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 think most regions in the U.S. have de facto capitals (Seattle for the PNW and Los Angeles for the greater Southwest for example). I chose three of these regional capitals (Chicago for the Midwest, Atlanta for the Southeast, and Boston for New England), so which of these cities do you think most dominates its region?
Some things to consider:
- share of population
- economic influence
- cultural influence
- political power over the rest of the region
- logistical importance to the region
- historical significance
- whatever else you can think of...
Also rank the three cities in terms of their regional positions.
I'm not going to define exactly which states fit into the regions (well New England is pretty obvious), nor am I going to insist on city proper, metro, or whatever - its pretty open-ended.
Atlanta. The competition in the SE is really small (Charlotte, Savannah, Raleigh, Birmingham, etc).
Here is where it depends on your definition of Southeast. I could easily add New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville to that list if I broadened what Southeast meant.
Quote:
Boston should not even be in there. It is not in the same category as Atlanta or Chicago as it is dwarfed by NY, DC, and Philly.
But keep in mind none of those cities are technically in New England. We're not talking about the entire Northeast.
When I created the poll in my head I was thinking: 1) Boston, 2) Chicago, 3) Atlanta but I am interested to hear other arguments.
Are you kidding me? Boston takes this poll without a doubt. One third of New England population lives in Boston.
SO Boston shines brightly when it has to compete with NY, Philly and DC??
you must be joking. Or rather, you must not have read the question.
In terms of population Boston is behind of NY, Philly and DC.
In terms of GDP Boston is behind of NY and DC
In terms of political power it is behind of DC and NY.
In terms of Cultural influence it is behind NY, DC and Philly.
In terms of logistics/imp to the region it is behind NY and DC.
In terms of historical significance I guess it would be a 4way tie.
Dominant in the region Boston is not. It is far from ATL, far from Chicago, far from Seattle. Maybe on par with San Jose in Cali competing for significance with SF, Sacramento, SJ and LA
Atlanta. The competition in the SE is really small (Charlotte, Savannah, Raleigh, Birmingham, etc).
Boston should not even be in there. It is not in the same category as Atlanta or Chicago as it is dwarfed by NY, DC, and Philly.
Chicago has competition from Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinatti, Milwaukee, Minn/St Paul.
Huh? What are you talking about?
First, this was about New England, not the Northeast.
Second, Boston is dwarfed by Philadelphia and DC? I would agree DC is more important, but not Philadelphia...and DC doesn't exactly dwarf Boston in my opinion.
In terms of the actual question, I'd say Atlanta has the strongest influence over its region.
Here is where it depends on your definition of Southeast. I could easily add New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville to that list if I broadened what Southeast meant.
lol, if you are gonna add New Orleans then you might as well add Houston and Dallas. NOLA is kinda not so SE.
Quote:
But keep in mind none of those cities are technically in New England. We're not talking about the entire Northeast.
When I created the poll in my head I was thinking: 1) Boston, 2) Chicago, 3) Atlanta but I am interested to hear other arguments.
well then if we are not talking about the entire NE then I could see Boston. New England is tiny though compared to the midwest and the SE. New England is the size of the states of Illinois or Georgia. Might as well have asked which is more important in Illinois or Georgia.
well then if we are not talking about the entire NE then I could see Boston. New England is tiny though compared to the midwest and the SE. New England is the size of the states of Illinois or Georgia. Might as well have asked which is more important in Illinois or Georgia.
Learn American history please. Regions are not based on their land size, but on their history and culture. New England ends on the border of New York, because New York was a Dutch colony and people spoke Dutch here, not English. Lumping NY with New England just shows your ignorance.
New York flag colors are still that of the Netherlands:
Learn American history please. Regions are not based on their land size, but on their history and culture. New England ends on the border of New York, because New York was a Dutch colony and people spoke Dutch here, not English. Lumping NY with New England just shows your ignorance.
I know American history probably better than you. i didn't say regions was based on land size. Where on earth did you read that.
I said why did he choose regions that are as large as the midwest and the SE and then from the NE only pick a fragment of it. a fragment the size of Illinois or Georgia. I would suggest you learn to read before you start calling people ignorant.
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.
