Tiers of US cities

[Wendell FOX]

^ But Houston is arguably even more well known for its space agency + "Houston, we have a problem."

It would be interesting (in fact, EXTREMELY interesting) if the UN were to do an international city recognition survey.

[Cotuit]

And Whitney Houston!

[sunshine]

Orlando Bloom must send Orlando all the way to the top then...LOL.

[H-townrep]

Well Metrobil, A TV show or a football team does not make a city known internationally. If that was so then San Antonio would be the best known city since most western movies that came out was based on Texas and the West and San Antonio was a figure point and then San Fran. Anyway. Internationally Houston is still better known as far as a Tier 1 city. I've never seeen a rating in Fortune 500 for Metro fortune 500 companies. The way it is rank though. The City of Houston does have the second most behind New York. We are on the verge of bringing 3 others I heard. I know one is coming from Tulsa, can't remember the name, Citipetro or something like that.

[JivecitySTL]

H-townrep, you are out of your mind. Who do you think is dumb enough to buy your suggestion that Houston is a bigger player than Chicago? Who cares how many Fortune 500s are in the city limits, it's metro that counts in the real world, and the Windy City BLOWS Houston with ease. Houston needs to first beat Dallas before it can even think about Chicago.

[M. Brown]

In my mind Houston has already beat Dallas because there are two major cities in the Dallas metro Area. If you take away the Ft Worth metro, Houston is bigger.

[H-townrep]

H-townrep, you are out of your mind. Who do you think is dumb enough to buy your suggestion that Houston is a bigger player than Chicago? Who cares how many Fortune 500s are in the city limits, it's metro that counts in the real world, and the Windy City BLOWS Houston with ease. Houston needs to first beat Dallas before it can even think about Chicago.

Well Jivecity, you must be smokin somethin. I never said Houston was better than Chicago. I only ranked Houston ahead of Chicago in one thing and that is in Fortune 500 companies. As far as city is concerned Houston is catching Chicago. City is more important than metro because of the tax base and the fact that everyone wants there city to grow, in Hong Kong, New York, Atlanta, Boston and Houston (Las Vegas and Pheonix not to be forgotten) are growing due to inner city development and redevelopment. To me, live in the Metro and not the city means that you don't want or can't afford to live in the city. ie Chicago, St. Louis and before there revitalization projects Philly and Detroit. Like I said I only ranked Houston ahead of Chi in one category and I could have went for more. Internationally Chicago is more known for a couple of skyscrapers (I love it for it) than an industry unlike Houston who is more known for industries than entertainment, sports or a scene. Which makes a city Tier i (industry and economy)

Don't get me wrong I rank Chicago right behind New York and D.C as far as tier 1 it's ahead of Houston. Houston is just a part of the tier 1 cities since that's what this discussion is about.

[JivecitySTL]

If you think Chicago is only more important than Houston because of "a few skyscrapers" then you are delusional. Chicago trumps Houston in pretty much every conceivable category. The Big 3 are New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Anything else is a distant 4th. And no, city is NOT more important than metro. Metro is far more important when comparing cities. If you disagree, then you must think that Jacksonville is more important than Boston (bigger city pop.), or El Paso is more important than Washington, DC (bigger city pop.), or Albequerque is more important than Miami (bigger city pop.).

Do you see my point? Of course Houston is going to have more Fortune 500s in its city proper than most places-- it covers an incomprehensible amount of land area. It is the most suburban city in the United States for that reason. It is sprawl central down there. Comparing Houston to Chicago is like comparing Wichita to San Francisco. Not to be rude, but come on.

[Twin Cities]

No way is Houston a tier 1 city.

[monsoon]

[JivecitySTL]

Yes, you are right about Chicago being a distant 3rd to NYC and LA, but it is resting comfortably at the #3 spot, and no other city is even close to threatening its rank anytime in the forseeable future.

[tocoto]

IMO, Chicago's position is not that solid at #3. As a single city it is bigger than SF or DC/baltimore. But both of those metros are growing faster than Chicago. The difference in population is only a million or so. Within 20 years Chicago may no longer be #3.

[M. Brown]

I actually think Chicago and NYC are in a tier of there own and LA is below them. I say this because Chicago and NYC are more urban and more dense in my mind. I mean Chicago is still called the second city.

[Twin Cities]

^^ I agree. Chicago is a tier 1 city and definitely has more clout than L.A. and Houston. Here are a few examples of why Chicago is a tier 1 city:

Chicago Board of Trade -- World's busiest futures exchange. The CBOT is "The world's leading futures and options exchange" using "the world's largest futures and options trading facility"

Chicago Board Options Exchange -- The second largest securities exchange in the US and the world's largest options exchange. The CBOE accounts for more than 51 percent of all U.S. options trading and 91 percent of all index options trading.

