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.
Ah, yes — this list comes from the Resonance Consultancy, whose work I believe is high on style and not so high on substance.
I need to go back into the website to see if I can find the methodology for the various lists. I did download a copy of their "America's Best Cities" report this year and noted the alliterative categories they used to measure cities' performance.
I note with some amusement that on its ranking of America's 100 best cities, #13 Philadelphia ranks above #16 San Diego, while on the list of the world's 100 best cities, #51 San Diego ranks above #68 Philadelphia. Now, I'm willing to grant that on a ranking of world cities, a city that might score highly on domestic performance metrics might also score worse on those that measure its connectedness to the world beyond its home country, so this may not be as much of a head-scratcher as I have just made it out to be. I'd have to look at the methodology for the world cities list to know for sure.
Ah, yes — this list comes from the Resonance Consultancy, whose work I believe is high on style and not so high on substance.
I need to go back into the website to see if I can find the methodology for the various lists. I did download a copy of their "America's Best Cities" report this year and noted the alliterative categories they used to measure cities' performance.
I note with some amusement that on its ranking of America's 100 best cities, #13 Philadelphia ranks above #16 San Diego, while on the list of the world's 100 best cities, #51 San Diego ranks above #68 Philadelphia. Now, I'm willing to grant that on a ranking of world cities, a city that might score highly on domestic performance metrics might also score worse on those that measure its connectedness to the world beyond its home country, so this may not be as much of a head-scratcher as I have just made it out to be. I'd have to look at the methodology for the world cities list to know for sure.
Makes sense. That top 10 alone is just a googled list of the most famous cities lmao
Ah, yes — this list comes from the Resonance Consultancy, whose work I believe is high on style and not so high on substance.
.
If we got to substance it'd be even worse for Chicago. As weve seen on this thread just empirically.
I think its fair to say "style" is somewhat of a proxy for stature. Or stop me if im wrong.
Also do I have to go back to the 5 other list i posted that all came to the same conclusion..at some point every list or objective measurement cant be stupid.
A *somewhat* (though not overly) interesting topic for a thread has metastasized into a blathering contest. Chicago is *probably* closer in stature to Boston, merely because of size. But as far as scope, vibrancy, cultural offerings, transportation, etc., feels much closer to NYC. Why are the Boston posters so offended and hell-bent on bringing Chicago down to its level? Not a good look.
A *somewhat* (though not overly) interesting topic for a thread has metastasized into a blathering contest. Chicago is *probably* closer in stature to Boston, merely because of size. But as far as scope, vibrancy, cultural offerings, transportation, etc., feels much closer to NYC. Why are the Boston posters so offended and hell-bent on bringing Chicago down to its level? Not a good look.
Because there's not a fiber in my body that believes Chicago is closer to NYC. New York is so incredibly far ahead of any US city… I don't really think that Chicago is much more vibrant or has way more cultural offering than Boston. More vibrant where and how? Like compare Wacker Drive to Times Square there's is no comparison.
Infinitely closer to Downtown Crossing or Newbury Street or the Esplanade in pace and just # of people.
Cultural offerings is probably one area where Chicago and Boston are closest.its not Hollywood, there's no Julliard, no Met, it's not really a sports hub like Vegas Indy or Boston, no Smithsonian, there's not even the film presence and cultural presence I think that Atlanta has. Boston has immense cultural offerings for its size because it's an older and more international CITY with an abundance of highly rated museums, performance venues, and curated intelligent speakers at universities and diverse neighborhood events at all times. So I don't see what you're saying.
Transportation- Boston might be ahead of Chicago- those numbers were shared. Boston has a higher percentage of rider ship and very close to the same amount of track. Boston is at least as close to NYC there. Neither Boston nor Chicago is anywhere close to NYC though.
It's not bringing it down if you really believe it's already there. And frankly, it already is there objectively. Look be damned, really. And there's maybe a dozen lists from non-Bostonians literally the world over that say as much.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 11-28-2023 at 11:34 AM..
Simply put, Chicago's 2.7 million population puts it closer in number to Boston, but the odds of a city that large at that density ever even occurring put it closer to NYC.
Same with the metro area.
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.
