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.
Miami and all of Texas are not the Deep South. Parts of northern Florida maybe.
Atlanta is more culturally relevant right now
Boston has the legacy and as one of the leading cities of higher education will always retain a higher level of importance.
Denver benefits from being so isolated
Except you refusing to define the regions outside of New England is exactly the problem. Check my post history. I got into an argument with someone yesterday two days ago because they said Miami wasn’t Southern. I feel like Miami is a Southern city but I would not call it the Deep South like Biloxi or Mobile.
Btownboss just said moments ago that they believe Texas is the Deep South. That would include Austin, El Paso, Dallas. Dallas, like Miami, is a Southern city to me, but “Deep South”? No, I wouldn’t say so. Both Dallas and Miami are 6-7 mil metros, practically the same size as Atlanta, wouldn’t figuring out if they are included be a big factor on where Atlanta falls in such a ranking? Btownboss also included Florida. We are now looking at comparing Atlanta for practically 1/8 for the US landmass and easily the most populated region (using btownboss’ definition) versus Boston’s meager… I don’t even know at that point, in what world is that a fair argument? We are introducing economic corridors (South Florida, Texas Triangle) that Atlanta is not even involved in. And then expecting Atlanta to beat it. It would be like Boston being asked to outinfluence Chicago. Chicago and Boston are probably similarly distanced in miles as Atlanta to Dallas or San Antonio.
Anyway since this thread is clearly going to devolve into childish goalpost moving since the OP is refusing to give goalposts when it’s needed, I’m not going to participate in this thread anymore. I know better than to waste my time.
Even if you cut out Florida and Texas (which like where would you put them then) you’re taking about ~32 million people in AR, LA, MS, AL, GA and SC. Still twice the population of New England over a much larger area. And that’s about as conservative a drawing of the Deep South can possibly be. (Like have you ever been the the FL Panhandle, that’s southern)
Yes it’s an unfair question which is why any honest person should be picking Boston.
Then how is Atlanta more influential over the Deep South than Boston is in New England. A region that stretches from San Antonio to the Outerbanks and Texarkana to Key Largo.
The Boston CSA is literally 54% of New England. It’s totally dominating
The Deep South doesn't extend that far into TX or FL.
Except you refusing to define the regions outside of New England is exactly the problem. Check my post history. I got into an argument with someone yesterday two days ago because they said Miami wasn’t Southern. I feel like Miami is a Southern city but I would not call it the Deep South like Biloxi or Mobile.
Btownboss just said moments ago that they believe Texas is the Deep South. That would include Austin, El Paso, Dallas. Dallas, like Miami, is a Southern city to me, but “Deep South”? No, I wouldn’t say so. Both Dallas and Miami are 6-7 mil metros, practically the same size as Atlanta, wouldn’t figuring out if they are included be a big factor on where Atlanta falls in such a ranking? Btownboss also included Florida. We are now looking at comparing Atlanta for practically 1/8 for the US landmass and easily the most populated region (using btownboss’ definition) versus Boston’s meager… I don’t even know at that point, in what world is that a fair argument? We are introducing economic corridors (South Florida, Texas Triangle) that Atlanta is not even involved in. And then expecting Atlanta to beat it. It would be like Boston being asked to outinfluence Chicago. Chicago and Boston are probably similarly distanced in miles as Atlanta to Dallas or San Antonio.
Anyway since this thread is clearly going to devolve into childish goalpost moving since the OP is refusing to give goalposts when it’s needed, I’m not going to participate in this thread anymore. I know better than to waste my time.
DFW should have already passed the 8 million people mark this year. There's quite a gap between Atlanta/Miami and DFW.
I voted Boston, but I don’t think it’s really a fair comparison. New England is more similar in land area to Colorado and Georgia than it is to the Rockies or the Deep South.
In fact, I think New England is smaller than Colorado.
I think Boston is the clear winner. I know many people in the Rockies who care little for Denver and have no need to go there. Same for Atlanta. But Boston is such a big portion of New England (more than half of the region's population) that it seems to suck everything toward it.
Boston CSA is 8.3 million. Then you have another 850,000 in the rest of non-CSA Massachusetts (whose lives are governed from Boston) and that's 9 million of 15 million.
I actually think Atlanta has the least influence of the 3, since a good chunk of the Deep South (like Louisiana) is more connected to the Houston blob or orients to secondary cities like Charlotte or Nashville.
New York City around the same distance from Boston as Nashville or Charlotte are from Atlanta. I'd argue that because of its size and status on the world stage, New York City has a greater influence in New England than either Charlotte or Nashville do in whatever we're defining as "Atlanta's region." The second most populated chunk of New England (Southwestern CT) is almost entirely in NYC's orbit. Boston's sphere of influence is further diluted by the fact that Northern New England is just so sparsely populated. It's a big land area, but not a lot of people. And those Northern New England states have their own smaller hubs in Burlington, Portland, Bangor, etc. You'll meet plenty of people in these areas (particularly Bangor and Burlington) who have never been to Boston. And you'll see plenty of New York plates (and plenty of New Yorkers with second homes) in Vermont, Rhode Island, and Cape Cod during the summer (and winter in Vermont's case) months.
The "what if Boston didn't exist" game might be fund to play, but it doesn't really carry much weight in a discussion like this. It does exist and you don't know how the region would have developed without it. Would Providence or Portland grown larger? Worcester? Who knows? So I'm inclined to say Atlanta's the most important to its region.
SWCT is like 1.5M people out 15M people in New England.
IM just saying that right now? if you remove Boston from NE. It very very weak culturally and economically.
I guess were pretending Tampa Orlanda Houston Miami Nashville and Charlotte cannot be considered deep south?
It's not just agriculture, but tourism, tech, aerospace and other defense adjacent sectors. Without Denver's airport and amenities Colorado would have the same population as Wyoming or New Mexico.
Suppose Boston goes into decline like Buffalo or Detroit it's hard to imagine the whole of New England to depopulate because of it.
You could say Colorado does not 'need' to have such a large population but then you can say the same about New England. Atlanta is in an area that is warm and wet so people want to be there because of that.
Places like Worcester Manchester Providence Lowell would become like Waterbury without Boston...
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.
