4 ms·

you seem to be obsessed with assessing Chicago's importance - more so than anybody I've ever met from Chicago here is importance not by population, but by GDP

you seem to be obsessed with assessing Chicago's importance - more so than anybody I've ever met from Chicago here is importance not by population, but by GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_area...

adjkant 8y ago
Yes, one post is of course an obsession... I think this will turn into a pointless debate quickly unless someone nails down what defines the importance of a city. I don't personally think GDP is a defining factor. DC is a prime example against that. For the record, I'm not putting Chicago far down on that list - it's probably around #5 (behind NYC, DC, SF, and LA). But I think this discussion came from the very casual assumption of someone to put Chicago #3 which I do think is interesting to see where that came from.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  I guess the question is what do you find ‘important’ because your ‘ranking’ doesn’t map to anything. The backbone of San Francisco’s economy is tourism. If you find tourism important then I guess your list could make sense.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    Why do you assume mine maps to nothing? Are you really arguing that the importance of cities is based off a single economic number or simply the number of people living there? I would say it's a combination of politics, cultural relevance, and economics mainly. Going down 1-4 in no order: New York - huge center of mixed cultures, huge both population and economic output (larger than Chicago), and a big center of the fashion industry, art, etc. DC - Capital with lots of political relevance, still good sized and has lots of other aspects that make up a city like good public transit SF - The tech center of a world being increasingly run by tech, for better or worse LA - Huge global entertainment hub, huge cultural mixing pot, huge GDP and population I find this strong backlash interesting as I have no dog in this fight - I'm from a no-name suburb to a medium city in the south and am simply a lover of cities comparing what I have encountered.
    - vasilipupkin 8y ago
      everyone can have their own importance mix for sure. Someone could find Anchorage, Alaska the most important ( and I say that without irony ). But if you want to talk to other people and use the kind of shorthand that all people understand very quickly, then GDP and population are pretty good indicators of importance that everyone sort of agrees to use as the proxy.
      - adjkant 8y ago
        I'd say that cultural and political significance, while not as straightforward/objective to judge as GDP/population, are very much factors that are/should be in the layman's shorthand.
        vasilipupkin 8y ago
        yes, but "cultural and political significance" are hard to define and so two people could easily talk past each other, because they would define these differently whereas gdp and population are a) easy to define and b) correlated with significance
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      I live in SF and have for years. My partner was born and raised here. There are tech companies in SF but it’s vastly dwarfed by FAANG in SV. You could argue SF is a suburb for SV but I’m not sure how that would make the city any more important or interesting. Due to insane housing costs you’re more likely to meet a younger person born and raised in the Bay Area in some Midwest city (like Chicago) unless they’ve decided to live with their parents. The interesting culture of SF is in rapid decline. So what you end up with is a dying culture in a city funded by tourism (also in decline because of chronic homlessness) inhabited by transplants who don’t work in the city. Is that important? I don’t know? Maybe it’s an important model of how not to run a city.

adjkant 8y ago

Yes, one post is of course an obsession... I think this will turn into a pointless debate quickly unless someone nails down what defines the importance of a city. I don't personally think GDP is a defining factor. DC is a prime example against that. For the record, I'm not putting Chicago far down on that list - it's probably around #5 (behind NYC, DC, SF, and LA). But I think this discussion came from the very casual assumption of someone to put Chicago #3 which I do think is interesting to see where that came from.

almost_usual 8y ago
I guess the question is what do you find ‘important’ because your ‘ranking’ doesn’t map to anything. The backbone of San Francisco’s economy is tourism. If you find tourism important then I guess your list could make sense.
- adjkant 8y ago
  Why do you assume mine maps to nothing? Are you really arguing that the importance of cities is based off a single economic number or simply the number of people living there? I would say it's a combination of politics, cultural relevance, and economics mainly. Going down 1-4 in no order: New York - huge center of mixed cultures, huge both population and economic output (larger than Chicago), and a big center of the fashion industry, art, etc. DC - Capital with lots of political relevance, still good sized and has lots of other aspects that make up a city like good public transit SF - The tech center of a world being increasingly run by tech, for better or worse LA - Huge global entertainment hub, huge cultural mixing pot, huge GDP and population I find this strong backlash interesting as I have no dog in this fight - I'm from a no-name suburb to a medium city in the south and am simply a lover of cities comparing what I have encountered.
  - vasilipupkin 8y ago
    everyone can have their own importance mix for sure. Someone could find Anchorage, Alaska the most important ( and I say that without irony ). But if you want to talk to other people and use the kind of shorthand that all people understand very quickly, then GDP and population are pretty good indicators of importance that everyone sort of agrees to use as the proxy.
    - adjkant 8y ago
      I'd say that cultural and political significance, while not as straightforward/objective to judge as GDP/population, are very much factors that are/should be in the layman's shorthand.
      - vasilipupkin 8y ago
        yes, but "cultural and political significance" are hard to define and so two people could easily talk past each other, because they would define these differently whereas gdp and population are a) easy to define and b) correlated with significance
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    I live in SF and have for years. My partner was born and raised here. There are tech companies in SF but it’s vastly dwarfed by FAANG in SV. You could argue SF is a suburb for SV but I’m not sure how that would make the city any more important or interesting. Due to insane housing costs you’re more likely to meet a younger person born and raised in the Bay Area in some Midwest city (like Chicago) unless they’ve decided to live with their parents. The interesting culture of SF is in rapid decline. So what you end up with is a dying culture in a city funded by tourism (also in decline because of chronic homlessness) inhabited by transplants who don’t work in the city. Is that important? I don’t know? Maybe it’s an important model of how not to run a city.