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.
It's pretty telling that today's #3 has three viable candidates. That suggests that #3 (whether it's Chicago, SF, or DC) isn't that helpful battling against #4 and #5.
I don't know what #6 would be (Boston probably) but 4-6 would be a hell of a group. So 1-3 doesn't seem that dominant in comparison.
My history isn't good enough to really judge vs. the other eras, but I'd have to guess one of the first two.
Not to really get political but I think people have a tendancy to romanticize a past that was never as great as we make it seem. The U.S. today is in almost every measurable way better than it has been in the past, although other nations have made great gains too (and why shouldn't they?). But without a doubt the best part of the U.S. is that we have an amazing collection of very diverse cities in all across the continent that we can argue about
Romanticized is the exact word I was looking for, and I agree with you wholly. The United States is still the most diverse and most influential nation on the planet, more so than it was even 100 years. The difference is that the rest of the world has closed the gap. Economy can be viewed multiple ways, and in many of those, we still lead....
Not to really get political but I think people have a tendancy to romanticize a past that was never as great as we make it seem. The U.S. today is in almost every measurable way better than it has been in the past, although other nations have made great gains too (and why shouldn't they?). But without a doubt the best part of the U.S. is that we have an amazing collection of very diverse cities in all across the continent that we can argue about
I disagree about the USA being better today than the past. National and personal debt are at all time highs, military entanglements around the world are further isolating us as a nation (and chasing up terror), failing infrastructure, deterioration of the press (aka real journalism), economic inequality rising at a staggering rate, a nightmare of healthcare problems, political stalemates and corruption, disastrous costs of higher education, etc. If you don't see this, you're drinking the koolaid.
The only thing that is better today is technology, social equality and QOL in urban areas. In comparison to other countries, we flounder at QOL, education, and several other serious categories.
That aside, I think people are greatly mistaken regarding the amount of good jobs and financial prosperity that was derived prior to 1950. That prosperity continued after 1950 at a great rate, but look at technology, industry, strength of currency, and several other categories between the late 1800s and the middle of the 20th century to see the most amazing increase in prosperity in human history. Just the stats around increased life expectancy is enough to win the contest.
As an aside, I think the Big 3 should be expanded to Big 5, in all fairness. Besides population measures, Chicago is only marginally, at best, the third best/most important city in the country. There is a wider gap between NY/Chi than there is to Chi/DC or Chi/SF. Truly, DC and SF round out the Top 5, and there is a sizable gap between them and the next tier of cities...
I believe in the Top 5 model as well and have been vocally for it all of the 4 years I've been on this forum but I don't really want to get into the specifics of that in this thread. While there is a "general" view for what the Top 5 today is, and demonstrates that it might be the overall consensus leanings, it is still far from a completely agreeable viewpoint for some. I think the San Francisco Bay Area needs to clearly separate itself completely from Greater Boston before a lot of the people that think the Top 5 is arguable will buy into the idea. Just a theory.
In addition to that, expanding today's era to the Top 5 over the Top 3 would mean we would have to do it for the other two past eras as well and I don't want to do that since the 4th and 5th cities throughout history have rotated throughout the years. For example, initially Baltimore and Charleston were 4th and 5th, then Charleston was replaced by New Orleans, and then eventually New Orleans replaced by Detroit, so on and so forth. Baltimore itself spent a lot of time going between 4th and 5th, at times 6th as well. Not to mention places like Brooklyn and the like that historically were their own big cities. That's an ugly proposition to actually have to measure eras in such a way where nothing was concrete but rather fluid.
Top 3 works best historically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
Therefore, I'd still say, in the case of a NY/LA/Chi/DC/SF Big 5, that Today wins because we're as strong as we've ever been as a nation, globally...
This is how American cities are mapped out in my head at all times, in this exact and very manner (while I wont post the GDP list or TPI list because it would take far too long to compile, I view them in similar manner as population):
American metropolises (Population): - 25 millions: None
- 24 millions: None
- 23 millions: Greater New York (23,723,696)
- 22 millions: None
- 21 millions: None
- 20 millions: None
- 19 millions: None
- 18 millions:Greater Los Angeles (18,679,763)
- 17 millions: None
- 16 millions: None
- 15 millions: None
- 14 millions: None
- 13 millions: None
- 12 millions: None
- 11 millions: None
- 10 millions: None
- 9 millions: Greater Chicago (9,923,358), Greater Washington DC-Baltimore (9,625,360)
- 8 millions: Greater San Francisco Bay Area (8,713,914), Greater Boston (8,152,573)
- 3 millions:Greater Minneapolis-Saint Paul (3,866,768), Greater Cleveland (3,493,596), Greater Denver (3,418,876), Greater San Diego (3,299,521), Greater Orlando (3,129,308), Greater Portland (3,110,906)
- 2 millions: Greater Tampa (2,975,225), Greater Saint Louis (2,916,447), Greater Pittsburgh (2,648,605), Greater Charlotte (2,583,956), Greater Sacramento (2,544,026), Greater Salt Lake City (2,467,709), Greater Kansas City (2,428,362), Greater Columbus (2,424,831), Greater San Antonio (2,384,075), Greater Indianapolis (2,372,530), Greater Las Vegas (2,362,015), Greater Cincinnati (2,216,735), Greater Raleigh-Durham (2,117,103), Greater Milwaukee (2,046,092), Greater Austin (2,000,860)
The tiers where it says "none" also serve as emphasis points that there is a degree/gulf of separation from one city to the next one beneath it.
