Fourth-most important city is the one geographically closest to you. For all others, it's DC.
post
I like to think that Washington DC is the fourth, seeing as it’s the national capital, the political & historical center of America, and the fact that things that happen in DC have not just national, but international effects.
Also a fair bit of personal bias tbh, seeing as I live in the metro area.
I live in your country but I agree. From outside, DC is more major than Chicago.
DC has the only decent transit system besides NYC, which pushes it over a lot of bigger cities. Realistically it's NYC, DC, SF and LA are the tier one cities. Chicago, Boston, Miami, Seattle and Denver start the tier two list. Charlotte, Minneapolis and maybe SLC also get tier two. I am specifically excluding Texas because fuck Texas, there's nothing redeemable there.
I think there's some truth to the idea that the relative ranking depends on what context you're talking about.
Pure population? Houston.
History and politics? DC to the top, Philadelphia and Boston in the mix.
Economically? The Bay Area has tech and Houston has oil and gas.
Domestic tourists and international tourists? Certainly a conversation to be had for DC, Las Vegas. Miami maybe?
What about cultural influence domestically, and abroad? Do Nashville, Atlanta, and Miami fit in somewhere?
NY, Chicago, and LA for sure. And certainly cities like Seattle, Dallas, Denver, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston would all duke it out for the notoriety of the 4th spot. But, are we going to pretend that DC doesn't edge the rest out for importance, both historically and currently, for landmarks, for cultural relevance?
I'm not American but is San Francisco not a really important city?
Yeah, it is. There are arguably many more too. Minneapolis, Pheonix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Houston, etc. I just tried to pick a smattering of places off the top of my head from a wide spread of the country.
I'm with you on the rest, but Phoenix? I think they have the largest state college, but that's all I can think of for importance
It's the most populated state capital (5 million) and has a big tech and aerospace presence and semiconductor production. That's all I know about it really besides being hot and dry as hell.
Idk, from an outsider perspective to me the big 3 are NY, LA and SF. Chicago barely registers, nevermind Minneapolis
Oh no Chicago is massive. Has Willis/Sears tower which was once the tallest in the world. Is a major financial hub for thr stock exchange. Has a massive arts and good culture. Has O'Hara International Airport with flights all over the world. Many films and TV shows at there or in its suburbs.
It doesn't have as many familiar landmarks as San Fran, maybe. And San Fran is has gotten more important with the rise of Silicon Valley which shares the bay area. But Chicago is a big deal in the US, for sure.
Minneapolis really only matters within the midwest.
It was a big deal back when railroad connections meant something. Now, its a corrupt rat warren of institutionalized racism, corporate tax havens, and the goofiest accent north of oaklahoma. You guys dont even make good pizza.
Railroads still mean plenty. How do you think most goods get around?
Boats. Have you seen boats? Big metal things that float?
Yeah dude. Boats for water, then straight onto trains for land, then trucks for the last leg. Not getting a lot of boats to Indianapolis.
Indianapolis is tiny and irrelevant. All the big boy cities have ports. Chicago even has some of its own. They just dont matter anymore. I give it less than 40 years before what remains of our rail system degrades to the point that its just not safe to transport anything by train anymore. Boats will never have that problem. Its a lot easier to move a port than move 1000 miles of rail.
You do recognize that there are a lot of places boats can't get to, right? That it'd be... whatever I'm not explaining trains to you.
And that's why people build cities next to water pretty much any chance they get. No matter how efficient your transportation system is on land, it cant beat floating stuff on water. Look at history. The best cities always have water (and boats) nearby.
Indianapolis is the 16th largest US city by population. Nearly a million people live in the city proper, and 2.2 million living in the city and surrounding metro area. What do you mean it is tiny? More people live there than San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and Nashville.
And regardless most of the country is tiny, and none of it is irrelevant. Without those "tiny" "irrelevant" places the big port cities that make so much money shipping goods wouldn't have anywhere to ship them to. If the only people you care about are the ones living in cities the size of LA and up, I'm afraid you care about very few people.
Indianapolis has a population density of 2500 people per square mile. SF has about 19,000 in the same space. Seattle is about 10,000. Denver and Nashville are around 5k and 1.5k respectively, so you're getting closer. LA is way back up about about 9k. You see why these things aren't the same?
Chicago has the density, but its glory days are long past. Its just not able to compete with better placed city centers. Not with the state of rail.
So you're not a real city unless a 500 sqft apartment is a luxury? Stupid take. Throw it on the pile of other stupid takes.
Edit: Also, I love how your defense of calling it tiny is "yeah, sure, it has a lot of people. But it also has a lot of land too, so... ergo... it's tiny and irrelevant."
All the big boy cities have ports
Alright, now send some goods from NYC to LA via boat, see how long that takes you.
