In your opinion, what are the five premier cities of the United States of America?

[sting in the rafters]

NYC, DC, LA, Chitown, H-town. Houston's really underrated in this thread, huge linchpin in the energy industry.

[Alben Barkley]

NYC- most important city on earth
San Fransisco/Silicon Valley- Global center of tech
LA- Second Largest City in US
Chicago- third largest city, largest city in the Midwest, important business and cultural center.
DC- Capital of global superpower

LA is probably only because of size. I don’t know what would replace it though.

LA also has a huge influence on national and international culture due to Hollywood. “Californication” ain’t no joke.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Chicago is definitely important, but it's an extremely regional city. It's strength is simply predicated on being the largest thing for a couple hundred miles rather than any sort of global dominance. The migration patterns just reinforce my point.

This feels like a take from the 80s, when Chicago really did derive much of its importance from being the regional center for industry. The city is still important as a regional center for the agricultural industry, but given how much the American Midwest produces, that's pretty global — the exchanges are globally influential. It's also a center for consulting, law, and other professional services, and it has the universities and research labs to keep that going.

Not quite. Sure, Chicago does global-economy things to the extent any near-megacity does, but the unique role it fills in the world's economy is as the "hub of the Midwest." It doesn't really lead global industry in any notable sector. It's migration inflows are *extremely* regional, unlike NY/LA/DC/SF.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

New York, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco.
Cry Angelenos.

Bro, I know it's fun to bash Angelenos' collective love affair with vapid self-aggrandization and the automobile, but you have to factor in metro size and industrial diversity at some point.

Del Tachi made a really good case for Miami; it sounds similar to San Francisco + Houston (and to a lesser extent Seattle + Boston) in the sense of being a hub for international travel and commerce. I'll add it to my new 6-way tie for 6th place.

[sting in the rafters]

Chicago is definitely important, but it's an extremely regional city. It's strength is simply predicated on being the largest thing for a couple hundred miles rather than any sort of global dominance. The migration patterns just reinforce my point.

This feels like a take from the 80s, when Chicago really did derive much of its importance from being the regional center for industry. The city is still important as a regional center for the agricultural industry, but given how much the American Midwest produces, that's pretty global — the exchanges are globally influential. It's also a center for consulting, law, and other professional services, and it has the universities and research labs to keep that going.

Not quite. Sure, Chicago does global-economy things to the extent any near-megacity does, but the unique role it fills in the world's economy is as the "hub of the Midwest." It doesn't really lead global industry in any notable sector. It's migration inflows are *extremely* regional, unlike NY/LA/DC/SF.

I'd put Chitown up there for it's influence on music in the past 2 decades alone. Twista, Common, and Yeezy all are so influential and it's hard to understate when the drill scene started in the early 2010s that we had never heard anything like it before. SF hasn't had a big scene since the 90s/early 00s and DC cats have never really ran the game the way other contenders have.

Of course if Chicago's on there for cultural influence then Atlanta has to be on there as well.

[It’s so Joever]

New York, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco.
Cry Angelenos.

Bro, I know it's fun to bash Angelenos' collective love affair with vapid self-aggrandization and the automobile, but you have to factor in metro size and industrial diversity at some point.

Del Tachi made a really good case for Miami; it sounds similar to San Francisco + Houston (and to a lesser extent Seattle + Boston) in the sense of being a hub for international travel and commerce. I'll add it to my new 6-way tie for 6th place.

See...here’s the thing...
While from a logical standpoint you are correct, I really dislike Los Angeles. As for Miami....we don’t talk about that.

[Del Tachi]

Interesting move placing San Francisco higher than Los Angeles, can you elaborate more on why you did that (specifically, not just repeating your second paragraph) if you ever get the time?

I definitely expected that pushing San Francisco into the #2 spot would probably be the most controversial aspect of my ranking, but Frisco outperforms LA on several objective metrics of economic importance.  The GFCI ranked it as the second most important financial center in the United States, only behind New York.  The Bay Area's combined GDP of $1.09 trillion is the third-largest of any urban agglomeration in the country; while the LA region is #2, you have to consider San Francisco's much smaller population (the Bay Area has a GDP/capita of $112,348 and median HH income of $102,175, making it the best performing urban area in the country based on these metrics.)  Basically, San Francisco is the wealthiest, most decadent city in the country.

