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.
tenken, thanks for posting this interesting report. It seems that for many (most?) people on this forum, if others don't think exactly like them, the others must be wrong, full of BS, not know their stuff, or be nonsensical.
I don't necessarily have the same perception of the cities as on the list (e.g. I'd place Chicago higher), but I accept the survey for what it measures -- perception.
I do agree with the Boston over Chicago, Boston has alot more sense of place and sophistication in my opinion.
Of course, I would think anyone who knows anything about anything would agree that the perception of Boston as a city (given its history, place in popular culture, the unique regional identity of New England, etc.) is probably stronger and more set than most any place in the US.
Of course, I would think anyone who knows anything about anything would agree that the perception of Boston as a city (given its history, place in popular culture, the unique regional identity of New England, etc.) is probably stronger and more set than most any place in the US.
But remember, perceived historical significance is only one out of six areas measured by the survey. So even if Boston did well in that area, it may have "flunked" others. Although, I'd have to say, the survey does seem to be more forward-looking -- it measures perceived historical contribution for the last 30 years, and one of the six areas of measurement is perceived future potential.
I don't necessarily have the same perception of the cities as on the list (e.g. I'd place Chicago higher), but I accept the survey for what it measures -- perception.
I agree, I would put Chicago higher as well.
I kind of understand though, because in the international community, you can view pictures of San Francisco, Los Angeles, D.C. and New York, and immediately recognize it as that city. Even though Chicago has a well-known skyline, it is harder to immediately recognize if you never been there.
I do think that if Chicago wishes to burnish it's citybrand, it should undertake an aggressive marketing approach much like Sydney. And Chicago is in the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics which could greatly improve it's perception.
They are doing the survey yearly it seems, and the rankings have changed.
London was #1 in 2005, with Los Angeles higher and closer to New York, with Washington D.C. lower.
Last edited by tenken627; 08-07-2007 at 10:12 AM..
I was wondering about the deletion of Houston and Miami myself. If you're going to include Atlanta, no reason Houston and Miami shouldn't be in there.
Houston and Miami were not listed, but I do think that if they were listed, they would be listed around where Dallas is ranked or a little above.
American cities tend to be viewed favorably throughout the world, just because America is that widely known.
I do believe that if they do a survey next year, Houston and Miami are likely to be included.
The countries partaking in the survey all seem to be part of the highly-developed or developing sections of the world.
This would include Europe, the United States, the Asian countries of Japan, China, India, Korea, Malaysia (Singapore), Australia and New Zealand, and the two Latin American countries of Mexico and Brazil.
Last edited by tenken627; 08-07-2007 at 10:38 AM..
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.