Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Battle of "number three" US cities: Chicago, SF, DC, Houston or Boston?
Chicago 79 51.97%
SF 18 11.84%
Houston 18 11.84%
Boston 12 7.89%
DC 25 16.45%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:28 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
Hey I agree with you on this, but trust me many on here don't... cities are hard to judge by skyline and arbitrary city limits.

 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:36 PM
 
398 posts, read 1,039,964 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
See my previous post about primate cities.

Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the link above:

NYC is an Alpha World City++
Chicago is an Alpha World City-
Los Angeles, Washington-DC, and Atlanta are Beta World Cities+
This is just made up. There is no such thing.

There is no official ranking of cities. It's just one person's website.
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,456,812 times
Reputation: 4201
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
See my previous post about primate cities.




Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the link above:

NYC is an Alpha World City++
Chicago is an Alpha World City-
Los Angeles, Washington-DC, and Atlanta are Beta World Cities+

*These are the highest ranked U.S. cities (and rightfully so).

*At the next level, Beta World City, you find Dallas, Miami, and Boston.


So, to reiterate:

The top and/or most important/significant/influential cities in the U.S. (in order of importance)...

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington, D.C.
5. Atlanta
6. Dallas
7. Miami
(Miami and Dallas are interchangeable as #6 and #7).

8 and beyond...y'all choose!
Haha, wait so Atlanta, Dallas and Miami are more important than Boston, San Francisco and Houston? Thaaaaat's debatable to say the least. Another ranking (which is actually located on the same page that you linked in your post) which shows the top 30 Global Cities in the world. In that ranking it goes NYC, LA, Chi, DC, SF, Boston.

I'm going to need 18montclair for this, because he has a better understanding of those rankings. He has another, more accurate list. I'll wait for him to get on this thread and explain further.
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:39 PM
 
398 posts, read 1,039,964 times
Reputation: 117
^
They're simply one person's opinion of relative global interconnectivity.

There's nothing official about them whatsover.
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,793,937 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
Lakal/DNCR/SittingDuck/yoyobubba! has officially lost it!

Sorry, troll, but it's 2009!! Why are you posting false Census estimates from the 1990's?
Haha try 2000. It's amazing that you even continue to post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
FACT: Chicago has lost more population than any other U.S. city, from almost 3.7 million to around 2.7 million, or a loss of one million residents!
You inflate and deflate your numbers to make things seem worse. To start, Chicago barely got over 3.6 million, and to finish, Chicago is almost at 2.9 million residents. Chicago may have lost the most in sheer numbers, but percentage wise it's among the lowest of the "rust belt" which it's not even apart of really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
FACT: Chicago has lost more population since 2000 than any other U.S. city, from nearly 2.9 million to around 2.7 million, or a loss of 200,000 residents!
Do you have fun being a troll, because you couldn't be anymore wrong. No city looses over 200,000 residents in 10 years unless something along the scales of Katrina happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
Last one out of Chicago, turn out the lights!
The lights will be on forever in the second city .
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:43 PM
 
378 posts, read 1,288,723 times
Reputation: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Ha, I don't think anyone will be claiming New York's density is pathetic compared to Los Angeles. I don't think anyone should be claiming Chicago's is pathetic either, because it obviously isn't. For some reason Osito is hung up on bashing Chicago for absolutely no reason.
It's like a little boy in first grade being mean to a girl that he really likes.
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:47 PM
 
16,697 posts, read 29,515,591 times
Reputation: 7671
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Hey I agree with you on this, but trust me many on here don't... cities are hard to judge by skyline and arbitrary city limits.
Totally agree with you. I just think many people have a shallow understanding on how things truly are geopolitically.

The Metropolitan Area is the true size of the city, folks.
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Twilight zone
3,645 posts, read 8,310,892 times
Reputation: 1772
^ agree. which is why the mia florida is more importan than jacksonville metro. no offense to jacksonville of course

Last edited by mas23; 09-08-2009 at 10:21 PM..
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:52 PM
 
16,697 posts, read 29,515,591 times
Reputation: 7671
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Haha, wait so Atlanta, Dallas and Miami are more important than Boston, San Francisco and Houston? Thaaaaat's debatable to say the least. Another ranking (which is actually located on the same page that you linked in your post) which shows the top 30 Global Cities in the world. In that ranking it goes NYC, LA, Chi, DC, SF, Boston.

I'm going to need 18montclair for this, because he has a better understanding of those rankings. He has another, more accurate list. I'll wait for him to get on this thread and explain further.
tmac and Osito...

Why caint y'all just face the fact that Atlanta, Dallas, and Miami are more significant global cities.

Boston, San Fran, and Houston are significant...yes. But they are niche cities...built around a particular industry, culture, tourism, and/or educational institutions.

That's why Dallas is still the preeminent city of Texas...Houston, for example, is big due to oil and a port...a bayou that they widened for ocean-going ships.
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:53 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mas23 View Post
^ agree. which is why mia and vicinity is more importan than jacksonville. no offense to jacksonville of course
easily... you can't have cities like miami/sf/boston having city limits of sub 50 miles then cities with 500 miles, look at their populations and expect to get fair comparison.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top