More conceptually, San Francisco is the "first city" on the West Coast.  It grew faster than LA ever did in it's early history and remained the Pacific Coast's largest industrial center and immigrant port into the 20th century (even as late as WWII, American military leaders were much more concerned about garrisoning SF against potential Japanese attack than any other West Coast city.)  As far this basic ethnic/historical typology goes, San Francisco is more like New York City, Boston or Chicago while Los Angeles more closely resembles the post-war boom towns like Houston or Phoenix.  San Francisco was the magnet for the American counterculture, anti-war, LGBT, environmental, and feminist movements of the mid-20th century and, since '90s, has been the center for the American tech industry and its associated spinoff legal/investment/venture capital activity.  LA has the Hollywood thing going for it, but I've just always understood San Francisco's influence as much more overtly economic, political or even ideological.   

[Ancestral Republican]

Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Albany.

Those are just streets in Brooklyn.

[Boss_Rahm]

My ranking is New York, DC, LA, Chicago, and Miami. I more or less agree with Del Tachi's analysis; I only exclude San Francisco because I ranked based on cities and not metro areas, and much of what distinguishes San Francisco (i.e., Silicon Valley) is outside of city limits.

As for Miami, I would bet that more non-Americans have heard of it than have heard of Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston, or Houston, and probably even Chicago or San Francisco. I have it on my list because it occupies such an outsized place in the world's cultural imagination of the USA.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

The 3 Cities that were once US Capitols (NYC, Philly, DC) and the 2nd and 3rd largest ones, (Chicago, LA).

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

New York, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco.
Cry Angelenos.

Bro, I know it's fun to bash Angelenos' collective love affair with vapid self-aggrandization and the automobile, but you have to factor in metro size and industrial diversity at some point.

Del Tachi made a really good case for Miami; it sounds similar to San Francisco + Houston (and to a lesser extent Seattle + Boston) in the sense of being a hub for international travel and commerce. I'll add it to my new 6-way tie for 6th place.

See...here’s the thing...
While from a logical standpoint you are correct, I really dislike Los Angeles. As for Miami....we don’t talk about that.

True, I'm kind of a SoCal simp. Although if I wanted to let partisan hackery get in the way of objectively ranking America's metros, I'd trade out Dallas for Miami.

Interesting move placing San Francisco higher than Los Angeles, can you elaborate more on why you did that (specifically, not just repeating your second paragraph) if you ever get the time?

I definitely expected that pushing San Francisco into the #2 spot would probably be the most controversial aspect of my ranking, but Frisco outperforms LA on several objective metrics of economic importance.  The GFCI ranked it as the second most important financial center in the United States, only behind New York.  The Bay Area's combined GDP of $1.09 trillion is the third-largest of any urban agglomeration in the country; while the LA region is #2, you have to consider San Francisco's much smaller population (the Bay Area has a GDP/capita of $112,348 and median HH income of $102,175, making it the best performing urban area in the country based on these metrics.)  Basically, San Francisco is the wealthiest, most decadent city in the country.

More conceptually, San Francisco is the "first city" on the West Coast.  It grew faster than LA ever did in it's early history and remained the Pacific Coast's largest industrial center and immigrant port into the 20th century (even as late as WWII, American military leaders were much more concerned about garrisoning SF against potential Japanese attack than any other West Coast city.)  As far this basic ethnic/historical typology goes, San Francisco is more like New York City, Boston or Chicago while Los Angeles more closely resembles the post-war boom towns like Houston or Phoenix.  San Francisco was the magnet for the American counterculture, anti-war, LGBT, environmental, and feminist movements of the mid-20th century and, since '90s, has been the center for the American tech industry and its associated spinoff legal/investment/venture capital activity.  LA has the Hollywood thing going for it, but I've just always understood San Francisco's influence as much more overtly economic, political or even ideological.   

The "historical legacy" argument is what you'd use to justify putting Philadelphia or Boston in the Top 5. Unlike most other metro areas, much of the infrastructure, cultural capital and economic activity that puts the Bay Area on the map is currently located well outside of San Francisco proper. UC Berkeley and Stanford are both around 1 hour outside of the city limits. Silicon Valley proper is almost entirely contained within San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Albany.

Those are just streets in Brooklyn.

I've been waiting for a New Yorker to say Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx.

[Ancestral Republican]

Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Albany.

Those are just streets in Brooklyn.

I've been waiting for a New Yorker to say Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx.

Haha, I was thinking about it, but I already made my Dixville Notch joke. However a true New Yorker would never include Staten Island. It's more like

Brooklyn
Manhattan
Queens
The Bronx
Yonkers

Or some other NYC suburb like.... Connecticut.

[Del Tachi]

[San Francisco] is declining in significance as people are beginning to move away from the overpriced, overcrowded Bay Area

Alternative take:  San Francisco will only grow in relevance and importance as China continues to assume its role as a global player.  No other city in North America is as connected to Mainland China as SF. 

[SevenEleven]

NYC, LA, DC, Chicago, SF (in this order).

