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.
Then Atlanta. ATL 's influence is highly exaggerated on here.
Outside Boston CSA there really isn't anything major in New England.
Outside ATL CSA there are 12 metro areas larger than 500k in the deep south.
Boston clearly outshines ATL in their respective regions
Yea... a few posts overinflate Atlanta's sphere...
Regionally, Boston dominates New England and has a strong pull in the entire Northeast, and that isn't changing. The Southeast has several booming regions and the power structure is more evenly distributed.
There are too many idiosyncratic things that are found only in Boston but not the rest of New England for it to be the cultural juggernaut people are making it out to be. Things like food, the accent, the Irish heritage, etc. The other two cities stand out much less in their region.
Yea... a few posts overinflate Atlanta's sphere...
Regionally, Boston dominates New England and has a strong pull in the entire Northeast, and that isn't changing. The Southeast has several booming regions and the power structure is more evenly distributed.
Boston can’t even dominate a land area smaller than Colorado. Denver and Atlanta are expected to lead regions double or even triple the size (again we weren’t given exact definitions) of New England. Atlanta’s region is probably the biggest in population out of the three, and the middle in terms of land area, while Denver’s is mostly populated by cows. Atlanta in this scenario is expected to outpace and out influence multiple Denver-sized metros. When we factor in that Boston cannot even influence the entirety of New England because NYC has greater influence over Connecticut, then Boston can really only dominate an area closer to the size of Georgia.
And if we made this more equitable “Who has more influence, Boston over New England (minus SW CT), or Atlanta over Georgia, or Denver over the Front Range?” Then Boston probably still loses, because Denver is the only labor market for miles on end unless your labor market is cows, and Atlanta is a much more dominating primate city due to the fact that Georgia outside of Atlanta is literally Appalachia, the Deep South and the Southern coastal plain, the most poverty filled regions of the US even outside of Georgia. While New England is a lot more equitable in wealth and opportunity. And that’s an insult to my own state by the way.
OP needed to do better at controlling the paradigms of this argument by equalizing land mass and or population.
Boston can’t even dominate a land area smaller than Colorado. Denver and Atlanta are expected to lead regions double or even triple the size (again we weren’t given exact definitions) of New England. Atlanta’s region is probably the biggest in population out of the three, and the middle in terms of land area, while Denver’s is mostly populated by cows. Atlanta in this scenario is expected to outpace and out influence multiple Denver-sized metros. When we factor in that Boston cannot even influence the entirety of New England because NYC has greater influence over Connecticut, then Boston can really only dominate an area closer to the size of Georgia.
And if we made this more equitable “Who has more influence, Boston over New England (minus SW CT), or Atlanta over Georgia, or Denver over the Front Range?” Then Boston probably still loses, because Denver is the only labor market for miles on end unless your labor market is cows, and Atlanta is a much more dominating primate city due to the fact that Georgia outside of Atlanta is literally Appalachia, the Deep South and the Southern coastal plain, the most poverty filled regions of the US even outside of Georgia. While New England is a lot more equitable in wealth and opportunity. And that’s an insult to my own state by the way.
OP needed to do better at controlling the paradigms of this argument by equalizing land mass and or population.
The debate has nothing to do with the size of each region. The conversation is about which of these cities in most influential in their OWN region. Not all regions of the US are created equal in size, topography, culture, economic stability, etc.
Simply asking, does Boston, Denver, or Atlanta mean more to the part of the country they're in?
Now maybe I could have done a better job of defining Denver and Atlanta's regional footprint. The South/Deep South is a very subjective area. And the Rockies is a massive swath of Western America! With that being said, any sort of boundary I draw for either one will be a controversy here on this forum, so I'll let each interpret his or her own region.
OP needed to do better at controlling the paradigms of this argument by equalizing land mass and or population.
I agree. And that highlights my point that Atlanta's influence is exaggerated.
New England is clearly dominated by Boston
Denver is by far the biggest thing happening on the front range.
But the OP, instead of narrowing down the region around Atlanta to Georgia or even the Piedmont region, decided to stretch Atlanta's influence over the entire deep south. A region that spans from North Carolina to East Texas.
Again, outside Boston CSA there is just NY's Connecticut cities.
The front range is nothing large other than Denver.
New England is just Boston, Hartford and Bridgeport?
The deep south has nearly 15 regions of 1M or more. It's just too large and too much competition to give Atlanta that wide a scope.
The Deep South at 75 million people. New England has 15. Even if you concede Boston is remotely a peer city to Atlanta the answer is a no brainer
A more apt comparison would be putting a 200 or 300 mile radius circle around the cities and see who would be more influential in those areas. If you make it so Boston and New England are a tiny swap of land and doesn't even include NYC while Atlanta is covering a huge land area, it's an apple to oranges comparison.
I agree. And that highlights my point that Atlanta's influence is exaggerated.
New England is clearly dominated by Boston
Denver is by far the biggest thing happening on the front range.
But the OP, instead of narrowing down the region around Atlanta to Georgia or even the Piedmont region, decided to stretch Atlanta's influence over the entire deep south. A region that spans from North Carolina to East Texas.
Again, outside Boston CSA there is just NY's Connecticut cities.
The front range is nothing large other than Denver.
New England is just Boston, Hartford and Bridgeport?
The deep south has nearly 15 regions of 1M or more. It's just too large and too much competition to give Atlanta that wide a scope.
Going by this, your answer should have been Denver.
The debate has nothing to do with the size of each region. The conversation is about which of these cities in most influential in their OWN region. Not all regions of the US are created equal in size, topography, culture, economic stability, etc.
Simply asking, does Boston, Denver, or Atlanta mean more to the part of the country they're in?
Now maybe I could have done a better job of defining Denver and Atlanta's regional footprint. The South/Deep South is a very subjective area. And the Rockies is a massive swath of Western America! With that being said, any sort of boundary I draw for either one will be a controversy here on this forum, so I'll let each interpret his or her own region.
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.
Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida.
Texas is not in the deep south.
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.
