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.
Definitely Chicago. The cities in the Northeast are all pretty close to the monster that is NYC-but the other cities-Philly, Boston, Baltimore, DC-are well defined and completely separate entities. Each city/region being so unique despite the proximity shows this.
I think the knee-jerk reaction is Chicago, but people forget that the Midwest is like mid-sized city mecca. So many cities around the 2-4 million people range. I mean you have Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Milwaukee. The East Coast doesn't have as many mid-sized big cities, it has a lot of cities in the 5-6 million range, but they are far fewer. Also the Midwest is so geographically big, I feel that there is a lot more cultural variation between the cities than the East Coast. New York seems to have much more cultural influence on other cities in the region than Chicago does in the Midwest.
*Also I think you are more likely to find people in the Midwest that have never been to Chicago than you are to find people on the East Coast that have never been to New York. A person from Philadelphia or Boston will probably have been to New York multiple times, maybe even multiple times in one year. Outside of Milwaukee, most Midwesterner may have been to Chicago once (if it all).
Definitely Chicago. The cities in the Northeast are all pretty close to the monster that is NYC-but the other cities-Philly, Boston, Baltimore, DC-are well defined and completely separate entities. Each city/region being so unique despite the proximity shows this.
Midwestern cities are just as unique if not more unique from each other than East Coast cities. Trust me Philly and Bmore have way more in common than Kansas City and Detroit or St. Louis and Minneapolis. In fact, St. Louis may be more similar to Baltimore than Minneapolis, but that is a whole different story.
Definitely. Yes, NYC dominates the East Coast, but there are some heavy hitters there as well. Sure, LA is the biggest city on the West Coast, but the Bay Area is the tech capital of the world. Southeast? Which city dominates there - Houston? Atlanta? Hard to say. And then there's the Midwest where Chicago literally and figuratively towers over all. What other city even comes close?
While Dallas and Houston and Miami are technically larger, I feel Atlanta is more connected with more of the South culturally, politically and economically than the other 3.
Always curious about this question...I am in the DMV and am supposedly dominated by NYC...I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...I know I don't see it all in my day to day existence..is that because DMV is on the North-South borderline?...do people in Philly and Boston feel dominated by NYC?...or is this one of those things that population and other stats reveal that have no connection to everyday life?
I have no idea how Chicago is running away with this. Chicago really doesn't have much influence on "the midwest" outside of Milwaukee. Seriously. Goat 314 is exactly right. This makes no sense to me.
People form Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc have very little to do with Chicago. I think it's very likely that many people from these cities have been to New York more than Chicago.
These results obviously have been coming from people who have not lived in the "midwest."
Chicago really stands head and shoulders above the rest of the Midwest.
How so? I really don't have any idea. Chicago has very little influence on the midwest. Minneapolis dominates Minnesota. Detroit dominates Michigan. St. Louis and KC split Missouri. Ohio is cut up into really 5 distinct zones: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit/Toledo, and you could even argue Pittsburgh.
Very little justification is given. City data forums just think "oh hey the midwest is boring but Chicago isn't so obvi Chicago."
I have no idea how Chicago is running away with this. Chicago really doesn't have much influence on "the midwest" outside of Milwaukee. Seriously. Goat 314 is exactly right. This makes no sense to me.
People form Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc have very little to do with Chicago. I think it's very likely that many people from these cities have been to New York more than Chicago.
These results obviously have been coming from people who have not lived in the "midwest."
So what other city on the list would be the option above Chicago? Not saying Chicago is the king of owning its region, but given the options there are really only a few choices to go with.
New York for sure on the east coast, but you have many other 5M-6M sized metros, which are elite powerhouses of their own that offer up a high standard of urban living and very strong economies. They shine on the national stage.
Yes NY has the most people, but Boston, Philly and DC are also very prominent cities in their own right.
The Midwest has other large cities like Minneapolis and Detroit, but really for the power that Chicago punches, just in the urban city itself, it's presence on the national scene and its economy - it seems to have its head clearly above the others in its grouping.
That doesn't mean everyone in the Midwest looks up to and drools at Chicago, it just means that given the wider country and world in general, which city in which region tends to be the one at the top, and how far above the others is it?
I would probably say Chicago, just given how I thought of the question in my explanation above.
How so? I really don't have any idea. Chicago has very little influence on the midwest. Minneapolis dominates Minnesota. Detroit dominates Michigan. St. Louis and KC split Missouri. Ohio is cut up into really 5 distinct zones: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit/Toledo, and you could even argue Pittsburgh.
Very little justification is given. City data forums just think "oh hey the midwest is boring but Chicago isn't so obvi Chicago."
Very true. In fact, Chicago doesn't even culturally dominate all of Illinois. When people in Southern and much of Western Illinois say they are going to the "big city" for a baseball game, they are talking about the St. Louis Cardinals. The capital of Illinois (Springfield) is closer to St. Louis than Chicago.
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.
