Battle of "number four" US cities:SF, DC, Houston or Boston? (live, best)
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 liked how you left a gap between Houston, Atlanta, & Dallas and the rest of them. LOL, it's fine.
Haha well in all honesty, that was because the first 6 cities listed are the 6 largest downtowns in the country...then I posted Atl, Hou, and DFW because those are the three Sunbelt cities which are most compared on the site. Houston was 8, Atl 10, and DFW is 20.
Quote:
Honestly all of them are smaller than I imaged them to be. Literally puny compared to what I was expecting from them.
Yea very true...in many cases they're the epicenter of the metro...but if you really think about it, those areas are usually tiny. Think of the colossus that is Manhattan. It's a total of 23 square miles. Now take a look at Google Maps or Live Maps and look at Manhattan. The two CBDs are both located South of Central Park...and look at how far down the island CP goes!
I wonder if there are maps out there that would show simply the city proper and nothing else...but highlight the CBD. Could be interesting!
Quote:
EDIT: I had a question, I just scanned over your link. Do they measure the land area of a CBD by only the sector of the CBD where office buildings are at/employment workforce, or the entire "downtown" area which includes residential, shopping, restaurants, and other districts in "downtown" too? If you know. I'm still having such a hard time grasping how tiny New York City & Chicago truly are from what I expected out of them... and the rest of them too.
PS- Thanks for the research and info, you're getting a rate up for this. +1
I honestly have no idea if they're measuring....from the looks of it, I believe they are. But like I mentioned before. Look at how far down Central Park goes down Manhattan...both Midtown and Lower (obviously) are South of Central Park. The entire island of Manhattan is 23 square miles. When you look at the Sat-view, it really does seem possible that the heart of Manhattan is only 7.82 square miles. I admit that it is very surprising/weird though.
Downtown Houston has over 150,000 people working there by 2009 figures. Fact Sheet According to the Downtown Houston Management District.
And those numbers are from 2000, so I'd expect those aren't accurate number to date, but i guess that was the only source you found with all the cities' employment numbers(?).
Yea that was the only info I could find.
However, as mentioned by Kidphilly, there appears to be certain groups of people who are excluded from their figures...also your link said there are about 140,000 people working in the Financial District, not 150,000+.
However, as mentioned by Kidphilly, there appears to be certain groups of people who are excluded from their figures...also your link said there are about 140,000 people working in the Financial District, not 150,000+.
I got it from Wikipedia, which said "more than 150,000" people worked in Downtown in 2009, but knowing that a lot of people don't trust Wikipedia, I just posted the source link, but the link doesn't work for me, so I didn't get a chance to actually see it.
Either way they all have expansive job markets, regardless of how centralized or non centralized they are. Also they all have substantial satalites DC has Tysons etc. Boston Waltham, Houston (loop area 1,2,3,etc.), SF South Candlestick point etc.
Sorry but size does matter. DFW is 4th in population and has a larger GDP than Boston and more fortune 500 companies. It has the world's 3rd busiest airport. It is the fastest growing metro. It's a matter of fact not opinion that Dallas ranks ahead of Boston and Houston.
What is Chicago's biggest industry? I know it has a lot of infotech, healthcare, stuff like that, but is it a leader in any of those areas? In the way that NYC is the "it" place for finance or Los Angeles is the "it" place for television?
In order for a city to be "important," imho, it has to be an "it" place for some industry. In my view, NYC is head honcho since it's the hotness for so many things--finance, fashion, art, and even international politics. DC follows right behind because it's the "it" place for public policy. Los Angeles comes in third because of its sheer size. I would then place Chicago in the four spot.
Many will take issue with this, but I can't see how Chicago could ever be considered more important than DC when it's not even a frequent topic on the nightly news. What's going on in Chicago that most Americans are really focused on on a daily basis? I've never heard, "This is NBC Nightly News reporting from Chicago." When the nightly news goes off, it usually closes with a helicopter shot of NYC or a still shot of the Washington Monument with the red lights blinking. I've never seen the Sears Tower at the end of a nationally-televised program. Occasionally, national news comes from Los Angeles, but it's usually NYC or DC.
NYC, DC, Bay Area, LA, CHI--that's the order for current importance. It's cut and dried that these are the top five at the very least, no matter the ranking. Boston and Houston are huge, but a step down and contend with Atlanta, DFW, Philadelphia, Miami, and arguably Detroit.
NYC, DC, Bay Area, LA, CHI--that's the order for current importance. It's cut and dried that these are the top five at the very least, no matter the ranking. Boston and Houston are huge, but a step down and contend with Atlanta, DFW, Philadelphia, Miami, and arguably Detroit.
Hmm...why would you put the Bay Area over Los Angeles and Chicago, beyond the obvious personal reasons?
Sorry but size does matter. DFW is 4th in population and has a larger GDP than Boston and more fortune 500 companies. It has the world's 3rd busiest airport. It is the fastest growing metro. It's a matter of fact not opinion that Dallas ranks ahead of Boston and Houston.
You don't think Boston or Houston has something that would rank above DFW?
Sorry but size does matter. DFW is 4th in population and has a larger GDP than Boston and more fortune 500 companies. It has the world's 3rd busiest airport. It is the fastest growing metro. It's a matter of fact not opinion that Dallas ranks ahead of Boston and Houston.
Possibly, but Houston's metro has even more fortune 500 companies, Boston's is far wealthier per capita and the seat of both a state government and several branches of federal agencies, and both have fairly active sea/riverports and far better research universities (Boston especially) where big things are always a-foot.
You'd have to lop off a lot of considerations to say DFW being ahead of both Boston and Houston is a simple fact. It also brings to mind problems with DC being far less important than its size belies or Phoenix being more important than places like the Twin Cities or Seattle (poppycock).
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.
