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.
I would say the nation that likes to see itself as the A No. #1 King of the Hill, Top of the Heap (which is how its largest city sees itself, too) that is an incredible third in size for both population and area spread over 3000 miles with 330,000,000 folks, must be some kind of a backwater place with only one truly global city.
And maybe we are a backwater. My guess is that a lot of people in London, Tokyo, and Paris think so about a nation that clearly has lost its mind.
What a great country we are! New York is our only global city. LA, our second greatest, is 3000 miles away and only New York is in the same league as London, Tokyo, and Paris.
Yet Europe can put two global cities, London and Paris, a mere 280 miles apart. Where do you get with an approximate 280 miles ride outside of New York? Buffalo.
In a world where the power center has shifted from the North Atlantic to that enormous swath of land from Asia to Europe, the world's true core, we come across comically here in the US as we argue over which one of our cities is the biggest or the best or the most this or the most that. In case you don't recognize it, the rise of the United States and the rise of New York paralleled each other rather nicely. New York's rise to greatness followed the same path as America's. And both indeed truly come of age during the exact same time, the first half of the 20th century, a century whose 1950 midpoint saw the US way up on top of global nations and New York in the post-WWII era with the destruction in Europe and East Asia, way on top of global cities. The US is hardly ascending today. Or standing still. We're backsliding which can't be good for New York. It can't be good for New York to be in a nation where it is the only great city. It can't be great for New York to have to have the mantle of being on top of everything, the world's greatest, more of this and more of that. I would see London as New York's peer. But I don't think London's persona is at all tied into being "the greatest city in the world". For New York, it is part of its persona. For London, not so much.
And it can't be great for New York when it isn't great for cities across America. White collar New York may never have been so great as when blue collar Detroit thrived and pumped out endless automobiles. A diminished Detroit diminished New York.
The US and Europe are both about the same size (of course they beat us on population). According to SnobDudeThink, the US has one truly great global city.
Europe has London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Moscow, among others.
As far as the three cities on the poll, I'd rate them:
New York: fascinating
Los Angeles: fascinating
Chicago: fascinating
You know, it is nice to be a Chicagoan. We are most secure on how great our city is. People from out-of-town tend to love the place, but, you know, what is more important to us is that Chicagoans love the place. So we can love NY and love LA with no sense of insecurity. Yes, we're loud and boisterous, and maybe a tad obnoxious and the "wait till the Chicago people pipe up" definitely has a ring of truth to it. We are homers. True homers. We are a global city, but luckily not enough of a global city that the place isn't our place anymore. Chicago is still ours in a way that New York isn't for New Yorkers or LA for Angelenos.
And Snobish, you sure gave your hometown the shaft. Los Angeles is an alpha global city by any measure. And as far as I am concerned, the Beast in the East and the Best in the West have a lot in common. LA is not in the shadow of NY.
By the Hong Kong, Singapore, NYC, Tokyo London, Paris level countries like Germany, Russia, China proper, and India have 0 global cities so the US having one makes sense in that regard.
And Honestly even Paris might not belong in that group let alone Chicago.
Also backwater is not the only other option from global cities.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Just a few numbers:
2019 Fortune 500, by MSA 1. New York City MSA: 71 companies 2. Chicago MSA: 34 companies
3. Dallas MSA: 23 companies
4. Houston MSA: 22 companies
5T. San Francisco MSA: 19 companies
5T. San Jose MSA: 19 companies
7T. Atlanta MSA: 16 companies
7T. Minneapolis MSA: 16 companies
7T. Washington DC MSA: 16 companies
10T. Boston MSA: 13 companies 10T. Los Angeles MSA: 13 companies
10T. Philadelphia MSA: 13 companies
18T. Los Angeles: 4 companies tied with McLean, VA
2018 Inc 5000 By MSA
1. New York City MSA: 381 companies (+20 companies)
2. Washington DC MSA: 321 companies (-3) 3. Los Angeles MSA: 298 companies (-2)
4. Chicago MSA: 230 companies (+3)
5. Atlanta MSA: 198 companies (-24)
6. Dallas MSA: 181 companies (-4)
7. San Francisco MSA: 158 companies (+36)
8. Boston MSA: 147 companies (no change)
9. Miami MSA: 141 companies (+19)
10. Philadelphia MSA: 132 companies (-11)
2016 MSA By Households Earning $200K+
1. New York MSA: 862,193 households
2. Los Angeles: 420,952
3. Washington DC: 354,749
4. San Francisco: 329,783 5. Chicago: 288,933
6. Boston: 236,073
7. Houston: 201,705
8. Dallas: 194,841
9. Philadelphia: 189,517
10. Seattle: 161,662
2017 Total Personal Income, by MSA
1. NYC MSA: $1,443,163.1 million
2. Los Angeles MSA: $802,394.1 million
3. Chicago MSA: $555,922.4 million
4. DC MSA: $432,558 million
5. San Francisco MSA: $432,359.9 million
6. Dallas MSA: $392,145.5 million
7. Philadelphia MSA: $377,223.1 million
8. Houston MSA: $363,677.1 million
9. Boston MSA: $358,021.1 million
10. Miami MSA: $330,928.7 million
2017 Per Capita Personal Income, by MSA
1. Bridgeport, CT MSA: $110,104
2. San Jose MSA: $96,623
3. San Francisco MSA: $91,459
4. Boston MSA: $74,024 5. NYC MSA: $71,019 (population larger than LA and still in top 5)
6. DC MSA: $69,581
7. Seattle MSA: $69,214
8. Philadelphia MSA: $61,879
9. Hartford, CT MSA: $61,353
10. Santa Rosa, CA MSA: $60,286 11. Los Angeles MSA: $60,087
Asian Educational Attainment (Bachelor's Degree or Higher) In US Cities 500K+ Population
2016 Cities By Educational Attainment Percentage (500K+ Population)
Top 5 Most Populous Cities
12. Chicago: 38.50%
13. NYC: 37.02%
16. Los Angeles: 32.81%
17. Houston: 32.47%
24. Phoenix: 27.91%
There is a gap on paper.
