# World-class U.S. cities OTHER than NY, LA



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

djm19 said:


> so that means its not world class?
> 
> LA is much more famous than chicago. More populated, bigger economy.


In a sense LA is more unique than Chicago. The first and largest decentralized, suburban city in the world. Chicago at the end of the day resembles a smaller, less pretentious NYC. But anyway Chicago is great, and definitely world-class.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

tommygunn said:


> LA has a poor skyline compared to some of americas citys and dosnt have a city centre which is a bit weird for a city.


You clearly don't know LA very well if you don't think it has a city center. Yes, it is a rather polycentric city however, but other major cities around the world have similar layouts... ex: Tokyo, London.


----------



## Chad (Oct 10, 2002)

My Personal list..

*Chicago
Miami
Las Vegas
Boston
*


----------



## alex3000 (Oct 20, 2002)

Ups... Never mind. :tongue3:


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

TexasBoi said:


> Have some of yall been to Dallas or Houston recently?? Like since the turn of this century? Just wondering?
> I second the notion brooklyn that you need to travel more.



I third that motion.

But in his defense, he has shown the ability to grow beyond previous limited preconceptions.

a work in progress...

In my opinion the entire country is world class


----------



## Cruces1 (Jan 7, 2005)

Chicago
San Francisco
Boston 
Honolulu

Las Vegas? That needs to get off the list quickly. The next city that will become world class imo is San Diego.


----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

All top 30 (or 40??) US cities are world class cities, skyline isn't the only thing count city is world class or not (IMO buildings are the least important thing), well build road, power, water, telecom system, good health care, school, police and governing. It sounds basic, but think about it how many city in the world have all in good order.


----------



## Cruces1 (Jan 7, 2005)

Sexas said:


> All top 30 (or 40??) US cities are world class cities, skyline isn't the only thing count city is world class or not (IMO buildings are the least important thing), well build road, power, water, telecom system, good health care, school, police and governing. It sounds basic, but think about it how many city in the world have all in good order.


I tend to disagree here. The crime and poverty in the big cities eliminate them from world class status. 

Go 5 miles outside the cities and now you are talking world class. The U.S. especially in the northeastern cities the racial and socio-economc issues have forced the higher standard of living to migrate to the suburbs leaving the big cities in an incredible heap of trouble.

Thats why the western cities who do not have the black/white tension and all problems associated with it are generally thought of to be of better world class. 

Also NYC is an anomaly. When you think New York you think Manhattan, most disassociate the South Bronx, grittier areas of Queens and Brooklyn with being part of New York. NYC somehow gets a free ride imo regarding this issue.

Philadlephia, Detroit,BaltimoreCleveland, get raps for their dire inner cities and justly so. However, combined they can't compare to the mess that the NYC inner cities are in but you never here about them, its all about Manhattan.


----------



## tocoto (Jan 18, 2003)

LA and SF are the only two cities that might be considered world class on the west coast. LA has vast areas of derelict housing and gang infestation with high racial tension. The Oakland area in the SF metro also has racial issues.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> In a sense LA is more unique than Chicago. The first and largest decentralized, suburban city in the world. Chicago at the end of the day resembles a smaller, less pretentious NYC. But anyway Chicago is great, and definitely world-class.


sorry, brooklyn. chicago is not a smaller new york. chicago is, quite bluntly, chicago, unique in its own right, and the last thing it aspires to is being a smaller New York. Chicago is damned happy being Chicago.

as far as world class, you guys can argue this back and forth. but i will tell you this: it would be extremely rare to find a chicagoan who thinks chicago isn't world class, isn't among the world's greatest cities....and not in the shaddow of any of them.

at the end of the day, I'm just glad chicago is chicago.


----------



## SDfan (Apr 7, 2005)

Cruces1 said:


> Chicago
> San Francisco
> Boston
> Honolulu
> ...



I second that! lol


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

brooklynprospect said:


> Funny, I always hear that LA is the US's 2nd city. Bigger population, bigger economy, and far more famous.
> 
> Not as many skyscrapers though.


tokyo has more people and has a bigger economy than new york or london but they still out rank it as world cities.

LA is just big and is the center of the film industry but as far as finance and economics go, chicago outranks it. fame has little to do with anything.


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

The original poster has eliminated NY, LA, Chicago, and SF, so why do people keep listing them? We know those metros are the biggest 4 in the US in terms of world status. Anyway, I'd say for the next tier in the US it's down to (in no particular order) D.C., Boston, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Miami, and Minneapolis. All offer a lot of world things, just in different styles.


----------



## nikko (Jul 23, 2004)

Seattle, Philly and Boston


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

djm19 said:


> so that means its not world class?
> 
> LA is much more famous than chicago. More populated, bigger economy.


We've been down this road already. Chicago is more globally connected than Los Angeles. It's also a massive financial center where untold billions are moved.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

edsg25 said:


> sorry, brooklyn. chicago is not a smaller new york. chicago is, quite bluntly, chicago, unique in its own right, and the last thing it aspires to is being a smaller New York. Chicago is damned happy being Chicago.


Agreed. Chicago and New York are quite different.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

What about Miami?

Seattle?


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

NY
La 
DC
Boston
SF
Miami

That's it with the possible exception of Chicago and Philadelphia.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Chicago, Washington DC and Atlanta are some examples


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

sbarn said:


> You clearly don't know LA very well if you don't think it has a city center. Yes, it is a rather polycentric city however, but other major cities around the world have similar layouts... ex: Tokyo, London.


And you dont know London.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

US' Economy can create 4 UK Economies, UK has one: London, so there the other two for me are San Francisco and Chicago.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Los Angeles is more well-known than Chicago, but I don't think it's more important. 

For me it goes, 

New York (with quite a gap between it and the next city)
Chicago
Los Angeles


----------



## Bobdreamz (Sep 12, 2002)

funny how these threads always turn into a LA vs Chicago even though the author of this thread asked for the next list of cities that waould be considered world class...can you people follow a topic?


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=307547


----------

