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 never see posters get their undies in a bundle more, than when Chicago is doing well in a poll. Too bad the entire world doesn't see things their way. Why is Chicago so threatening to these people? Chicago is a major financial center, like it, or not. All the rantings of the Chicago bashers aren't going to change that.
Chicago may be the "3rd city", but IMO it's second behind NYC and most similar in the country to NYC in almost every way. Chicago's like a lesser NYC but still an extremely respectable city, obviously. This is my opinion by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinSonic
chicago trumps every city but new york. the only thing la has on chicago is population
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Chicago easily. LA can't compete with other powerful world cities without a financial center. Experts on this subject do agree <snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
<snip>So if there weren't a NY, the premier city to me at least would be Chicago, the city most similar to NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NowInWI
<snip>Chicago is a major financial center, like it, or not. <snip>
Chicago is my vote...because I b e l i e v e in this city!
I never see posters get their undies in a bundle more, than when Chicago is doing well in a poll. Too bad the entire world doesn't see things their way. Why is Chicago so threatening to these people? Chicago is a major financial center, like it, or not. All the rantings of the Chicago bashers aren't going to change that.
No twisted panties here. The premise is which city would have risen to be the premier US city if NYC had never existed. The reason Chicago would not be that city is history. Why on earth would the premier city of a country developing along the east coast rise in unfounded territory the middle of the continent? NYC is the premier country because of location. Another city along the coast would have taken up that mantel. Philly, located just 90 miles south and on navigable water, would seem a logical locale.
The thread is not asking which city is the biggest, baddest or personal favorite after NYC. It is posing an historical question.
No twisted panties here. The premise is which city would have risen to be the premier US city if NYC had never existed. The reason Chicago would not be that city is history. Why on earth would the premier city of a country developing along the east coast rise in unfounded territory the middle of the continent? NYC is the premier country because of location. Another city along the coast would have taken up that mantel. Philly, located just 90 miles south and on navigable water, would seem a logical locale.
The thread is not asking which city is the biggest, baddest or personal favorite after NYC. It is posing an historical question.
I'm almost positive that we are not asking what would have happened over the past 3 centuries if NY didn't exist. The question asked should be translated to "what is the #2 city in the US?"
I'm almost positive that we are not asking what would have happened over the past 3 centuries if NY didn't exist. The question asked should be translated to "what is the #2 city in the US?"
Says who? The OP doesn't specify in more detail other giving us the question "What if New York didn't exist?".
Some of us just chose to interpret that as meaning what if there was no New York historically. It's a much more interesting proposition than simply asking what's the #2 city in the US.
Says who? The OP doesn't specify in more detail other giving us the question "What if New York didn't exist?".
Some of us just chose to interpret that as meaning what if there was no New York historically. It's a much more interesting proposition than simply asking what's the #2 city in the US.
Totally agree with you Deezus that it would be more interesting to discuss the history without NY aspect, but unfortunately if you go back to the first page to the OP and then look at his second post (post 4) it is wrong.
The OP is simply asking what is the premier city in the USA without NY. Confusingly he said "if NY did not exist" because not just you and me but a lot of other people assumed he meant never existed. And its not surprising we thought he meant historical because look at the poll choices - Boston and Philadelphia but no Houston, Dallas or Atlanta.
But unfortunately this turns out to be just another - whats the #2 city in the USA thread. And we already have more than a few of them.
I went to the OP and then looked through the whole page and it looks like I made a mistake. And if you look above at some of the posts from the first page, I am not the only one.
If you look above to the third section the OP says "Not re-writing history and speculating on what would have developed and what wouldnt have". In other words, all he wants is if we took New York out today - which American city would be the Premier City? Its nothing to do with history so sorry to Philadelphia.
This is the same thing as asking what is the number 2 city in the USA. To the OP (SpaceisforAce) - why didn't you simply ask it like that instead of making it so freaking complicated???
This thread is basically asking what the #2 city is. There might be a slight difference in the question--if NYC disappeared, some cities would have to take over NYC's functions. So Chicago would become the financial center. But overall, LA would still probably be the #1 city. That said, I felt the question the original poster asked was rather limited and boring, so I answered both what the #1 city would be if NYC disappeared today and what the #1 city would be if NYC disappeared in 1776 (first paragraph is Q1 and second paragraph is Q2):
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm123
I agree with this 100%. I'd imagine if NYC disappeared today, part of its influence would be dispersed to Boston, Philadelphia and D.C., but without the concentration, America's premier city would definitely shift. IMO, it would easily be Los Angeles, with Chicago as the 2nd spot.
If New York never existed, I think it would be Philadelphia or another large east-coast city. The Atlantic was the most important ocean until the late 20th Century, so America's growth would have reflected that.
I don't know what's more embarrassing...the dozens of sock puppet votes for Chicago, or you lumping it with Tokyo, London and Hong Kong. Controlling the world...pfft.
I'm fairly sure I'm not a sock puppet.
The way I think of it is this. If NY vanished or imploded, which city is best able to take up the slack?
The criteria are
1. Quality extant infrastructure (ports, transport, built environment), with room for easy scaling of plant and population in amenable areas
2. A critical mass of productive institutions, business centres, higher education and specialist professionals - who would act as a magnet for more of these essential assets, and who could start ramping the city into overdrive to take up NY's slack
3. Easy access to the rest of the country, and to the power centres of the world
By these criteria, I'd say the obvious choice is Chicago, despite its economy and population being smaller than LA's. The place has the bones - people and institutions - of a mini-NY, with a lot of space (unfortunately, at the moment) to fill in. SF and LA have an advantage in their sea ports and proximity to Asia, I suppose.
This thread is basically asking what the #2 city is. There might be a slight difference in the question--if NYC disappeared, some cities would have to take over NYC's functions. So Chicago would become the financial center. But overall, LA would still probably be the #1 city. That said, I felt the question the original poster asked was rather limited and boring, so I answered both what the #1 city would be if NYC disappeared today and what the #1 city would be if NYC disappeared in 1776 (first paragraph is Q1 and second paragraph is Q2):
I could see this. Let me propose this then based on what I know about another large first world country that currently doesn't have a city like London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo...
Germany!
Without an NYC, I'm not sure a similar city would emerge and get bigger, but would become more multipolar and balanced than it is now. I would think the U.S. would function more like Germany.
Indeed, Chicago would likely become more of a powerhouse and handle primarily financial/business functions like Frankfurt as key exchanged are already there.
DC would continue to house the nations history/artwork and remain like a stable capital like Berlin.
LA would continue it's cultural output and be similar to Hamburg being a media center.
Boston or Philly would be historical like Munich.
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.
And if you look above at some of the posts from the first page, I am not the only one.
