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.
Unreal that Boston is winning this by such a large margin. I’m fine with the city being number 6 (I would’ve chosen Philly), but to be so far ahead of Philadelphia and Houston is absurd.
I mean everyone that voted for Boston could have also considered Philly and Houston. It just means that Boston won out for a much larger number of people, but it might have been a very close call for those people it just happened to make it. TBH when i voted I was torn between those three and Boston won because it ranks higher/is more influential/important in enough areas for it to win for me.
I mean everyone that voted for Boston could have also considered Philly and Houston. It just means that Boston won out for a much larger number of people, but it might have been a very close call for those people it just happened to make it. TBH when i voted I was torn between those three and Boston won because it ranks higher/is more influential/important in enough areas for it to win for me.
4 - 10 are effectively tied. everyones ranking is just based on preferences.
I understand that this is City-Data Forum and if I don't like said topic, I should just ignore it and not post on it. I don't mean this as snarky, offensive or rude to anybody but why is pitting cities against each other a thing that is always done here?
Comparing and contrasting is great! Similarities and differences - great! But why does everybody always like to make lists of the best cities ranked. I get the impression that everybody has an axe to grind; either to praise their city or degrade a city they dislike - an extension of people's egos? It seems almost like when there were 13 colonies; instead of trying to belittle, one up and degrade another place, acknowledge that each are justifiably important in their own way.
Sorry for rant, I didn't vote. These cities each have their strengths that could merit them. It's like a pendulum, a city can be high ranked now, and not later, but are they less important because of their rank? Their history birthed something new either for itself or another city....
I understand that this is City-Data Forum and if I don't like said topic, I should just ignore it and not post on it. I don't mean this as snarky, offensive or rude to anybody but why is pitting cities against each other a thing that is always done here?
Comparing and contrasting is great! Similarities and differences - great! But why does everybody always like to make lists of the best cities ranked. I get the impression that everybody has an axe to grind; either to praise their city or degrade a city they dislike - an extension of people's egos? It seems almost like when there were 13 colonies; instead of trying to belittle, one up and degrade another place, acknowledge that each are justifiably important in their own way.
Sorry for rant, I didn't vote. These cities each have their strengths that could merit them. It's like a pendulum, a city can be high ranked now, and not later, but are they less important because of their rank? Their history birthed something new either for itself or another city....
Are you aware of the name of this subforum?
As far as this thread goes, cities are regularly ranked by certain metrics that tell us how they are composed and how they are performing in specific categories. A thread like this is essentially asking us to weigh these factors with respect to the cities under consideration and then make a determination as to how they would rank in terms of overall importance and significance. But simply coming up with lists dosen't mean the cities that people rank towards the bottom are being denigrated or belittled; it's just saying that most things considered, this is how they believe a reasonable ranking would look. There's absolutely nothing wrong in recognizing degrees of importance and significance among cities...everyone doesn't have to get a participation trophy here.
I understand that this is City-Data Forum and if I don't like said topic, I should just ignore it and not post on it. I don't mean this as snarky, offensive or rude to anybody but why is pitting cities against each other a thing that is always done here?
Comparing and contrasting is great! Similarities and differences - great! But why does everybody always like to make lists of the best cities ranked. I get the impression that everybody has an axe to grind; either to praise their city or degrade a city they dislike - an extension of people's egos? It seems almost like when there were 13 colonies; instead of trying to belittle, one up and degrade another place, acknowledge that each are justifiably important in their own way.
Sorry for rant, I didn't vote. These cities each have their strengths that could merit them. It's like a pendulum, a city can be high ranked now, and not later, but are they less important because of their rank? Their history birthed something new either for itself or another city....
why do baseball gnurds host fantasy baseball drafts ?
As far as this thread goes, cities are regularly ranked by certain metrics that tell us how they are composed and how they are performing in specific categories. A thread like this is essentially asking us to weigh these factors with respect to the cities under consideration and then make a determination as to how they would rank in terms of overall importance and significance. But simply coming up with lists dosen't mean the cities that people rank towards the bottom are being denigrated or belittled; it's just saying that most things considered, this is how they believe a reasonable ranking would look. There's absolutely nothing wrong in recognizing degrees of importance and significance among cities...everyone doesn't have to get a participation trophy here.
I'm not saying everyone should get a participation trophy and yes, I am aware that the subforum is called City vs City. I understand that lists are commonly done, but what I also see on this site in particular is how CRITICAL people are when determining their view of what is more important. This number 6, 7, 8, etc business - ARGUING about why Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston or Seattle should be placed where. Have your opinions and do your rankings, but does everyone have to argue and be sarcastic with other forum posters who don't share the same opinion? That is what I see happen everytime these rankings happen.
I'm not saying everyone should get a participation trophy and yes, I am aware that the subforum is called City vs City. I understand that lists are commonly done, but what I also see on this site in particular is how CRITICAL people are when determining their view of what is more important. This number 6, 7, 8, etc business - ARGUING about why Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston or Seattle should be placed where. Have your opinions and do your rankings, but does everyone have to argue and be sarcastic with other forum posters who don't share the same opinion? That is what I see happen everytime these rankings happen.
I mean everyone that voted for Boston could have also considered Philly and Houston. It just means that Boston won out for a much larger number of people, but it might have been a very close call for those people it just happened to make it. TBH when i voted I was torn between those three and Boston won because it ranks higher/is more influential/important in enough areas for it to win for me.
That makes no logical sense.Boston won by such a large nargin because this is what people see as appropriate.What does houston and Philly jave that Dallas or Atlanta lack?There is simply not as much distinction as there is with Boston betewwn the rest.
Dallas.Houston and Atlanta are in a virtual tie.I have no issue with Boston winning as I also picked it but this constant back and forth with Phily only trailing is what I find ridiculous.
