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 always tend to look at what cities have the most amount of Foreign airlines serving their international airport. The following US airports with the most foreign flag carriers (passenger flights).
New York (59)
.
.
Los Angeles (41)
Miami (41) *Over 80% of all the foreign airlines are from latin America
.
Chicago (26)
San Francisco (25)
Washington D.C. (23)
.
.
Boston (14)
Houston (11)
Seattle (11)
The other US international airports are a joke when it comes to foreign airlines and in my opinion that speaks as to what city has more of a international role with the rest of the world. Miami does have alot of foreign airlines but the majority are all latin based carriers which kind of diminishes Miami to the tier of just below Washington DC.
Sorry if you're going by this metric than Miami is in no way below Chicago, DC, or SF. Miami has at least 16 foreign carriers that are not from Latin America, and that may not be including new foreign carriers- Miami had the most new foreign carriers last year. MIA this past quarter had more international flights than any other airport in country and may surpass JFK as number one for international passengers. MIA is also the fastest growing major airport in the country growing over 8 percent last year and on track to do the same this year. It does not diminish Miami that it is an international aviation hub for North-South movement in this hemisphere while SF, DC, and Chicago aren't. The only area of weakness is Asia, but MIA is number one in international cargo so it has multiple cargo flights with Asian carriers,and it is rumored will soon have flights to Asia.
Sorry if you're going by this metric than Miami is in no way below Chicago, DC, or SF. Miami has at least 16 foreign carriers that are not from Latin America, and that may not be including new foreign carriers- Miami had the most new foreign carriers last year. MIA this past quarter had more international flights than any other airport in country and may surpass JFK as number one for international passengers. MIA is also the fastest growing major airport in the country growing over 8 percent last year and on track to do the same this year. It does not diminish Miami that it is an international aviation hub for North-South movement in this hemisphere while SF, DC, and Chicago aren't. The only area of weakness is Asia, but MIA is number one in international cargo so it has multiple cargo flights with Asian carriers,and it is rumored will soon have flights to Asia.
Seriously, I wholeheartedly agree.
The one city I think everyone is overrating here is San Francisco. IMO, aside from Asia (and only 2-3 countries in Asia AT THAT) and Mexico, it really isn't that international. Chicago ('nuff said), Houston (through the oil connections) and Boston (through education) have a more cosmopolitan feel than San Francisco, never mind the likes of Miami, NYC, and DC.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215
Seriously, I wholeheartedly agree.
The one city I think everyone is overrating here is San Francisco. IMO, aside from Asia (and only 2-3 countries in Asia AT THAT) and Mexico, it really isn't that international. Chicago ('nuff said), Houston (through the oil connections) and Boston (through education) have a more cosmopolitan feel than San Francisco, never mind the likes of Miami, NYC, and DC.
I think SF is very international, and not just with Asia and the Pacific. The Bay Area includes Silicon valley which is home to such minor internet companies as Google, Yahoo and Facebook. It is also one of the most visited, famous and international cities in the US and still a magnet for migrants.
The one city I think everyone is overrating here is San Francisco. IMO, aside from Asia (and only 2-3 countries in Asia AT THAT) and Mexico, it really isn't that international. Chicago ('nuff said), Houston (through the oil connections) and Boston (through education) have a more cosmopolitan feel than San Francisco, never mind the likes of Miami, NYC, and DC.
I agree. I think San Francisco's international reputation is overrated. Of course NYC is ahead, but I also think LA, Chicago, Miami and DC are more international than SF. SF didn't feel THAT cosmopolitan to me but it was still very diverse. It's definitely ahead of cities like Boston and Seattle and probably on par with Houston, but I find NYC, Chicago, LA, DC and Miami to be more international.
sorry to break it to you man, but everyone in this thread agrees that the Houston Metro is coastal except you. How more coastal can you be than fishing town spread along the gulf. The Biggest Sea-Port region in the United States. Have you been to the gulf Coast by any Chance? Fishing, Shrimping, Beaches, Sailing, water bourne trade ect is extremely popular here. I would only assume you have never been to the Gulf Coast if you say it is not coastal.
