U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What is the most valuable city in the US? (excluding NYC and DC)
Los Angeles 44 55.00%
Chicago 8 10.00%
Dallas 0 0%
Houston 4 5.00%
Philadelphia 5 6.25%
Miami 0 0%
Atlanta 0 0%
Boston 3 3.75%
San Francisco 15 18.75%
Phoenix 1 1.25%
Detroit 0 0%
Seattle 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2016, 10:46 AM
 
311 posts, read 219,404 times
Reputation: 342

Advertisements

If a rogue nation were given the power to take away one US city (excluding NYC and DC) to most weaken the fabric of the US and hurt the country, what city would it be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2016, 10:52 AM
 
29,968 posts, read 27,480,324 times
Reputation: 18559
I'd go with the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
8,790 posts, read 7,725,657 times
Reputation: 7699
To be effective for the rogue nation, they'd have to take control over a major port to be able to restrict trade. The area would also have to be pretty populated and produce a lot of necessary goods. I'd say Chicago, LA, or San Francisco. I am going to go with Chicago most though. It would be an ideal location near some of the largest fresh water sources on earth (Great Lakes). A rogue nation would need to be able to make the people dependent on them by rationing their water and threatening to cut it off from time to time. It's also more centrally located in the country compared to the Californian cities. The rogue nation could more easily get into other cities with fewer geographic difficulties like mountains to worry about. From Chicago, they could have easy access and few obstacles to leapfrogging into Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Detroit, etc. Additionally, the symbolism would be important as Chicago has some of the biggest skyscrapers in the country and kinda resembles NYC in some ways.

I decided to view this as an invasion scenario, though it's not clear to me by the original post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,512 posts, read 2,983,154 times
Reputation: 2746
Gotta go with Los Angeles, here. 2nd largest metropolitan area in the country, with anywhere from 13.5-18.5 million people, depending on how you count it. Taking LA away would be a loss of nearly a trillon dollars in GDP in everything from manufacturing to trade to aeronautics, but the loss in human capital would be enormous, as would the cultural shock against the country. You're getting rid of Hollywood and all that entails, which would be a massive blow to the American psyche. No other city on this list would even come close to weakening the fabric of our country like taking out our true second city would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 11:28 AM
 
29,968 posts, read 27,480,324 times
Reputation: 18559
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Gotta go with Los Angeles, here. 2nd largest metropolitan area in the country, with anywhere from 13.5-18.5 million people, depending on how you count it. Taking LA away would be a loss of nearly a trillon dollars in GDP in everything from manufacturing to trade to aeronautics, but the loss in human capital would be enormous, as would the cultural shock against the country. You're getting rid of Hollywood and all that entails, which would be a massive blow to the American psyche. No other city on this list would even come close to weakening the fabric of our country like taking out our true second city would.
The only reason I didn't say LA is because, aside from the port (which is certainly important), other cities could theoretically take up the slack in other areas (Hollywood, manufacturing, etc.). Like you said, the loss of Hollywood would be a psychological blow mostly. However, the economic synergy that created Silicon Valley isn't easily replicated, if at all; many other cities in the U.S. have tried and failed to do so, and the way we rely on technology in the 21st century is crucially important in all kinds of ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,404 posts, read 55,267,399 times
Reputation: 15495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
I'd go with the Bay Area.
You'd be correct and it's not close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 12:18 PM
 
1,245 posts, read 1,600,511 times
Reputation: 1073
LA is more valuable than "the bay area".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,409,183 times
Reputation: 2093
Los Angeles if we are going off of gdp
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 12:44 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,466,902 times
Reputation: 8936
Surprised people downplay an area whose products and innovations they use on a daily basis so much (Facebook, iPhones, Google, Uber). Guess LA's GDP really affects your daily lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,404 posts, read 55,267,399 times
Reputation: 15495
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
LA is more valuable than "the bay area".
So many people here continue to allow their better judgement to be clouded by envy.

What pain could LA inflict on the world? What flip switched in LA could instantly affect lives in Perth or Paris alike? None that I can think of.

On the other hand:

[Facebook] now has 1.71 billion monthly active users, adding 60 million users from the previous quarter and growing its user base by 15% from the same quarter a year earlier.
On mobile, where Facebook was once thought to be be struggling, the company now has 1.57 billion monthly active users, up 20% year-over-year. And if that's not enough, there are 1.13 billion people using the social network every single day, on average.


Facebook now has more than 1.7 billion users - Jul. 27, 2016
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top