Top 50 Most Influential US Urban Areas (cost, better, largest, cons)

[kimumingyu]

I think this is a more accurate top 15:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. San Francisco Bay Area
4. Chicago
5. Washington DC
6. Dallas-Fort Worth
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Philadelphia
10. Atlanta
11. Seattle
12. Miami
13. Detroit
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul
15. Phoenix

Personally I find OP's list to have Boston and Philly too high and Houston and especially Dallas too low. Also, SF Bay Area should be 3rd above Chicago, but DC is 5th and there's no real metrics out there that would put it ahead of Chicago.

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by kimumingyu

I think this is a more accurate top 15:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. San Francisco Bay Area
4. Chicago
5. Washington DC
6. Dallas-Fort Worth
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Philadelphia
10. Atlanta
11. Seattle
12. Miami
13. Detroit
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul
15. Phoenix

Personally I find OP's list to have Boston and Philly too high and Houston and especially Dallas too low. Also, SF Bay Area should be 3rd above Chicago, but DC is 5th and there's no real metrics out there that would put it ahead of Chicago.

Houston and Dallas above Boston, Philly, Atlanta??

SF Above Chicago?
Phoenix at 15? What has Phoenix done?

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by kimumingyu

I think this is a more accurate top 15:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. San Francisco Bay Area
4. Chicago
5. Washington DC
6. Dallas-Fort Worth
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Philadelphia
10. Atlanta
11. Seattle
12. Miami
13. Detroit
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul
15. Phoenix

Personally I find OP's list to have Boston and Philly too high and Houston and especially Dallas too low. Also, SF Bay Area should be 3rd above Chicago, but DC is 5th and there's no real metrics out there that would put it ahead of Chicago.

The OP is defining the most influential cities by "socioeconomic, political, cultural, financial, historical factors."

With those criteria I'd put Chicago after both SF and Washington DC, as it doesn't surpass either in any of those factors other than arguably financial. Now if it's on pure size and city scale, that nod would go to Chicago, but the OP doesn't list that.

[mhays25]

You could argue that essential infrastructure is the biggest thing...how much danger or logistical damage would be done if a metro area reverted to nature. St. Louis for example...locks on the Mississippi and six major interstates... And Chicago of course.

Corporate HQs have a big leadership role, but most big companies are organized to continue operations after a disaster knocks out their main city.

Military would be big. Metros with essential roles would be hard to replace...one-of-a-kind places and others with big-region responsibility...Norfolk and the Atlantic for example.

Lately, we've learned that we can go without certain things. How would you rank a place that has a huge role in something we really want but can use less in a pinch? Food production/distribution is essential but if we had half the oil we'd be fine, even if heavily disrupted.

Of course we can do without any city's role in entertainment. Other cities can pick up the slack.

Or all of that can be wrong under another set of criteria.

[kimumingyu]

Originally Posted by the resident09

The OP is defining the most influential cities by "socioeconomic, political, cultural, financial, historical factors."

With those criteria I'd put Chicago after both SF and Washington DC, as it doesn't surpass either in any of those factors other than arguably financial. Now if it's on pure size and city scale, that nod would go to Chicago, but the OP doesn't list that.

Even with those criteria, hard disagree on DC being above Chicago. Being the capital and therefore ranking high in political and historical factors doesn't negate the fact that Chicago has been a much more important city for a much longer time than DC.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by kimumingyu

Even with those criteria, hard disagree on DC being above Chicago. Being the capital and therefore ranking high in political and historical factors doesn't negate the fact that Chicago has been a much more important city for a much longer time than DC.

I understand that, but that doesn't change where things are today in the United States of America. The country is run from the coasts honestly, whether it be media, policy, etc. It could be strongly argued that either Washington or San Francisco have more influence of the trajectory of the nation than Chicago, although it's still close and Chicago holds it's weight still to this day. This is all nitpicking the top order really, but the rest of your list had some places I would shuffle around as well.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by kimumingyu

Personally I find OP's list to have Boston and Philly too high and Houston and especially Dallas too low. Also, SF Bay Area should be 3rd above Chicago, but DC is 5th and there's no real metrics out there that would put it ahead of Chicago.

If SF gets to be “the Bay Area”, then Boston should get to be “Greater Boston”. By CSA, Boston does have a higher GDP than Dallas or Houston per this post on this thread.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

If SF gets to be “the Bay Area”, then Boston should get to be “Greater Boston”. By CSA, Boston does have a higher GDP than Dallas or Houston per this post on this thread.

Yes, and by CSA SF Bay Area, and DC-Baltimore region both have higher GDP, than Chicago.

[Swandaddy]

I think it's so dependent on what field you're in, and what level of influence are you looking for -- regional, national, or global. I feel like putting DC above Chicago on the influence scale simply b/c DC is the capital and in so many fields the influence happens there.


Likewise, Bay Area is more influential in tech.


But Chicago's strength comes in its diversity of spheres of influence -- in an area that gets too often neglected on these boards Chicago performs incredibly well at and that is healthcare. The American Medical Association, American Dental Association, ACGME, ASA, and MANY other health care societies/organizations are headquarted in Chicago. How much weight should be given to that level of influence? Chicago is also strong in finance, very strong in architecture, competent in tech, solid/strong in the creative scene/arts.



Chicago's central location is also an asset -- quite a few occasions I've run into people in different fields who are based in Chicago because it's an easy place to be based when you know you may have a 10AM meeting in New York one day and then a 10AM meeting in LA the next day.


So, NY/LA get one and two, but then 3-5 or 6 or so is definitely a toss up based on what is considered influential.

[Bobdreamz]

I know I will get hate for this but is Philly worthy of being in the Top 10? Miami should at least be #10 considering it's importance when it comes to International trade & finance in the Western Hemisphere.