I don't get why Chicago is chastised for being in flyover country but Denver, Phoenix, &Atlanta aren't (Boston, cons)

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by InternetUser2015

Its certainly a top ten city in the country.

I'd say it's arguably a top 10 city in the country. Hardly certain.

NYC, LA, SF, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Dallas and Houston are definitely ahead of Seattle, and that's nine cities.

So that leaves Atlanta, Miami and Seattle to duke it out for #10. Honestly I don't think I would pick Seattle ahead of either Atlanta or Miami, so, to me, Seattle is around #12.

[i'm not a cookie]

Originally Posted by InternetUser2015

For the tenth ****ing time, im not placing them in tiers. Its a general list of the premier US cities.

Seattle has world class geography and its economy is one of the best. Theres a reason its rapidly growing. Its certainly a top ten city in the country.

hahahaha.
I agree, it is a big city and has a right to be listed, not on a global scale(only LA, NYC and maybe Chicago would be listed for global premiere cities), but certainly when speaking of the Top cities in the USA seattle should be listed.

[cheese plate]

Chicago is constantly being referred to as "flyover country" - quit pretending this is an uncommon thing. Just use any internet search and you'll see this is the case; or look around C-D.

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Flyover country is the mind numbing stretch in the heartland where it's flat and plain.

Phoenix is in a desert valley nestled in some tall mountains close to the southern border, Denver is next to the Rockies and Atlanta is on the coast

You don't generally 'fly over' Atlanta or Phoenix and like Denver they all have variable landscapes/features different than where 'fly over' country is. (OK, AR, KS, IL, IN, OH etc.)

Chicago is in fly over county, but Chicago itself isn't a fly over nor is it Chastised?

Right, so being in the middle of a desert or a couple states closer to an oceanic coast is "more variable" than a city on the Great Lakes?

AR has the Ozarks, which are "more variable" than where Denver sits (it's on the Plains). I just can't see any rationale for this position at all.

The true answer here is yes, the Midwest has an image issue. So does the South.

[orlando-calrissian]

Just seems like a lot of playing the victim card. No one really has a poor opinion of Chicago compared to those cities.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by cheese plate

Chicago is constantly being referred to as "flyover country" - quit pretending this is an uncommon thing. Just use any internet search and you'll see this is the case; or look around C-D.
Right, so being in the middle of a desert or a couple states closer to an oceanic coast is "more variable" than a city on the Great Lakes?

AR has the Ozarks, which are "more variable" than where Denver sits (it's on the Plains). I just can't see any rationale for this position at all.
The true answer here is yes, the Midwest has an image issue. So does the South.

Well, Milwaukee is far more Flyover... because of Chicago so close. But Chicago's Domestic Tourist still give it some Bragging rights. Maybe a lot are Midwesterners visiting? But still in Domestic Tourist numbers... Chicago is up there with RESORT cities and NYC. Just in INTERNATIONAL TOURIST. It is much more flyover in for of NYC/Miami/Orlando on the East Coast, and LA/SF on the West Coast.

AGAIN...
CHICAGO hit 50 million tourist in 2014. 48.5 million Domestic. That best NYC by more then 4 million domestic. But NYC adding INTERNATIONAL TOURIST puts its numbers way up.....

Chicago tourism hits record with more than 50M visitors in 2014 | CLTV

Orlando - 62 million visitors
NYC - 56 million visitors
Chicago - 50 million visitors
Los Angeles - 44 million visitors
Las Vegas - 41 million visitors
Atlanta - 36 million visitors
Dallas - 21 million visitors
San Fran - 19 million visitors
Houston - 15 million visitors
Miami - 14 million visitors
New Orleans - 9 million visitors

[InternetUser2015]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

I'd say it's arguably a top 10 city in the country. Hardly certain.

NYC, LA, SF, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Dallas and Houston are definitely ahead of Seattle, and that's nine cities.

So that leaves Atlanta, Miami and Seattle to duke it out for #10. Honestly I don't think I would pick Seattle ahead of either Atlanta or Miami, so, to me, Seattle is around #12.

See, there's these things called opinions.

If I have to list ten of the best (in this case lets say premier) cities for a foreigner who has time for only ten, Seattle is on that list, especially over Dallas and Houston. I think Seattle offers more than Dallas, Houston, Miami and Atlanta. Can we escape this realm or notion that all that ****ing matters on this website is economic data concerning tech industries and energy, etc.

The "niche economy" people on here are the worst.

[Chicago60614]

I've never noticed it being called that, I don't really think anyone here cares if it is.

[UKWildcat1981]

Originally Posted by InternetUser2015

For the tenth ****ing time, im not placing them in tiers. Its a general list of the premier US cities.

Seattle has world class geography and its economy is one of the best. Theres a reason its rapidly growing. Its certainly a top ten city in the country.

I agree Seattle is an elite city.

[Calisonn]

Probably because it's the 3rd largest city that gets outshined by smaller cities on an international level, such as Las Vegas, Orlando, San Francisco, Miami, DC, and arguably San Diego. Nothing against Chicago because it's a great city, but that seems pretty pathetic.

[orlando-calrissian]

I wouldn't argue that Seattle is above Dallas, and especially not Houston. Internationally, I can't imagine that foreigners are more familiar with Seattle than Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta. Definitely not more recognizable than Miami.