Which US is the most regionally dominant? (best, state, better)

[edsg25]

Which US city would get the title of "the most dominant in region"?

For this question, I am going to divide the US into four regions:

• Northeast

• South

• Midwest

• West

For each of these regions, I will list some (not necessarily all) major cities to define the parameters of each region:

• Northeast: Boston, Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington

• South: Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, Louisville, Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin

• Midwest: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City

• West: Denver, Salt Lake, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle

I will include a survey. In an effort not to tip the survey in any particular directions, I will include all the cities above although many, of course, do not fit the category of "regionally dominant"

[SkyDog77]

Disagree with 4 regions.

There is the Coastal West and the Rocky Mountain West. They are two very different regions.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Disagree with 4 regions.

There is the Coastal West and the Rocky Mountain West. They are two very different regions.

I agree. One could also say the Mid-Atlantic and New England should count as separate regions. Or that the Midwest should be divided into the Great Lakes and Great Plains. Also, a "Southwest" should be given, pulling int the area from Texas to Arizona. And on and on.

Obviously there is no correct way to divide here and my divisions are in no way "correct" but were subjective (as all would be).

That said, I was operating on the idea that 4 would be the smallest number of regions one could divide the United States into. Basically that gives you North, South, East, and West......two of which names I used while I labeled "East" as "Northeast" and "North" as "Midwest".

Sky, I'm glad you brought that up on the first response as it needed to be emphasized that other divisions than the way I divided are every bit as appropriate. Just keep my "4" in mind here.

[Waterboy526]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I agree. One could also say the Mid-Atlantic and New England should count as separate regions. Or that the Midwest should be divided into the Great Lakes and Great Plains. Also, a "Southwest" should be given, pulling int the area from Texas to Arizona. And on and on.

Obviously there is no correct way to divide here and my divisions are in no way "correct" but were subjective (as all would be).

That said, I was operating on the idea that 4 would be the smallest number of regions one could divide the United States into. Basically that gives you North, South, East, and West......two of which names I used while I labeled "East" as "Northeast" and "North" as "Midwest".

Sky, I'm glad you brought that up on the first response as it needed to be emphasized that other divisions than the way I divided are every bit as appropriate. Just keep my "4" in mind here.

Also, the South is SO Huge. Texas and Virginia are more than halfway across the country from each other.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by Waterboy526

Also, the South is SO Huge. Texas and Virginia are more than halfway across the country from each other.

On the other hand, Texarkana is closer to Virginia than it is to El Paso.

The OP's regions make perfect sense as they mostly coincide with the USCB which is the most official thing we have to go by.

With that said, I feel like this topic has been done several times and Chicago is the obvious answer. Los Angeles competes with the Bay, Atlanta with three other larger cities (whether they want to admit it or not), and while New York is one of the most dominant cities on the globe, within its region are two other incredibly important cities including our nation's capital. But in the Midwest there is only one giant with no close second in size or influence.

[SteelCityRising]

I voted:

New York (NE)
Chicago (MW)
Los Angeles (W)
Atlanta (S)

In my eyes the only debatable one there is Atlanta, as I could easily see arguments for Miami, Houston, or Dallas being more important/dominant regionally. As a Northerner when I hear "the South" my mind pictures Atlanta to be the focal point.

[Felt38]

I agree with the OP that the largest level, or tier, of regions is the four he mentioned. After that, the next level, or tier 2 would be sub-regions. For example, the west could be divided into the Intermountain West, Pacific NW, Greater California, and the Southwest. Tier 3 would be sub-regions of those.


With the number of cities mentioned in the OP, it might be better to look at the sub regions, but anyway here are mine:


WEST - Denver (Intermountain West undisputed champ, LA and SF are too focused on their global brand others don't have the same reach across the region)
MIDWEST - Chicago (hands down)
South
SOUTH - Atlanta (Dallas is a close competitor, Houston is too focused on its global energy brand, Miami is not really southern culturally)
NORTHEAST - NYC (it just overwhelms on a global, national and regional level)

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Minneapolis because it is by far the largest city for many miles around. It's the largest city along the Northern tier of states between Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver and Seattle.

Chicago is the dominate city in the Midwest, but there are many other big metro areas nearby Chicago, such as Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinatti, and Cleveland, that diminishes the importance of Chicago as a regional draw within a 300 or so mile radius. So, that's my reasoning for picking Minneapolis and not Chicago.

Denver might even be more isolated than Minneapolis. It's the largest metro between Kansas City, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Albequerque, DFW and Okahoma City.

Memphis is the most centrally located of Southern cities. It's the place where rock and roll, country music and the blues meet. It's also one of the most isolated big cities in the South.

I never been to the Northeast, but I think I would vote for New York City because it is so huge and because it is centrally located between Boston and Washington DC. I thought maybe Buffalo might be most isolated in the NE but then my next thought is Buffalo is too near other large metros, Toronto, Syracuse, Rochester, Pittsburgh and Cleveland to be a dominant city in it's region.

[Trafalgar Law]

I think the answer is New York and then Chicago. New York's metropolitan area is 40% of the Northeast's population, by far the most dominant share among all cities in contention at least if we go solely off of just the 4 census regions of Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.

It's pull on GDP is even higher than that and its accumulated wealth is far higher than even that. It has the largest collection of private corporations and capital resources. The most extensive and utilized transportation network across all modes. It is the home of the United Nations. It has a large stock of colleges and universities both in the city and in the metropolitan region, some of them among the best on the planet. It is the center of so many industries. It is the most identifiable city brand in the United States. It is the largest tourist destination in the United States and the largest immigrant gateway. This all spells dominance. Then when you broaden out to its CSA, it's even more dominant than it was as an MSA, which is hard to do, but New York is capable of doing anything.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

For the Mountain West it's Denver. It's the only real major city in the whole time zone, and its range of influence extends from New Mexico on up into Montana. We got loads of Broncos fans in ABQ.