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.
I bring up the Olympics because if SF is so much more advance than Atlanta, surely it would have hosted the Olympics. But I guess one could argue that SF doesn't need the Olympics. So I use the Olympics to state that Atlanta is not that much behind SF, if it is at all. Concerning population, NYC is not the biggest city in the world, but has the 2nd largest metro GDP. I know SF has a larger GDP too, so even there it could still quantify as more advanced. SF does have Silicon valley, but I think Atlanta has some excellent colleges plus CNN, which one could argue to say is the nations news source.
Even though Atlanta hosted the Olympics 13 years ago (I can't believe it was that long, seems like yesterday) it still hosted it, and SF hasn't. I'm not trying cut anyone down, I am just raising a point that maybe SF is not solid at 5, maybe a split decision at best.
I bring up the Olympics because if SF is so much more advance than Atlanta, surely it would have hosted the Olympics. But I guess one could argue that SF doesn't need the Olympics. So I use the Olympics to state that Atlanta is not that much behind SF, if it is at all. Concerning population, NYC is not the biggest city in the world, but has the 2nd largest metro GDP. I know SF has a larger GDP too, so even there it could still quantify as more advanced. SF does have Silicon valley, but I think Atlanta has some excellent colleges plus CNN, which one could argue to say is the nations news source.
Even though Atlanta hosted the Olympics 13 years ago (I can't believe it was that long, seems like yesterday) it still hosted it, and SF hasn't. I'm not trying cut anyone down, I am just raising a point that maybe SF is not solid at 5, maybe a split decision at best.
CNN is fifth in rankings in the news business behind NBC, ABC, CBS and FoxNews.
But SF, plus the surrounding cities just propels it higher then the others. Just think of it's surrounding cities: San Jose, Oakland. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the nation, then SF itself is the 13th, plus it's near the silicon valley, probably the largest concentration of hi-technology in the western hemisphere. And not to mention it's diverse population, and it's world city status. I think all that basically solidifies it as a 5th spot.
I'll try to make a case for Philadelphia which gets lost in the shadows of NYC and Washington but it still has some very important characteristics.
1. It was the first capital and arguably the most historic city in the USA
2. First planned city of the USA
3. Home of The First________ "Fill in the blank" in the USA.
4. Currently The 9th largest metro economy in the world(4th largest metro economy in the USA)
5.Home to #5 ranked university(Penn) 30 miles from #2 ranked Princeton.
I'll try to make a case for Philadelphia which gets lost in the shadows of NYC and Washington but it still has some very important characteristics.
1. It was the first capital and arguably the most historic city in the USA
2. First planned city of the USA
3. Home of The First________ "Fill in the blank" in the USA.
4. Currently The 9th largest metro economy in the world(4th largest metro economy in the USA)
5.Home to #5 ranked university(Penn) 30 miles from #2 ranked Princeton.
CNN is fifth in rankings in the news business behind NBC, ABC, CBS and FoxNews.
If any of those are in SF then you disprove my point. If they are not, then you are supporting my report. Although you do bring up more people watch those other stations which proves my point that one could still argue for CNN as the nation's news.
Exactly what does Boston have over the sunbelt. I can see SF being 5, but Boston???
Like I said, it's not black and white or like Boston is miles ahead of those places. Boston has better higher education (which means it's VERY important when it comes to research) than any city in the U.S... this is just about hands down. It's health care facilities are some of the highest rated and most abundant in the world. It's got one of the highest concentrations of high-tech industry in the nation (on par with Silicon Valley). It's even the international headquarters of a relatively major international religion... Christian Science (NOT to be confused with Scientology)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_...ist,_Scientist and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fir...ist,_Scientist
Again, it's not completely black and white, but I think Boston's higher education, health care, and high technology (not to mention culture and history) give it a slight edge over a place like Houston or Atlanta (which you could easily make a good case for too).
I'll try to make a case for Philadelphia which gets lost in the shadows of NYC and Washington but it still has some very important characteristics.
1. It was the first capital and arguably the most historic city in the USA
2. First planned city of the USA
3. Home of The First________ "Fill in the blank" in the USA.
4. Currently The 9th largest metro economy in the world(4th largest metro economy in the USA)
5.Home to #5 ranked university(Penn) 30 miles from #2 ranked Princeton.
How dare you leave out the Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich
I bring up the Olympics because if SF is so much more advance than Atlanta, surely it would have hosted the Olympics. But I guess one could argue that SF doesn't need the Olympics. So I use the Olympics to state that Atlanta is not that much behind SF, if it is at all. Concerning population, NYC is not the biggest city in the world, but has the 2nd largest metro GDP. I know SF has a larger GDP too, so even there it could still quantify as more advanced. SF does have Silicon valley, but I think Atlanta has some excellent colleges plus CNN, which one could argue to say is the nations news source.
Even though Atlanta hosted the Olympics 13 years ago (I can't believe it was that long, seems like yesterday) it still hosted it, and SF hasn't. I'm not trying cut anyone down, I am just raising a point that maybe SF is not solid at 5, maybe a split decision at best.
Atlanta is nowhere near the same level as cities like San Francisco or Boston. The economies of SF and Bos are considerably larger than Atl's...and while Atlanta has CNN, cities like NY have NBC, CBS and ABC, which are all larger.
Your claim of "we hosted the Olympics!" is 100% void. First off, Atlanta isn't nearly important enough to have ever held the Olympics and it's a mystery how they got it...secondly, just because you host the Olympics doesn't mean you're an important city--just ask Lake Placid, NY...that is unless you want to start creating reasons why Lake Placid and Atlanta are more important than cities like NYC, San Francisco, Boston and Washington DC.
I think people put wayyyyyy too much emphasis on the importance of Fortune 500 companies because they really don't say anything. The Fortune 500 is based purely on revenues. GM and Ford are both in the top 10 of the Fortune 500 and they both lost billions last year and are only still existing because they were bailed out by our government...same goes for many of the banks in the Fortune 500. Instead of measuring revenues to guage a cities importance, why not measure the efficiency of a city's largest companies?
This is quoted from Jluke:
Yeah, I feel SF is solid as number 5. It's number 6 that's hard, but I say Houston because it is king of oil and energy in america. You've got
I'm being a bigtime homer here, but you could make a case for Boston to be the #5 or #6 city. We have a larger economy than Houston, and we are the Mecca of higher education. One could make the argument that Boston's institutions of higher education have been extremely influential on Wall St, in Silicon Valley, and on Capitol Hill. We also are arguably the #1 biotechnology city in the country and we have some of the best hospitals on the planet.
So I guess it's safe to say the top 5 are:
1. NYC
2.LA
3. Chicago
4. Washington D.C.
5. San Francisco/Atlanta/Houston/Boston/Philadelphia/Dallas
I guess it really does depend on what makes a city important to you.
I would say it's closer to 5. San Francisco/Boston/Philadelphia
Atlanta and Dallas have smaller economies, less important higher-education institutions, and don't really have anything unique to offer.
Houston is very important, but it falls into the same category as Atlanta and Dallas aside from the fact that it has the largest (not the best) medical facility in the world. I feel like the claim of "Houston's got oil!" isn't really anything that warrants any merit since 95% of our oil comes from the Middle East.
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.
