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.
Those 5 commercial airports in LA don't all carry the bulk of the passenger traffic. LAX is the primary airport for SoCal and carries 28 million passengers per year probably 85%-90% of LA's air traffic. .
LAX carries 70% of the region's air traffic, not 85%. Orange County Airport, Ontario Airport, Burbank Airport, and Long Beach together carry about 12 million passengers.
New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are the most important in the country. Followed by San Francisco, Boston and Washington. They are the six most important cities in the U.S. Then Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and maybe even Minneapolis are next. Sorry but Philadelphia, IMO, does not belong in the tier 1/2 city lists. I really think the city has past it's peak here and is often overestimated. Kinda the same with Houston. This is not my bias, just so you know. This is a follow up/updated post to my previous post on this topic:
Dude, I respect your opinion, but you've been miss informed if you think Houston has passed its prime.
I think State Capitals are as important to their respective states as DC is to the entire nation. I mean, they collect taxes, legislate laws and make policies with huge implications for their residents just like DC does.
They are some similarities as you've mentioned and state governments/politics are seriously overlooked in terms of their importance, but the federal government is surely too big to say "well Austin isn't more important than Houston, so how can Houston be." The most important part of this is something you've implicitly mentioned--the state capital is important for the state, but the national capital is important for the nation. These are different in size by orders of magnitude.
Also keep in mind that the federal government is certainly on the higher-rung as it can make strong interventions into state government programs and policies. The scope of federal law and policies is well beyond what is conferred to the states.
Of course, all this is in conjunction with the other things I've mentioned which are the result of the federal government being as powerful as it is.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Bergone, Chicago and Los Angeles are not more important to the US than Washington so I dont know where you came off with that. The two most important cities are New York and Washington period.
I don't care who thinks that state capitals are as important as DC, they're not. The mere fact that Washington DC can override anything that happens in those state capitals with it's own policy proves that. Heck DC is so important functioning as a true "capital city" it's not even part of a state which merely makes it different than Albany, NY and Sacarmento, CA etc.
Tier 3c
St Louis
Baltimore
Cleveland
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Tier4
Kansas City
Columbus
Providence
Raleigh durham
Charlotte
Louisville
Vegas
Nashville
4b
Omaha
Memphis
New Orleans
Tier 5
Little Rock
Surely you Jest!? What is even more shocking is Miami is NO WHERE on your list, and cities like Omaha, and Little Rock are on there. But your 1st 7 are correct.
Bergone, Chicago and Los Angeles are not more important to the US than Washington
Los Angeles is more prominent and world famous, has a larger economy, is a magnet to the world that DC will probably never be and its greater population has already surpassed 18 Million. DC who?
Quote:
I don't care who thinks that state capitals are as important as DC, they're not. The mere fact that Washington DC can override anything that happens in those state capitals with it's own policy proves that.
Well, California and many other states have legalized medicinal marijuana to the shock of the Fed.
Don't see any successful bids to override that coming from DC.
Also, It appears that you seem to be under the false presumption that congress represents the interests of DC and not their constituents back in their states and congressional districts? That would be incorrect.
Speaking of which, DC proper is actually funded by Congress and what our representatives think is fitting the district.
So I would be weary of crowning a city that isnt even really in charge of its own purse strings.
Quote:
Heck DC is so important functioning as a true "capital city" it's not even part of a state which merely makes it different than Albany, NY and Sacarmento, CA etc.
You really can't refute it. Sacramento is in some ways more important than SF but overall, its definitely not.
By the same token, DC is also more important than LA in some ways, but overall, as if.
DC is no different than Ottawa and Canberra. Important in that it serves its purpose as seat of government, but hardly the most prominent city in the nation outside the specific realm of legislation and public policy.
DC actually has it worse than Ottawa and Canberra because the US has over 10 CSAs and MSAs with more than 5 Million people futher ciphening off lots of power and influence away from even NY.
Los Angeles is more prominent and world famous, has a larger economy, is a magnet to the world that DC will probably never be and its greater population has already surpassed 18 Million. DC who?
Well, California and many other states have legalized medicinal marijuana to the shock of the Fed.
Don't see any successful bids to override that coming from DC.
