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.
If we're talking about cities only, then I'll say Houston
If we're talking about metropolitan areas, then I'll say the Bay Area
If we're talking about concentration of power and influence, then we have to divide that up into categories as well. Political Power: Washington DC I think is in a class by itself in this regard.
Economic Power: Bay Area & Houston I think are after NY, LA and Chicago(and to be honest the Bay Area is probably more powerful economically than Chicagoland right now)
Cultural & Social Influence: That's a good question. I dont know right now cause cultural and social influence is so varied and could be derived from the arts, media, pop culture, fashion, music, food, literature, etc. ALSO we could also weigh the fact that some cities are hubs for different groups. Atlanta is known as a hub for influential and powerful African Americans, Miami is known as a hub for influential and powerful Latin Americans, Boston is known as a hub for intellectuals and scientists. Philadelphia and Boston are known for their historical significance(and it can't be overstated that both cities remain very important hubs of business and commerce)Even smaller cities are extremely powerful as far as the images the evoke, Las Vegas and New Orleans come to mind. And so on.
Also, there are many cities out there that perhaps do not have the stature of the larger Metros Ive already mentioned(as well as the big ones I didnt touch on, namely Detroit and Dallas) but are still formidable. Seattle, Denver and Minneapolis stick out as they are huge centers of business.
I agree with that.
By City for me it is
1. NY
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Philadelphia
6. DC
7. SF
8. Boston
For regions I would say
1. NY
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Bay Area
5. DC
6. Boston
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
Some say history has a reason to be up there, I don't. Historical buildings, areas etc yes. History alone? NO. Philly has very historically significant things which warrant it being up there, but dunno why people just say Philly because of its history.
New Orleans and Charleston were historically the most important cities in the South, but the mere memory of that doesn't mean they still are.
I'd say:
1. NYC - You can't argue with this, although one could post a viable argument for DC
2. Chicago - Major economic center, pretty big culturally too
3. LA - Very important economic engine, hollywood is probably the 2nd most well known thing from america other than NYC
4. DC - Although DC is the most powerful city in the nation due to government it is not well known at all and if the government part wasnt there DC would be a few slots down the list.
5. Philly - Was once the capital, is the 5th largest city, tons and tons of history as a dominant city in america.
LOL....what those engineers in Houston are working on makes this social networking look like child's play. Please. I laughed at the comment earlier when two posters said Houston will lose its clout as the energy capital due to wind and solar, as if those are the only forms of energy. Even then, energy companies have only been expanding operations in Houston. It's where the talent is for the industry. Looking at any economic data, Houston is right up there with the Bay Area, DC, and definitely Philly.
What do you exactly mean on "size?" Its quite a ambiguous statement. If we are talking about metro size, Philly doesn't really stand out from the cities its being compared to, which are also in the 6 to 7.5 million population range. If its about economic size, DC and the Bay Area are surely the biggest amongst its peers. I'm just curious where Philly differentiates itself from others on size.
To answer the OP's question, I would say its between DC and the Bay Area. Both are very educated and well-rounded metros that hold enormous clout in various ways over the country, but also the world.
Urban size; out to 2 million people in a continuous 10K+ density as a city it is and feels larger than the others
It looks like DC and the SF Bay Area are more reliably showing us as 4 and 5, regardless of order. Do most agree with that? There's no right answer, just an interesting idea for a thread.
When you talk about Houston, you really have to talk about 2 Houstons:
1)Houston Inside the loop
2) Houston Outside the loop
The urban planners are concerned with inside the loop, whch has similar density, similar in square miles, and similar population figures to a present day Boston.
Outside the loop skews the number big time but yes, in concept, I agree Houston is a less developed Los Angeles....which is one of the top 3 in this discussion.
While I dont really disagree with the notion of inside and outside the loop. Houstonians always include the nearly 600 sq miles when talking about city population. If the inside the loop were the case the city is at 600K with still relatively low density for a core compared to every other city in the discussion less Dallas
Also the most core 90 square miles in LA has more than twice as many people when compared to LA (actually the density in the loop is lower than the average for the whole city of LA. While density isnt everything the idea that Houston is equal to LA in this regard is vastly incorrect (LA in the core is as dense as any of the other cities mentioned less Dallas
While I dont really disagree with the notion of inside and outside the loop. Houstonians always include the nearly 600 sq miles when talking about city population. If the inside the loop were the case the city is at 600K with still relatively low density for a core compared to every other city in the discussion less Dallas
Also the most core 90 square miles in LA has more than twice as many people when compared to LA (actually the density in the loop is lower than the average for the whole city of LA. While density isnt everything the idea that Houston is equal to LA in this regard is vastly incorrect (LA in the core is as dense as any of the other cities mentioned less Dallas
Now what are YOU talking about? He clearly said less developed LA....
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.