Chicago Mercantile Exchange -- The CME is one of the world's foremost derivatives exchanges

Chicago Stock Exchange -- The CHX is the second largest U.S. stock exchange

MidAmerica Commodity Exchange

O'Hare International Airport

World's largest public library: Harold Washington Library Center

World's largest modern art museum: Museum of Contemporary Art

[tocoto]

Chicago is much smaller than NYC. Try walking around Manhattan and then the Loop. Chi. has more scrapers than LA but is much smaller in GMP and extent of the city. LA is catching NYC and both are moveing away from Chicago. Chicago is better compared with DC/balt, SF bay and Boston/Providence in terms of pop and GMP. Chicago is a big important city that really advocates skyscrapers, but in most other regards it is not at the level of LA and far below NYC. Chicago has half the population of NYC. DC/baltimore has 85% of the pop of Chi and is closing.

[M. Brown]

^^ I beg to differ. I'd say Chicago and NYC are tier one and LA Houston Dallas ATL Mia etc are below. LA is still a tier one but I think it is still below Chi and NYC

[bobliocatt]

LA is still a tier one but I think it is still below Chi and NYC

In your opinion, what puts Chicago ahead of LA as a tier one city. From my travels to both cities, I'd say LA is far ahead of Chicago in just about everything, except having a dense central core of skyscrapers.

[monsoon]

[Neo]

^^ I beg to differ. I'd say Chicago and NYC are tier one and LA Houston Dallas ATL Mia etc are below. LA is still a tier one but I think it is still below Chi and NYC

I can't say anything for LA as I haven't spent any time there, however I have been to New York many times and I've lived in downtown Chicago. New York is definately the ONLY tier 1 city in the US and Canada combined, nothing comes close to the amount of density that the city incorporates and the vastness of the metro and connecting larger cities (i.e. Philly). However, I'd put LA and Chicago as a tier 1a because like New York, there is nothing that comes close to either one of them. I also see DC/Baltimore as a very close 1a though but still tier 2 where I'd put Houston, Dallas, Boston, etc.

[JivecitySTL]

No offense, but anyone who thinks that Chicago should be ranked higher than Los Angeles needs to check his ass directly into the nearest rehab clinic. If anyone has ever been to LA, then it is quite obvious that Chicago is really no match for it. Yes, Chicago feels more urban, yes Chicago is denser, yes Chicago was once the Second City. But LA eclipsed and surpassed in not only size but also cultural and economic influence. LA is one of the cultural capitals of the world. It has almost 18 million people in its metro, about twice that of Chicago. There is simply no contest here folks. Skyscrapers do not automatically make a city.

I will agree with Neo-- New York definitely stands alone. LA is easily #2, with Chicago a pretty distant 3rd.

[M. Brown]

Jive im not even going to respond to that for I might get banned Urbanity is not only just about population either.

[Twin Cities]

No offense, but anyone who thinks that Chicago should be ranked higher than Los Angeles needs to check his ass directly into the nearest rehab clinic. If anyone has ever been to LA, then it is quite obvious that Chicago is really no match for it. Yes, Chicago feels more urban, yes Chicago is denser, yes Chicago was once the Second City. But LA eclipsed and surpassed in not only size but also cultural and economic influence. LA is one of the cultural capitals of the world. It has almost 18 million people in its metro, about twice that of Chicago. There is simply no contest here folks. Skyscrapers do not automatically make a city.

I will agree with Neo-- New York definitely stands alone. LA is easily #2, with Chicago a pretty distant 3rd.

^ It's kinda odd that you would suggest others seek help and then make such a ridiculous comment like "Chicago is really no match for it (LA)." Chicago made a name for itself long before LA and it continues to be a major player in the world economy. Yes the Los Angeles-Long Beach area has an economy that is ranked 16th in the world, but Chicago isn't too far behind at number 18; not too bad for a city that is a lot smaller than LA.

So, what makes you think that LA has eclipsed and surpassed Chicago in cultural and economic influence considering the following:

*Chicago is the only metro area in North America that is served by all six of the U.S. and Canadian class-one railroads.

*50% of North American industry is within one days truck delivery.

*75% of North America's consumers are less than two days away.

*#1 in manufacturing -- $72.4 billion regional manufacturing output.

*#1 urban medical district.

*#1 in business services professionals -- 82% growth in employment during the preceding business cycle (1990 to 2000).

*Ranks behind Los Angeles, D.C. & New York in arts and cultural amenities.

LA was rated 99.44 while Chicago was rated 99.16.

[Scott]

Boston is like 24th or 25th in the world right behind Italy or something and that's pretty neat for a city that not long ago was heading in the wrong direction economically.

LA and Chicago are so different it isn't even fair to compare them except to say they are both great cities.

[Scott]

*#1 urban medical district.

I have an issue with this claim, the Longwood Medical Area in Boston employs 30,000 people and includes Harvard Medical School.

[JivecitySTL]

Twin Cities-- there is no question that Chicago is a very important city, and it has countless important qualities, but Los Angeles really is more prominent. LA is not my kind of city, and I LOVE Chicago. 50% of my blood is from Chicago (my mom is from there). I personally like it much better than LA. But a fact is a fact. People around the world know New York and LA. Yes, they know Chicago and some other cities too, but NYC and LA are at the top. And rightly so. Go to LA and you will see what I'm saying.