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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by po-boy
All three are very important and I agree each of them is the de facto cultural capital of their region. Of them, I think Boston is the most dominant in its region (New England), followed by Atlanta (for the Southeast), then Chicago.
New England is a smaller region than the Southeast or Midwest and Boston just doesn't have that much competition from other cities. When I think New England I immediately think of Boston, its history, its educational institutions and its sports teams.
Atlanta is also dominant in its region if we define its cultural/geographic region as the southeast. Obviously if you include the whole south it gets murkier with the Texas cities and Miami. But even just considering the southeast, that is a much bigger area than New England, so Atlanta's influence is less than what Boston has in New England. What puts Atlanta ahead of Chicago is the fact that Atlanta doesn't have that much competition from other cities...Charlottes is probably the next most influential city, and it is not nearly as powerful as Atlanta.
On a nationwide level Chicago is the most powerful of these three cities, but in its region it is not as dominant as the other two. The Midwest (like the southeast) is much larger than New England. And what really kills Chicago for this thread is the competition it faces from numerous other cities. Detroit, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Milwaukee...there are just a ton of big cities up there. Clearly Chicago is the most important/dominant of them, but not (IMO) to the same extent as Boston is New England or Atlanta in the Southeast.
One thing I will say though is that Chicago benefits from being the third largest city in the country AND from having a relatively stable economy as compared to it's regional neighbors. There was a time when Detroit and Cleveland were powerhouse american cities and in the top 10. With the challenges they've faced over the last century that has only helped Chicago's profile, not diminish it.
Well I was talking about the south as a whole, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, Miami, NO, Memphis, Nashville, Orlando..
Houston, Dallas, and Miami are the only serious contenders but they don't dominate the entire south. NOLA is usually the big city on the gulf coast, Memphis has a large impact on Arkansas and north MS. Atlanta has a very large impact but once you get further south and west Atlanta becomes unimportant as NOLA and eventually Houston and Dallas take over.
Edit: The term southeast is silly, it just leaves out two or three states. Plus the southwest isnt in the south, and no one seriously recognizes the south-central.
And what really kills Chicago for this thread is the competition it faces from numerous other cities. Detroit, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Milwaukee...there are just a ton of big cities up there. Clearly Chicago is the most important/dominant of them, but not (IMO) to the same extent as Boston is New England or Atlanta in the Southeast.
I think Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Nashville provide stiffer competition than Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis. Doesn't Detroit have abandoned skyscrapers downtown?
I'd be pretty mad if my job transferred me to Minneapolis. I could deal with the Research Triangle, though I wouldn't be too happy about it. I'd be PISSED if I had to move to Detroit.
I think Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Nashville provide stiffer competition than Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis. Doesn't Detroit have abandoned skyscrapers downtown?
I'd be pretty mad if my job transferred me to Minneapolis. I could deal with the Research Triangle, though I wouldn't be too happy about it. I'd be PISSED if I had to move to Detroit.
I think that economically the three mid-west cities are stronger as a whole than the three southeastern cities you mention (though personally I agree with you and I'd be much happier moving to Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham or Nashville than Detroit, Milwaukee or Minneapolis--I like the South).
I've got a list of the top 100 metro GMPs from 2009 put out by the US Conference of Mayors. According to it Minneapolis is 13, Detroit is 14 and Milwaukee is 36. For the Southeastern cities Charlotte is 21, Nashville is 38 and Raliegh is 50 (they have Durham seperately at 66).
One thing I will say though is that Chicago benefits from being the third largest city in the country AND from having a relatively stable economy as compared to it's regional neighbors. There was a time when Detroit and Cleveland were powerhouse american cities and in the top 10. With the challenges they've faced over the last century that has only helped Chicago's profile, not diminish it.
You are right that Detroit and Cleveland have faded, but I think the fact that they used to be so strong in the relatively recent past is one reason's Chicago's influence is not as strong across the whole region. Chicago has always been the top dog in the Mid-west, but it had real contenders to the throne thirty years ago. Detroit used to have huge influence economically (autos) and culturally (mo-town).
Whereas in the Southeast New Orleans used to be powerful, but that was a really long time ago, so in the last 50-80 years Atlanta really hasn't had much competition.
I think that economically the three mid-west cities are stronger as a whole than the three southeastern cities you mention (though personally I agree with you and I'd be much happier moving to Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham or Nashville than Detroit, Milwaukee or Minneapolis--I like the South).
I've got a list of the top 100 metro GMPs from 2009 put out by the US Conference of Mayors. According to it Minneapolis is 13, Detroit is 14 and Milwaukee is 36. For the Southeastern cities Charlotte is 21, Nashville is 38 and Raliegh is 50 (they have Durham seperately at 66).
I really don't care what a report by the Conference of Mayors says. What opportunities are there in Detroit beyond working for GM? You don't have Wharton MBAs lining up to get to Detroit. There are a number of well-educated, white collar workers who would gladly move to Charlotte or the Research Triangle, however.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,877,648 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I really don't care what a report by the Conference of Mayors says. What opportunities are there in Detroit beyond working for GM? You don't have Wharton MBAs lining up to get to Detroit. There are a number of well-educated, white collar workers who would gladly move to Charlotte or the Research Triangle, however.
Yet, Charlotte is facing a HUGE financial banking meltdown right now and you seem blind to this. Wharton MBAs probably line up for LA, NYC, SF, and Chicago anyways......not Charlotte, Milwaukee, or R-D.
boston runs away with this poll. every other new england city exists in boston's orbit. chicago may be the biggest city in the midwest but look at detroit, st. louis, cleveland, minneapolis, cincinnati, kansas city, columbus, milwaukee and indianapolis. they don't need chicago to survive.
Boston? Really? Well now that I think about it there is no other "major city" in New England.
There isn't is there? although I think it was wise for the OP to say "New England" and not the Northeast (NYC & Philly)
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.