It's bigger than Dallas. It's bigger than Ft Worth. But since those cities are close to each other, there you go.
Houston has more humidity, so there's that.
The Four Major U.S. Cities
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
It's bigger than Dallas. It's bigger than Ft Worth. But since those cities are close to each other, there you go.
Houston has more humidity, so there's that.
My prompt to ChatGPT: "What are the 4 most significant cities in the United States, accounting for population, economic status, cultural contribution and general world wide recognition?"
1) NYC
2) LA
3) Chicago
4) SF
Honorable Mentions: DC, Miami, Houston, Atlanta.
1) NYC
2) LA
3) Chicago
4) SF
Honorable Mentions: DC, Miami, Houston, Atlanta.
I don't know if anyone listed the largest American CSAs (Consolidated Statistical Areas - lumps together adjoining metros that rely upon one another for economics, etc.), but here's the top 10 as of 2024:
1) New York-Newark 22,342,000
2) Los Angeles-Long Beach 18,507,000
3) Washington, DC-Baltimore-Arlington 10,237,000
4) Chicago-Naperville 9,941,000
5) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 9,164,000
6) Dallas-Fort Worth 8,909,000
7) Boston-Worcester-Providence 8,493,000
8) Houston-Pasadena 7,996,000
9) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden 7,490,000
10) Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County (AL)-Sandy Springs 7,340,000
Of these, DFW is the only one that has TWO individual cities each with over 1,000,000. There are currently 62 CSAs with over 1,000,000 people in the U.S. as of this estimation. Des Moines is ranked at 65 with 939,000. Not relevant, but interesting.
1) New York-Newark 22,342,000
2) Los Angeles-Long Beach 18,507,000
3) Washington, DC-Baltimore-Arlington 10,237,000
4) Chicago-Naperville 9,941,000
5) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 9,164,000
6) Dallas-Fort Worth 8,909,000
7) Boston-Worcester-Providence 8,493,000
8) Houston-Pasadena 7,996,000
9) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden 7,490,000
10) Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County (AL)-Sandy Springs 7,340,000
Of these, DFW is the only one that has TWO individual cities each with over 1,000,000. There are currently 62 CSAs with over 1,000,000 people in the U.S. as of this estimation. Des Moines is ranked at 65 with 939,000. Not relevant, but interesting.
The city of San Francisco has fallen so hard though…it almost doesn’t deserve to the face of that metro. Is there much difference between San Francisco proper and Detroit? I would almost give Nashville a nod over San Francisco…and I do not enjoy Nashville.
I went with Dallas because DFW metro is the largest and I feel it’s somewhat on the rise. I strongly considered Atlanta, Miami, and even Houston (though only for pure population purposes). While Dallas is severely lacking in culture, they are the metro I thought could possibly next support 2 teams in a major sport.
The two that dumbed this have to be making this a political thing…which it is not. I can’t believe they have physically been in San Francisco in the last year. I have. Trust me…it is not the same as it used to be. Not to mention they no longer have a baseball team in that metro area.
If they have other reasons for dumbing my comment, I would love to hear them.
Without context these would be my Top 4 important cities. Drop LA and add Boston and you’d have my 4 favorite cities (unordered).
The Giants would like a word...
Also, San Francisco is technically the "second city" of the Bay Area, as listed in the CSA/metro names. San Jose is much larger than SF and has been for some time, the criteria for which city comes first in a CSA name.
Oh derp - that’s hilarious for a couple reasons. 1. I’ve actually been to that stadium (not to see a game…did see one in Oakland…but was there once). 2. After I posted about my thoughts on a metro that could best support two teams, I did a search to see what others thought, and I saw multiple posts saying San Francisco/Oakland would soon be the largest without a team…so evidently I’m not the only one who forgot about the Giants.The Giants would like a word...
Also, San Francisco is technically the "second city" of the Bay Area, as listed in the CSA/metro names. San Jose is much larger than SF and has been for some time, the criteria for which city comes first in a CSA name.
Thank you regarding the San Jose thing…that makes some sense, because San Francisco should be avoided. The wharf area is still decent. The Ghirardelli area is actually better than ever. The rest of the city was just sad. There were no homeless people…it wasn’t gross. It was just a broken down has been. There were almost no stores in the Union Square area…so few people on the way up Nob Hill. The cable cars now rarely come by. I didn’t see young professionals riding their bikes up those crazy hills with one pant leg lifted above the knee to keep it from getting caught in the bike’s mechanics. That city has completely lost its joy and vibrancy.
Last edited:
I’m with you on Dallas. Went there several years ago and it’s fine. Obviously you have each of the four major pro sports leagues represented, but otherwise it was just a **** ton of people and urban sprawl. I found it really uninteresting.