If that is not coastal then your definition of coastal does not line up with reality
Are you even reading my posts? I never said that Houston was not coastal in a physical sense, but in social/international sense, when people are talking about the coasts of where immigrants are coming in from and exchange of international culture on the coasts they a referring to the East and the West Coast. Does that make sense to you?
You are not going to really argue that the Gulf Coast's internationality is as big and widespread as the East and West Coast is. In the context of how international a coast is and how people migrate and visit the U.S. they are talking about the East and West coast. Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall in these forums.
Outside of Miami, no other city in Florida is anything close to what I would call international.
Isn't that the case for every other state in the country besides California, which only has LA and the Bay Area? Heck, besides California Florida with Orlando may be one of the few states with more than just one city with an international feel. Although to many is not cosmopolitan, due to tourism Orlando does have an international feel.
I think SF is very international, and not just with Asia and the Pacific. The Bay Area includes Silicon valley which is home to such minor internet companies as Google, Yahoo and Facebook. It is also one of the most visited, famous and international cities in the US and still a magnet for migrants.
Ok first we're talking about cities, then you switch to using the "Bay Area" moniker.
Silicon Valley has nothing to do with SF, since its mostly located in San Jose's metropolitan area. Look, you live in Australia, its like if someone tried to claim that Wollongong was part of Sydney or a place like Geelong was part of Melbourne's vincinity. Sure, they're adjacent, but not part of another.
San Francisco itself relies on tourism, and most of that is domestic. Sure, its diverse (another thing that's overrated about SF) but its clear that most of the people who visit there are American. It's more of a domestic tourist magnet than an international one, given that Los Angeles is just right there, a much larger and much cooler place to visit, along with Las Vegas.
Quote:
I agree. I think San Francisco's international reputation is overrated. Of course NYC is ahead, but I also think LA, Chicago, Miami and DC are more international than SF. SF didn't feel THAT cosmopolitan to me but it was still very diverse. It's definitely ahead of cities like Boston and Seattle and probably on par with Houston, but I find NYC, Chicago, LA, DC and Miami to be more international.
Agreed. Aside from the foreign born statistic (which BTW is another thing about SF that shouldn't be accounted for since the vast majority of SF's foreign born are from China, Mexico, or the Philippines), it doesn't feel that international. Having lots and lots of Asians =/= internationalness. If that's the case, then Vancouver beats out almost every American city including Chicago, Houston, and DC.
It just lacks that international panache. It really does.
Are you even reading my posts? I never said that Houston was not coastal in a physical sense, but in social/international sense, when people are talking about the coasts of where immigrants are coming in from and exchange of international culture on the coasts they a referring to the East and the West Coast. Does that make sense to you?
You are not going to really argue that the Gulf Coast's internationality is as big and widespread as the East and West Coast is. In the context of how international a coast is and how people migrate and visit the U.S. they are talking about the East and West coast. Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall in these forums.
Also I have been to the Gulf Coast several times.
that just shows how ignorant you are of the facts. Your ideas are all mixed up. no one is saying that Houston gets more international folks than the entire east coast that is just the dumbest thing I have heard and you should be ashamed to let that slip your mouth.
Houston is a coastal city, with lots of foreign residents, lots of different culture, etc. You really do not have a point and get upset when someone points that out. There is no way to make an area like Houston not be coastal.
A coast is a coast. It is dumb to think that just because it is not on the east or the west it is not coastal. pure stupidness. Even more stupid to think that just because a place doesn't get more international folks that all of the northeast it is not coastal. Are you listening to yourself?
further it is clear you had no idea the city of Houston, multiple counties in the metro and a host of cities are right on the water because you likened it to Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is hundred of miles from the coast. Houston has part of the coast counted in its area.
this post proves how clueless you were of where Houston is. Don't act now like you meant something else:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChikidII
I know where Houston is, but it's not regarded as coastal city in this context. Houston is considered as coastal as much as Pittsburgh is considered East Coast if you catch my drift.
Yes Houston, just a sliver, is on the coast,
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.
