Battle of "number two" US cities: LA, Chicago, SF, DC, Houston or Boston? (live, best)

[downtown1]

How about ...Quality of life ?

City Mayors: Best cities in the world (Mercer)

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

No need to be resentful. You still have much taller buildings.



Hurray!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by downtown1

I guess a guy from Oakland is smarter than many world-renowned scholars who helped Mastercard to come up with that study.

Actually, I think I subscribe to the same formula used by G8 and now G20 summits. The biggest economies have a place at the table.

The most 5-star hotel rooms do not.

[downtown1]

You did not read the MasterCard research; plain & simple. It's obvious that you're only interested in stats & raw numbers. You rejected the study because MasterCard ranks S.F & LA far down the list. If this ranking favored S.F & LA, you would praise it the same way you've been defending your city.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Actually, I think I subscribe to the same formula used by G8 and now G20 summits. The biggest economies have a place at the table.

The most 5-star hotel rooms do not.

[irishimm]

Wow, the results of this poll are laughably absurd. Must be a lot of Chicagoans and Bostonians voting...Chicago the #2 city over LA? What? Dont get me wrong, I prefer Chicago many times over, but LA is clearly, without a doubt the #2 most important city in this country.

Also, Boston has that many more votes than San Francisco? The Bay Area as a whole is at least as important as the Boston Metro Area culturally and economically, same goes for the cities of SF and Boston themselves.

I would rank it:

1) NYC

2) LA

3) Chicago

4) DC

5) San Francisco

6) Boston

To me, 1 and 2 are obvious and you'd have to be somewhat dillusional to think otherwise. I could see switching 3 and 4, or perhaps 5 and 6 though...

[TXperson]

I find it humorous how Chicago always manages to defeat any other city (including New York City in some instances) it's pit up against.

Something tells me that there's a ridiculous amount of bias towards the Windy City on CityData. I don't know. I guess I would have to live there a considerable amount of time in order to fully understand it. Maybe Chicago really is that important.

However, I just can't bring myself to label Chicago as the number 2 city. Los Angeles and DC feel like they have a lot more things happening at a grander scale than Chicago.

Also, as much as I love the city, Houston really doesn't belong on this list. It's more of an upper third tier city.

Here would be my rankings:

1. NYC
2. DC
3. LA
4. Chi
5. Boston
6. SF


10. Houston

Originally Posted by Rachael84

We get most of our oil from Canada anyway.

Seriously, you need to go hurt yourself.

[erin3465]

Boston also seems to have its share of ridiculous homers on this site. As someone already said, it is generally agreed that SF and Boston (cities and metros) are very comparable (interchangeable 5th and 6th)--no way should Boston have that many more votes.

Now, in terms of cultural importance and influence alone, I say both Boston and SF actually surpass Chicago.

Originally Posted by TXperson

I find it humorous how Chicago always manages to defeat any other city (including New York City in some instances) it's pit up against.

Something tells me that there's a ridiculous amount of bias towards the Windy City on CityData. I don't know. I guess I would have to live there a considerable amount of time in order to fully understand it. Maybe Chicago really is that important.

However, I just can't bring myself to label Chicago as the number 2 city. Los Angeles and DC feel like they have a lot more things happening at a grander scale than Chicago.

Also, as much as I love the city, Houston really doesn't belong on this list. It's more of an upper third tier city.

Here would be my rankings:

1. NYC
2. DC
3. LA
4. Chi
5. Boston
6. SF


10. Houston


Seriously, you need to go hurt yourself.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by erin3465

Now, in terms of cultural importance and influence alone, I say both Boston and SF actually surpass Chicago.

Why?

[downtown1]

New York wins almost every contest so there must be a bias problem, huh??. I think people are smart to distinguish the difference between popularity & importance.

Originally Posted by irishimm

Wow, the results of this poll are laughably absurd. Must be a lot of Chicagoans and Bostonians voting...Chicago the #2 city over LA? What? Dont get me wrong, I prefer Chicago many times over, but LA is clearly, without a doubt the #2 most important city in this country.

[Gtownoe]

^^ In response to the last few posts, how many people have actually spent time in Chicago? How many know about Chicago's history or past?

It doesn't get the media attention that a lot of other cities get. You could argue whether it deserves to be #2 or #3...but I don't think some of you have been to Chicago lately.

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by erin3465

Boston also seems to have its share of ridiculous homers on this site. As someone already said, it is generally agreed that SF and Boston (cities and metros) are very comparable (interchangeable 5th and 6th)--no way should Boston have that many more votes.

Now, in terms of cultural importance and influence alone, I say both Boston and SF actually surpass Chicago.

The thing is, there aren't many people from Boston on this site. That's why I posted earlier that I was so surprised that Boston was getting so many votes. The only Boston people on this board I can think of are lrfox, mattcind, and myself...and I voted for DC! haha. So unless lrfox and mattcind are making up false names in order to boost Boston's stats--which I doubt, neither of them are trolls and I doubt either of them would argue Boston is the second most important city in the country (maybe second best city in the country, but that's a whole new thread )--I'm not sure what explanation there could be.

There's obviously a massive amount of Chicago people here, which explains their dominance in the poll...but there really aren't many Boston people. Honest!