Also, It appears that you seem to be under the false presumption that congress represents the interests of DC and not their constituents back in their states and congressional districts? That would be incorrect.
Speaking of which, DC proper is actually funded by Congress and what our representatives think is fitting the district.
So I would be weary of crowning a city that isnt even really in charge of its own purse strings.
You really can't refute it. Sacramento is in some ways more important than SF but overall, its definitely not.
By the same token, DC is also more important than LA in some ways, but overall, as if.
DC is no different than Ottawa and Canberra. Important in that it serves its purpose as seat of government, but hardly the most prominent city in the nation outside the specific realm of legislation and public policy.
DC actually has it worse than Ottawa and Canberra because the US has over 10 CSAs and MSAs with more than 5 Million people futher ciphening off lots of power and influence away from even NY.
DC does function as a meeting place for representatives from other parts of the US, but that's something that can be argued for a lot of other sectors.
Boston doesn't draw its intellectuals and students from only the Boston area (nor do these people stay permanantly there) nor do they ideas and research they do come exclusively from the people there. NYC may be the where Wall Street, many corporate headquarters, and a media powerhouse, but the vast bulk of the work is elsewhere. The same goes for Houston and energy and Los Angeles for film. What these all have in common is that they are the focal points for these sectors--that the decisions and discussions for much of the top-rung is done at these focal points which attract the highly skilled though often transient workforce is what makes these cities notable.
Sacramento is an important city, but state governments are limited in their powers compared to DC and certainly affect a much smaller population than the national government. Yes, Sacramento does have power over SF as does DC, but DC also wields influence over NYC, Houston, Miami, Seattle, Boston, etc. and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world (how much effect do decisions made in Sacramento have on Toronto, Sydney, Pyongyang, Paris, Beijing, Tokyo, Tel Aviv, etc.?). If we were to take the power of state governments over federal governments and face value and say they were equally powerful for the cities they affect (which ignores the fact that there is a hierachy of sorts in government), then at the very least it should be agreed that an entity that wields influence over 300 million (this number is ignoring that DC acts as a focal point for foreign policy as well) is exercising greater influence than one that influences almost 40 million.
The comparison between national capitals is a better one. The difference between many national capitals and DC is now more of size and prominence than scope. The US is simply a bigger and more powerful country and its political figures, name recognition, and landmarks in DC are much more well-known (there will be fewer people who know of Kevin Rudd and Stephen Harper than would know of Barak Obama, Dubya, or Clinton; fewer people who recognize Ottawa and Canberra's government buildings (which I admit to not knowing at all) than would know of the White House, the US Capitol, or the Washington Monument; fewer people who would even have heard of Canberra and Ottawa than have heard of DC). The metros of these cities are also far smaller than DC's while DC's MSA of 5+ million and CSA of 7+ million (since you cited LA's CSA) are far smaller. The policies decided on in Canberra and Ottawa also have far smaller effects than those decided on in DC. How much influence does Canada's or Australia's federal government wield in comparison to the US's?
New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are the most important in the country. Followed by San Francisco, Boston and Washington. They are the six most important cities in the U.S. Then Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and maybe even Minneapolis are next. Sorry but Philadelphia, IMO, does not belong in the tier 1/2 city lists. I really think the city has past it's peak here and is often overestimated. Kinda the same with Houston. This is not my bias, just so you know. This is a follow up/updated post to my previous post on this topic:
You have a right to you opinion. However, don't just say "Kinda the same with Houston (past it's peak)". Tell me: how is it past it's peak? Please document. I've lived there over 20 years and I only see it growing, becoming richer, becoming not just the US's energy and medical technology capital but The World's. What are you thinking of? Have you ever even been here for very long or observed it over time to have come to that conclusion?
I've never been to Phillie but have family there and have visited a few times. I'd have to say it's probably not as vibrant as Houston but has certainly been holding it's own compared to most of the other very old Rust Belt cities. I find it a real nice blend of the NY'ish urban/stylish/artista with solid working class values (decent home prices, C.O.L.). Don't know where you're coming from with Phillie either. Sorry.
By the way, Minn-StP is a fine little midwestern town that really has a lot going on for it considering it's location in the northern Tundra borealis belt. However, just no way it outshines Houston or Phillie.
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.
Past it's peak - Houston & Phillie????!