Also to reiterate, I also view lists for GDP and TPI in similar structures. Clear and distinct ranges like "$100 billions," "$200 billions," "$300 billions," "$400 billions," "$500 billions," "$600 billions," "$700 billions," "$800 billions," "$900 billions," '$1 Trillions," "$1.1 Trillions," "$1.2 Trillions," so on and so forth. For both GDP and TPI.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 06-14-2016 at 01:04 PM..
I made it an emphasis to point out that people shouldn't talk about cities that aren't in that threads title (with the exceptions of New York and Los Angeles; other top 5s). So the stage is set.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,174,514 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
I believe in the Top 5 model as well and have been vocally for it all of the 4 years I've been on this forum but I don't really want to get into the specifics of that in this thread. While there is a "general" view for what the Top 5 today is, and demonstrates that it might be the overall consensus leanings, it is still far from a completely agreeable viewpoint for some. I think the San Francisco Bay Area needs to clearly separate itself completely from Greater Boston before a lot of the people that think the Top 5 is arguable will buy into the idea. Just a theory.
In addition to that, expanding today's era to the Top 5 over the Top 3 would mean we would have to do it for the other two past eras as well and I don't want to do that since the 4th and 5th cities throughout history have rotated throughout the years. For example, initially Baltimore and Charleston were 4th and 5th, then Charleston was replaced by New Orleans, and then eventually New Orleans replaced by Detroit, so on and so forth. Baltimore itself spent a lot of time going between 4th and 5th, at times 6th as well. Not to mention places like Brooklyn and the like that historically were their own big cities. That's an ugly proposition to actually have to measure eras in such a way where nothing was concrete but rather fluid.
Top 3 works best historically.
This is how American cities are mapped out in my head at all times, in this exact and very manner (while I wont post the GDP list or TPI list because it would take far too long to compile, I view them in similar manner as population):
American metropolises (Population): - 25 millions: None
- 24 millions: None
- 23 millions: Greater New York (23,723,696)
- 22 millions: None
- 21 millions: None
- 20 millions: None
- 19 millions: None
- 18 millions:Greater Los Angeles (18,679,763)
- 17 millions: None
- 16 millions: None
- 15 millions: None
- 14 millions: None
- 13 millions: None
- 12 millions: None
- 11 millions: None
- 10 millions: None
- 9 millions: Greater Chicago (9,923,358), Greater Washington DC-Baltimore (9,625,360)
- 8 millions: Greater San Francisco Bay Area (8,713,914), Greater Boston (8,152,573)
- 3 millions:Greater Minneapolis-Saint Paul (3,866,768), Greater Cleveland (3,493,596), Greater Denver (3,418,876), Greater San Diego (3,299,521), Greater Orlando (3,129,308), Greater Portland (3,110,906)
- 2 millions: Greater Tampa (2,975,225), Greater Saint Louis (2,916,447), Greater Pittsburgh (2,648,605), Greater Charlotte (2,583,956), Greater Sacramento (2,544,026), Greater Salt Lake City (2,467,709), Greater Kansas City (2,428,362), Greater Columbus (2,424,831), Greater San Antonio (2,384,075), Greater Indianapolis (2,372,530), Greater Las Vegas (2,362,015), Greater Cincinnati (2,216,735), Greater Raleigh-Durham (2,117,103), Greater Milwaukee (2,046,092), Greater Austin (2,000,860)
The tiers where it says "none" also serve as emphasis points that there is a degree/gulf of separation from one city to the next one beneath it.
Also to reiterate, I also view lists for GDP and TPI in similar structures. Clear and distinct ranges like "$100 billions," "$200 billions," "$300 billions," "$400 billions," "$500 billions," "$600 billions," "$700 billions," "$800 billions," "$900 billions," '$1 Trillions," "$1.1 Trillions," "$1.2 Trillions," so on and so forth. For both GDP and TPI.