LA often lags behind NY in either raw numbers or percentage across many metrics, so pointing out the larger population base doesn't work in the case of NYC but people will back LA and make an excuse for being larger.
I know posters will come back, talking about airport traffic and which city has the cooler restaurants with nothing else to substantiate their claims that LA is on the same level with NYC. The numbers however never lie. In many cases it's more realistic to say that LA and Chicago both are closer to SF and DC in tier, than they are to NYC. (Which is not a negative thing to say)
Last edited by the resident09; 08-15-2019 at 08:53 AM..
O boy... A lot of people are letting emotions, pride and disdain get in the way of reality on here.
For the record, all 3 cities are indeed global cities filled with culture, history, art, commerce, people, food, and every other metric of what defines a global city.
New York is in a league of its own, along with London, Tokyo and Hong Kong.
I would put Paris in the next tier with Los Angeles. No LA is not an equal to NYC, HOWEVER, that is not a slight toward LA, it is a global city and world power, just not the top dog.
Now Chicago... Personally I think Chicago is Americas "best" city. NYC is more a city of the world, and LA does not have as many traditional "city" characteristics. Chicago (to me) is a true American showcase that represents the best aspects of a big urban city.
From a global standpoint, many US cities have those characteristics including Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc. BUT from a sheer influence standpoint, I would add Miami and San Fran to the main group due.
Washington DC is the nations capital, and is very important, however, I don't see it in the top group (yet), I know many will disagree with me, but you aren't changing my mind.
Lastly, someone explain to me how Houston would qualify as a peer of Chicago. Please do not cite economic stats or ranking, I want to know why people think that. I do not see it, but maybe I view global qualities differently...
I wish people would stop taking offense to these rankings. Just because a city is not equal to New York or London doesn't make it crap... Some of my favorite cities in the world are not what I would consider global elites.
Last edited by cpomp; 08-15-2019 at 08:58 AM..
Reason: edit
New York is Jordan. L.A. is Lebron. Chicago is Kobe.
Jordan and Lebron have different enough games where fans might prefer one over the other. Do you value scoring or passing? In the NYC (Jordan) vs LA (Lebron) matchup, it's more about whether you prefer a modern marvel of civil engineering to the contrast of a gritty, urban behemoth situated in paradise. There are good arguments on both sides though more favor NYC, just as more favor Jordan in basketball.
Chicago is like Kobe in that it is about an 80-85% facsimile of what NYC (Jordan) is. They do pretty much the same things, only NYC (Jordan) does them all better. Who in their right mind takes Kobe over Jordan?
I can't stop laughing my ass off at the assertion that Los Angeles isn't close to NY's level, while in the same response documenting that many American cities havent yet peaked. The hilarity...
LA for sure hasn't yet peaked and has gained ground as a global power in a way few cities here have ever done in such a short period. I don't think anybody will argue that Los Angeles is still behind New York, but the gap is without a doubt smaller in reality than CD Land would have one believe...
CD never fails to show its city inferiority complex, no more than when guys disparage LA. It's the #2 city here by a virtual consensus and people really don't like that LA has hopscotched all of the older and earlier developed cities in the nation to get there, some of which arguably have peaked....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago_Person
Yeah. Cus a city that's 1/3 mexican and 1/3 african american is all Iowans and Wisconsinites
I'm certain that there are black and hispanic people in Iowa and Wisconson, and I'm sure plenty of them move to Chicago, too. But what's the point? Since when do black people, many of whom come from families that have been Americans longer than white Chicagoans, make a city global? And Chicago's nearly monolithic Latino population--Mexican, specifically--is quite unlike the rich mix of Latino diversity found in Houston, Miami, and New York, where Dominicans and Cubans and Puerto Ricans and Mexicans ans Venezuelans and even Spanish all make up Latino populations. Instead or bolstering the claim that Chicago is a global city, that its foreign born population is overwhelmingly from one country (that borders the US) actually demonstrates the insularity and non-international characteristic of the city.
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.
