larger regions are being broken down into subregions which is a much more practical way to look at things. That's why it's much more accurate to say that Atlanta is the capital of the Southeast and other parts of the South are broken off subregionally as you just did with Florida and Texas.
Atlanta means absolutely nothing to Texas. It is smaller than our two largest metros and growing at a slower pace than DFW, HOU, & Austin- San Antonio.
Atlanta's size and growth rate have nothing to do with why it's largely irrelevant to Texas; that's due to distance. If Atlanta were in OK or AR, its influence would most certainly be felt in Texas.
Atlanta isn't largely irrelevant to Texas. It is completely irrelevant.
Whatever helps you sleep better at night bub.
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.