If the top 5 disappeared tomorrow, which cities would take their place? (state, places)

[Calisonn]

I'm defining top 5 as: NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, SF. I know it's up for debate as far as top 5, but if these 5 disappeared tomorrow which cities would take their place?

[Mezter]

Denver would take over pretty easily

[RadicalAtheist]

Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Boston
Philly / MIA

If by take their place you mean absorb their industry, tourism, etc etc, I imagine San Diego and Seattle would step in on the West Coast for 2 spots along with Boston and Philly on the East Coast. Perhaps MIA or a Texas metro or a PHX/Denver/Twin Cities type place.

[Mr Ambitious]

Top cities(in no order)

Philly -new king of east coast
Boston- king of new England but will grow larger
Houston
Seattle - New tech hub
Atl - king of the south
Miami
San Diego - king of cali
Dallas
Minneapolis
Either Cleveland, Milwaukee, or Detroit would take over as king of the Great Lakes region

[steeps]

I know you want Houston as #1. Why you tried to see it as #1, removing the others. But I'd say;

#1 Boston
#2 Houstoon
#3 Philly
#4 Atlanta
#5 Seattle

Reason is because of Boston's Global importance
A.T. Kearney Global Cities 2015 Identifies 16 Elite Cities Based on Their Current... -- CHICAGO, May 20, 2015 /PRNewswire/ --

Just the North American cities...
Global Cities Index, 2015:
01. New York
06. Los Angeles
07. Chicago
10. Washington, D.C.
13. Toronto
22. San Francisco
23. Boston
24. Montreal

Global Cities Outlook, 2015: FUTURE
01. San Francisco
03. Boston
04. New York
06. Houston
16. Atlanta
17. Chicago
20. Toronto
21. Los Angeles

[cheese plate]

Keeping in mind proximity - if NYC were gone, Philly and Boston would pick up the regional slack. With LA, it would be San Diego. Wherever was designated the new national capital would be the "new DC." Milwaukee seems the most logical "new Chicago," since Chicagoland already overlaps with the Milwaukee metro. San Fran must mean the whole metro; otherwise, Oakland/San Jose. If not, I guess the power would shift out of the state to Denver or Seattle or something like that.

Given the list of cities above. Houston could be slotted, in which case, DFW or a Gulf port city would have to pick up the slack.

[NigerianNightmare]

1. Boston would take the lion share of NYC with Philly
2. Philly because of NYC importantance and some of DC's stuff also.
3. Houston would grow slightly and move from 6 or 7th if it was the list above to 3rd.
5. Dallas would get a lot of what Chicago would be getting transportation wise. also Midwest cities that join the west and east would increase a lot in general.
6. San Diego would pick up a lot of LA's stuff and San Fran
7. Seattle would pick up majority of San Fran tech
8. Sacramento if these cities disappeared and their population relocated it would be to the surrounding areas so San Fran would pick a lot.
9. Minneapolis-Saint Paul would gain a lot of what Chicago would have.
10. Denver- Since new capital would be a former state capital Denver city would become new capital but then the state of Colorado would be unusual powerful so it might not be Denver, It might also be Atlanta or Albany NY and the metro would straddle new England (Albany).

[whogoesthere]

Have always heard Denver was the alternate if something happened to DC

[kidphilly]

Allentown PA has a shawdow Financial market already in case something happens with Wall Street

these cities will not, well hopefully not All places developed due to many factors the same would be the case if core places went away and we probably dont know what would really take any place etc.

[2nd trick op]

The point is moot .... and childish. Cities arise, and flourish strictly because of geographic factors -- usually a seaport or the crossing of a river. (Dallas and Fort Worth, for example, are both located at river crossings; they're just not so prominent)

If, to borrow from another fantasy, part of the West Coast were to "slide into the Pacific", development would begin again along the "new" coastline.