These are all CSA measures, though (I think). Not to crack open that can of worms, but I think if we're going to go CSA (or MSA or Urban Area, really), we should "weight" the true core of a "city" against the rest of a metropolitan area, which often contains areas only nominally part of the region, unurban municipalities or just "fluff". "Cities" are what drive metropolitan areas, not the other way around, and we should rank them according to just how much they do so.
So, and this is quite a simplistic calculation without nuance, if New York City proper is 8,550,405 and its CSA is 23,723,696 (assuming your above number is CSA), then the "core" is 8,550,405 divided by 23,723,696, or 36% of Greater New York is unquestionably urban and "New York", and not, say, the Lehigh Valley which is technically "New York". We could "rack and stack" the metros in this manner to see which of the "cities" are proportionally providing the most for their surrounding metropolitan area (CSA, MSA, Urban), which is where I feel a lot of the debate lies (DC-Balt, Research Triangle, Bay Area, etc.).
Doing this would also provide debate (and good math opportunities) on what exactly is the true urban core of what we view as a city. So for Greater Boston, with its small city limits, anything over a certain urban threshold higher than the laughable 1,000 ppsm (let's say 5,000 ppsm) in the metropolitan area is really "Boston". That way, we can skirt the thorny issue of arbitraty city limits, and come up with a proportional threshold for what is truly urban (and thus, a "city"). So NYC's threshold might be proportionally higher at 10,000 ppsm, which would kill most of Staten Island (and my simplistic example above), but add in much of Hudson County and Nassau.
Anyhow, the stage is set for the comparison between Chicagoland, the Washington DC-Baltimore region, and the San Francisco Bay Area to duke it out on which one is #3, which one is #4, and which one is #5 here:
With that said, I want to re-direct this thread back to its intended topic, which is a comparison of three different eras of the United States and the top three cities that persisted for the majority of the length in each of those eras. I personally believe that the topic is awesome and its a rare topic that we haven't had any discussions for on this forum before, whereas we have a topic about Top 3 or Top 5 cities and their ordering in terms of influence and power practically every other month (a recycled topic really; boring one too, people saying the same thing for years on end). Personally, I was hoping for more historical tidbits and cool facts about the accomplishments and degree of influence and power demonstrated by America and its top cities in these eras. I wanted the comparison to be profoundly about the eras.
On a personal level, I think each era played a significant role in American history as did each of their top three cities.
In the first era that was based off of New York-Philadelphia-Boston, it was the start of America as a country. These cities become commercial zones in a nation that was still in its infancy and still in the process of establishing itself and proving to its allies and rivals in Europe that it was to be taken seriously. Some of the most influential aspects to this era come in legacy, today we see other nations base their declaration of independence after America, that stage their revolts and resurrections after the example of America, that write constitutions that are influenced, in part or as a whole, by America. The cities also served as major commercial zones; the ports, ships, news and media (like the Pennsylvania Gazette), administrative power, and most forward thinkers were located in these cities. Urban planning in American cities found its start in this era with these specific cities.
The second era expanded on all of these things. As others have mentioned, this was the era in which the United States catapulted itself to a superpower on the world stage. This era was defined by industrialization and the cities grew quite rapidly. Industrialization led to migration to inner cities from rural areas of the United States and urbanization gained a foothold then. America's urban cities were at their peak populations and densities in this era, and the nation led the world in manufacturing capacity and manpower. Like others have mentioned, the era was defined by pivotal world wars, the start of the Cold War and arms race, and the rapid expansion of infrastructure, and the continual expansion of what is today known as the "metropolitan area" via suburbanization.
The current era is more modern. Obviously the big 3 today comprise of a smaller share of the overall United States economic pie and power than compared to previous eras where there were less cities, more concentrated growth and wealth in particular areas, and significantly more centralization in most key industries. However, what it lacks in market share, it makes up in raw numbers. Today's Big 3 are the largest ever in American history, with the largest ever encompassing influence over the globe, and larger economies than all but a small handful or two of the world's countries. Finance, logistics, entertainment, trade and shipping, commodities exchange, among other aspects are widely controlled by these three of today.
Small, brief synopsis but still rather incomplete in total description.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos
If DC-Baltimore and the Bay Area are included at their CSA levels, then it's absolutely "the big 5" with Chicago easily included.
Oh absolutely its among the 5, like many have said the order can go any way depending on who you talk to.
In reference to this thread I would say most powerful big three in history goes back to the birthplace of this nation in the era when NY, Philadelphia, and Boston were the developing meccas of this "new nation".
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.
