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.
Ranked Higher
GaWC: Chicago
Global Cities Index: LA
Global Cities Competitiveness Index: Chicago
Global Power City Index: LA
World City Survey: LA
Like I said, LA isn't in a class of its own here. I'm not sure what's so bad about being ranked with or near Chicago in these meaningless lists anyways, it's a great city too.
There's nothing wrong with that, they are close as cities. Chicago is a great city. As a metro, LA blows Chicago out of the water.
Ranked Higher
GaWC: Chicago
Global Cities Index: LA
Global Cities Competitiveness Index: Chicago
Global Power City Index: LA
World City Survey: LA
Like I said, LA isn't in a class of its own here. I'm not sure what's so bad about being ranked with or near Chicago in these meaningless lists anyways, it's a great city too.
Because Chicago is in flyover country, ugly scenery, massive identical sprawl, could be confused for any other big city to a foreigner, nothing really stands out for someone to say "hey that's Chicago", other than that its a nice small town
Because Chicago is in flyover country, ugly scenery, massive identical sprawl, could be confused for any other big city to a foreigner, nothing really stands out for someone to say "hey that's Chicago", other than that its a nice small town
Right.
I sense a little projection here. As well as some urbanity/transit/skyline/walkable core envy.
New York
.
.
Los Angeles
.
Chicago
San Francisco
DC
For World Class:
New York
....If you include Los Angeles then you have to include Chicago. If you include Chicago then you have to include San Francisco. None of these three cities have anything over the other that would excel them in a tier of their own. Population does not cut it when ranking World Class because San Diego, Houston, etc. have a higher population than San Francisco and they are not on SF's level of World Class amenities. Even global ranks are skewed by population. If that was the case Mexico City would be tops!
Abundance of a diverse economy and being a leader in a specific sector will elevate an area to a top tier global city.
New York
.
.
Los Angeles
.
Chicago
San Francisco
DC
For World Class:
New York
....If you include Los Angeles then you have to include Chicago. If you include Chicago then you have to include San Francisco. None of these three cities have anything over the other that would excel them in a tier of their own. Population does not cut it when ranking World Class because San Diego, Houston, etc. have a higher population than San Francisco and they are not on SF's level of World Class amenities. Even global ranks are skewed by population. If that was the case Mexico City would be tops!
Abundance of a diverse economy and being a leader in a specific sector will elevate an area to a top tier global city.
This seems like a really fair assessment. I think LA is a great city - but if I lived in Chicago or San Francisco, I would think of them the same way. I agree that population is not the most important factor, though it helps bring in a lot of the other factors or increase the amount of them, if that makes sense.
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.