In no way are these scientific polls but I think its exactly what was asked.Philly just doesnt command a prominence in many peoples eye.I have constantly defended Philly when it is mentioned by the many people I meet due to my business and its unusually not so pleasant or at best a just ok response.
Sure it has a lot but the cities that its competing with are attracting a plethora of industries and and a ,multitude of companies with with huge brand identities and recognition on some level or another.
Boston has the research from its universities that gives it a HUGE edge in the fields of science,tech,medicine and not the least higher education in itself.
The world of finance is what makes the world turn and Boston is far ahead of all these cities.Boston is the only city of top global financial centers ranking 25th in the world.None of the other cities are listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global..._Centres_Index
Venture Capitol is a good indicator as well.Boston again is way ahead. Dallas and Atlanta are next. Then Philly with Houston way below the other cities.An abysmal amount thats not even close to the others.
Where Philly really shines for obvious reasons is in its higher education and aseptically medical related fields.
Houston does well is in NIH funding followed by Atlanta also. Dallas gets a lot less with Boston once again showing out with more funding than NYC.Its actually number one in the US.
When taking all this into consideration Boston clearly is way ahead.The most surprising thing is that Houston and Philly seem to be the least consistent and competitive in many of the key sectors I mentioned.
Dallas with Atlanta trading places but in many of the sectors mentioned they at least make a showing whereas Philly and Houston do not always do so.
Philly like Seattle with the exception in which Seattle ranks consistently high in all these sectors, doesnt have a huge corporate portfolio like Dallas,Houston or Atlanta.
The entertainment sector is often ignored because its very nuanced industry.Every city will not hae such a significant presence.Yet it shouldn't be ignored as its a level of influence that people are quick dismiss if its not NYC or LA.
Atlanta out of all these cities is a player.Not a leader but a player.None of the other cities with the exception of Miami is a player.Miami however is a geared to one demographic and its role is limited.
With its film and tv industry along with its prominence in the music industry,it stands out among these on a much higher level where the others just dont have such an industry presence.
All this said ,the truth is all these cities are newcomers with the exception of Boston. I didnt mention Philly as Philly like Boston are cities of prominence historically but Boston still has prominence based on its many leading sectors of which Philly simply doesnt have as many..
Just because a city is old dosent mean its prominent in terms of metrics cities these days are vying to lead in.
Now I personally would pick Dallas or Atlanta before Houston or Philly but I can see why some would say Philly as well but honesty I think most people dont realize just how much cities like Houston,Dallas and Atlanta are and have matured in so many areas
That makes no logical sense.Boston won by such a large nargin because this is what people see as appropriate.What does houston and Philly jave that Dallas or Atlanta lack?There is simply not as much distinction as there is with Boston betewwn the rest.
Dallas.Houston and Atlanta are in a virtual tie.I have no issue with Boston winning as I also picked it but this constant back and forth with Phily only trailing is what I find ridiculous.
In no way are these scientific polls but I think its exactly what was asked.Philly just doesnt command a prominence in many peoples eye.I have constantly defended Philly when it is mentioned by the many people I meet due to my business and its unusually not so pleasant or at best a just ok response.
Sure it has a lot but the cities that its competing with are attracting a plethora of industries and and a ,multitude of companies with with huge brand identities and recognition on some level or another.
Boston has the research from its universities that gives it a HUGE edge in the fields of science,tech,medicine and not the least higher education in itself.
The world of finance is what makes the world turn and Boston is far ahead of all these cities.Boston is the only city of top global financial centers ranking 25th in the world.None of the other cities are listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global..._Centres_Index
Venture Capitol is a good indicator as well.Boston again is way ahead. Dallas and Atlanta are next. Then Philly with Houston way below the other cities.An abysmal amount thats not even close to the others.
Where Philly really shines for obvious reasons is in its higher education and aseptically medical related fields.
Houston does well is in NIH funding followed by Atlanta also. Dallas gets a lot less with Boston once again showing out with more funding than NYC.Its actually number one in the US.
When taking all this into consideration Boston clearly is way ahead.The most surprising thing is that Houston and Philly seem to be the least consistent and competitive in many of the key sectors I mentioned.
Dallas with Atlanta trading places but in many of the sectors mentioned they at least make a showing whereas Philly and Houston do not always do so.
Philly like Seattle with the exception in which Seattle ranks consistently high in all these sectors, doesnt have a huge corporate portfolio like Dallas,Houston or Atlanta.
The entertainment sector is often ignored because its very nuanced industry.Every city will not hae such a significant presence.Yet it shouldn't be ignored as its a level of influence that people are quick dismiss if its not NYC or LA.
Atlanta out of all these cities is a player.Not a leader but a player.None of the other cities with the exception of Miami is a player.Miami however is a geared to one demographic and its role is limited.
With its film and tv industry along with its prominence in the music industry,it stands out among these on a much higher level where the others just dont have such an industry presence.
All this said ,the truth is all these cities are newcomers with the exception of Boston. I didnt mention Philly as Philly like Boston are cities of prominence historically but Boston still has prominence based on its many leading sectors of which Philly simply doesnt have as many..
Just because a city is old dosent mean its prominent in terms of metrics cities these days are vying to lead in.
Now I personally would pick Dallas or Atlanta before Houston or Philly but I can see why some would say Philly as well but honesty I think most people dont realize just how much cities like Houston,Dallas and Atlanta are and have matured in so many areas
I wouldn't trust the Atlanta votes on here. Did you see the #7 thread created today? It was ruined by posters from Atlanta creating fake profiles and adding votes for Atlanta. It's a good thing the thread was open voting so we could see which city was faking votes. I'm sure it happened here too.
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.