Literally crying that Riverside is included here, as well as St. Louis.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

[San Francisco] is declining in significance as people are beginning to move away from the overpriced, overcrowded Bay Area

Alternative take:  San Francisco will only grow in relevance and importance as China continues to assume its role as a global player.  No other city in North America is as connected to Mainland China as SF.  

Vancouver BC? 🇨🇦

For whatever reason this airport scene was shot at the Vancouver airport, even though the movie is set in the US. Really captures the sense of how Chinese Metro Vancouver is.

[Dr. Arch]

NYC, LA, Seattle, D.C., and San Francisco.

[Del Tachi]

On the issue of Chicago:  America's "second city" really suffers from being in the central, interior region of the country.  It is not a natural destination or stopover for international business arriving from Europe, Asia or Latin America.  Coastal cities (as well as Texas and Florida, to a lesser extent) have the stable advantage of being the most logical *first stop for people and business arriving to the United States.   

That being said, Chicago is still an obvious Alpha-tier global city with international-grade dining, shopping, arts and entertainment options.  Most international finance, law and investment firms will have an office in Chicago.  The Merc is the largest options and futures exchange in the world.  Chicago exists prominently in American culture, from music (Miles Davis, house music, Kanye West), entertainment (Oprah), sports (the Cubs!) and politics (thanks Obama!)  More movies and TV shows are set in Chicago than San Francisco or Miami, I reckon. 

[rhg2052]

Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Albany.

Those are just streets in Brooklyn.

I've been waiting for a New Yorker to say Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx.

Haha, I was thinking about it, but I already made my Dixville Notch joke. However a true New Yorker would never include Staten Island. It's more like

Brooklyn
Manhattan
Queens
The Bronx
Yonkers

Or some other NYC suburb like.... Connecticut.

I'll do you one better -

1. Lower Manhattan
2. Midtown Manhattan
3. Harlem
4. Downtown Brooklyn
5. Long Island City

[GP270watch]

1. New York - The most important city in the world. Insane that at one time people actually considered letting the city fail and go bankrupt.

2. New Orleans - America doesn't have a better musical city, not Memphis, Nashville, NY, Chicago. New Orleans is foremost to America's musical legacy and therefore artistic legacy. This is where Jazz was born, where we had rock and roll even before Memphis. New Orleans had its own unique versions of Funk, Hip-Hop, and roots music. And like New York the idea that people thought it wasn't a place worth rebuilding is insane. New Orleans is unique and brilliant to America's history. It was the natural collector of all the great culture of the south from the Mississippi Delta.

to be continued...


 

[Badger]

The first four are easy to choose, and reflective of the poll results so far. V one's tricky. I trouble choosing between San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia of due to their historical Roots. Edged out San Francisco because their roots are not as deep. I narrowly chose Boston over Philly as both have similarly deep roots in our nation's founding, but Boston is unparalleled as a center of American Education in a way even Philadelphia can't match.

[bagelman]

NYC, LA, and Chicago are all obvious. After that it gets a little tricky and context matters. DC is the capital and is big enough as a metro, having redefined Virginia politically and made Maryland as truly safe as it is. Maryland is shifted by R+20 or so without the DC metro, even if it's still around D+15 after that.

Atlanta is a contender for the #5 spot but has to compete with Dallas FTW, Houston, and SF. I think as a metro SF Bay area beats out Atlanta, and you have to consider metros as without it Atlanta isn't much. There's no need to balance out this list, Los Angeles doesn't reduce the importance of SF in absolute terms.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

NYC, DC, LA, Chitown, H-town. Houston's really underrated in this thread, huge linchpin in the energy industry.

Those were my picks as well. Though I could be persuaded to replace Houston with Philly & maybe Atlanta.

Also, Riverside?

I mean it's a nice place and all, but Riverside??

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

Atlanta is a contender for the #5 spot but has to compete with Dallas FTW, Houston, and SF. I think as a metro SF Bay area beats out Atlanta, and you have to consider metros as without it Atlanta isn't much. There's no need to balance out this list, Los Angeles doesn't reduce the importance of SF in absolute terms.

The bolded part is just as true for the Bay Area w.r.t. San Francisco if not more so. Most of what puts the 21st century Bay Area on the map is located well outside of San Francisco itself.

[Orser67]

Agree with the top four; that list gives you the three largest metro areas (with Washington 6th), the two cultural capitals (NYC and LA), the political capital, and a point that's reasonably close to the center of population in Chicago.

SF, Boston, and Philadelphia all seem like solid fifth choices depending on how you weigh population, economic impact, cultural prominence, and history. I'm kind of mystified by the inclusion of Atlanta in this tier, though. For me it's in clearly in the next tier with Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, and Miami.