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.
Providence is pretty big for a city smaller than Boston as well. I imagine Providence would be even more important, if Boston didn't exist.
And for those who doubt Denver, just look at migration patterns that show many who used to live in say like Kansas City and Omaha, did decide to try living in Denver. I'd say Denver is probably even more important for that region, vs. even say like Boston and Atlanta. Where at least for Boston and Atlanta, there are more smaller cities that still have some lesser influence. Finally for Denver, there aren't as many smaller cities one can easily drive to for a break from that city, unlike Boston and Atlanta. Though I'm sure Denver would not be bad to live in, if one loved skiing and/or hiking.
Providence has a weak economy that why I didnt mention it. Its economic presence doesnt lead to thriving or attractive or notable New Bedford Fall River and Woonsocket...
And of course without Boston Lowell Lawrence Manchester Lynn and Cambridge suffer.
Cambridge doesnt have the port or land area Boston has and so who knows if it would have ever become what it is today. Or if it could sustain its level of prosperity even if it were still there.
I think the hangup that most people are having on here is the fact that Atlanta isn't the only major city in its region. Boston and Denver each poise themselves as their respective regional capitals. In the South, Atlanta has come competition. However, it still plays a major role in the deep south as a media, entertainment, sports, business, transportation, etc... hub.
All I know is, Atlanta is a regional powerhouse for the south/deep south. There's no denying that!
Yea no one is trying to deny that though lol.
Boston and Denver are more singular in their dominance over their regions- there's no denying that.
It's a mathematical reality. from a GDP/population standpoint.
If you want to say Boston has more influence in its small region versus Atlanta and a huge region, ok. But if you draw a 300-mile radius around both cities and say who has more influence in that region, I'm going with Atlanta.
If you did the second, you’d be asking a different question than the one in the OP.
For better or worse, Boston’s region is specified to be New England and not the Northeast. With that in mind, it’s amazing that Boston’s losing the poll. I’m guessing many voted without reading.
If you did the second, you’d be asking a different question than the one in the OP.
For better or worse, Boston’s region is specified to be New England and not the Northeast. With that in mind, it’s amazing that Boston’s losing the poll. I’m guessing many voted without reading.
Sir you forgot Mississipi. And thats 24 Million people and includes New Orleans..
ATL is the least dominant city for its region of these three. Clearly
You all tryna blow by NOLA HOUSTON TAMPA HUNTSVILLE CHARLOTTE (literally on the border of SC) MEMPHIS and NASHVILLE.
Its actually 100% absurd to me.
Sir if you looked through this thread, you would have seen that I acknowledged that I forgot MS. But still, New England is too small a region to compare to the deep south. New England is set in stone, there are many opinions on what the deep south is. And your adding cities that most people don't consider the deep south. If we go solely by states like you would for New England, then the deep south would only be SC, GA, AL, MS, and LA. And some people don't consider SC or LA to be the deep south either.
Sir if you looked through this thread, you would have seen that I acknowledged that I forgot MS. But still, New England is too small a region to compare to the deep south.
But thats what the parameters are bro Thats just what it is.
Why are you trying to change the definition of the thread?
The New York CSA has 945,000 people who live in New England in it.
Not even counting cities within the most conservative possible definition of the Deep south (LA, MS, AL, GA, SC) like Birmingham, New Orleans, Columbia, Savannah, Etc.
Charlotte, Memphis and Jacksonville have that population eating away at the edges of the Deep South.
And if you have the nerve to consider a place like Arkansas the Deep South or maybe even Memphis, TN proper, it look real bleak for Atlanta.
Similarly the Rockies stretch thru Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico and possibly AZ. Santa Fe, SLC, Bozeman, or Boise have nothing to do with Denver.
This is a rigged poll Boston is losing despite literally every single objective statistic pointing in its direction
I think the hangup that most people are having on here is the fact that Atlanta isn't the only major city in its region. Boston and Denver each poise themselves as their respective regional capitals. In the South, Atlanta has come competition. However, it still plays a major role in the deep south as a media, entertainment, sports, business, transportation, etc... hub.
If you think that because Atlanta has to compete with Nashville/Charlotte/whoever is a mark against them, then don't vote for Atlanta!
My job is not to define regions and sub-regions. If you want to debate East Texas' and Baltimore's status as southern, go ahead. All I know is, Atlanta is a regional powerhouse for the south/deep south. There's no denying that!
Going into details about how a city dominates an area instead of just going by area and population.
For Entertainment, Denver is pretty much the only place within a four hour drive radius to see Taylor Swift or Broadway shows. For people in Northern Georgia the North Carolina cities might be options, and people in southern New England can go to New York.
In this day and age the concept of media market is of less importance, but I think Boston is probably the most important to its area because New England has the smallest geographic footprint.
People use all 3 cities as transportation hubs. Denver being in an isolated part of the country is depended on by people from a larger geographic area.
Culturally it is harder to say. Politically Atlanta and to a lesser extent Denver are at odds with the hinterlands in their state. Georgia would by ruby red without Atlanta, while Colorado would become purplish. These metros still can lead by virtue of their population size. For example Denver and the Front Range recently voted to allow the reintroduction of wolves even though those who are impacted are on the western half of the state. So in a sense Denver is leading but not necessarily to the liking of the rest of the state. However Colorado as a whole has been trending blue, even in traditionally red areas like Colorado Springs and Lauren Boebert's district. Georgia is still red at the state government level so Atlanta couldn't really lead even if it wants to. New England would be blue and left leaning even without Boston. Was it because of Boston's influence or something else I don't know.
I also get the sense that there is more distinct local identity in New England states than Southern states. People talk/dress more differently in Maine than MA compared to Georgia and the Carolinas. What this means to the cities' relative cultural dominance I cannot say.
Boston is losing despite literally every single objective statistic pointing in its direction
Right. Crazy to me..
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.