Philadelphia is arguably more historically significant than DC
This thread literally proves the point of the OP. People just can’t seem to agree on the 4th city lmao
PHILADELPHIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I mean, if you're operating purely by population, next in line is Houston.
If you're operating on power and influence, Washington D.C. is #1.
San Francisco easily takes it imo.
Distant 17th by population but more than makes up for it through business, technological, and cultural influence. (Edit: Especially since the wider San Francisco Bay Area can be credibly lumped together to form such a populous combined statistical area.)
The bay area is almost one big city. As such, it would be an easy 4. But separately, not a lock.
California already has one. What about Seattle?
Honestly agree about the bay but what makes the bay good is the same thing that disqualifies it from the list. You cant pick one bay area city to represent all of the bay, even SF. Youre leaving out San Jose, Oakland, Richmond, the tri Valley, Walnut Creek, all that. You cant take any one of them to wholly represent the others.
LA is California enough for most people. Its like us, but worse. Any true Californian knows youre not really talking about actual Los Angeles anyways. Its a whole cluster of cities from San Diego to Anaheim and out to the actual city proper. I think we got it covered.
Big three should be LA, NYC, and DC. SF can be a floater like Philly or Atlanta or Houston. Chicago belongs in the past and we should leave it there with their goofy accents.
Seattle definitely isn't the #4 most major city or CSA. It's a great city and has major businesses, but Seattle probably sits behind Dallas–Fort Worth. All jokes about fairness aside: California gets to have this one.
Depends how you define major. The 4th city rotates by category.
Tourism? Vegas or Orlando.
Politics or history? DC, Philadelphia or Boston.
Tech? San Francisco or Seattle.
Population size? Houston
Land size? Juneau.
Music? Nashville or maybe New Orleans and Atlanta.
Music is still NYC or LA by miles.
Really specific genres come from the places you listed.
San Francisco is not just tech. It's known for its tech and it the mecca of tech. However it's a giant port akin to NY. If you look at the entire Bay Area like New York, there is no doubt.
I'm not sure.. who would be the rotations?
Boston ?
San Francisco
Phoenix
Santa Fe
Houston Austin
Idk
+/-
Miami/Tampa/Orlando
Seattle
Atlanta
DC
Portland
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Philly
New Orleans
Kansas City
I'd also add Toronto as an honorary that gets thrown in the mix sometimes just for fun.
Dallas - Fort Worth Metro is the biggest market in Texas. Numerous random DFW suburbs are 250k+ people.
There is no 4th because no one else has 2 baseball teams.
DC has the Orioles and the Nats.
Baltimore has the orioles. The fuck kind of crack you smoking?
Yeah it's a joke. The DC suburbs are a primary TV market for the Orioles. Like, you get O's blackouts on MLB.tv all the way down to Richmond.
OK for serious, watch a Yankees game at Camden and tell me who the home team is.
Miami, San Francisco, maybe Boston. The only thing DFW is good for is talking about the Cowboys.
Maybe it's just me but I don't think Chicago holds that spot idk
Chicago was historically considered the Second City, after NYC. It's a major shipping and economic hub and has something like the 6th highest GDP of any urban region in the world, over $919 billion in 2024. It has an incredibly diverse culture and is a world class city by every definition of the word.
Its a corporate tax haven with substandard pizza and a goofy accent.
If pizza quality is going to be a consideration for city tiers I'm not sure any of the other cities in this conversation are actually any better.
Does it have a distinct regional pizza style? Yes, two in fact.
Does it do other distinct regional pizza styles really well? Yes, it's gonna be way better than most other American cities.
NY, LA, SF, DC... Chicago is a great city but not as influential on the world stage as it used to be.
Americans don't get this because they have no idea how the U.N. works.
Thats a ridiculous assertation. They wont get this because they cant read.
CityNerd covered it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrj-p5nja7o
What was their conclusion?
The US has a primary city (NYC), a top-3 (NYC, Chicago, LA) and a top-5 (NYC, Chicago, LA, SF & DC). Asking for top 2 or 4 is too hard to call and just asking for trouble.
So it’s like this:
1st tier: NY
2nd tier: Chicago & LA
3rd tier: SF & DC
(Finally learned how to do a single line break on Lemmy - put two spaces at the end of the first line, then Enter)
What in the world makes San Francisco a top city? Like maybe in the 60s...
Silicon Valley. It’s the most expensive place to live.
It’s covered in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrj-p5nja7o
San Francisco by itself, maybe not. But as an entire metro area that includes Oakland and San Jose and Silicon Valley? Yeah, it's got influence.
Houston is the 4th largest with 2.4 million. Phoenix is number 5 with 1.6 million people.
Pheonix will cease to exist within a decade
The heat, the water, emigration due to socio-economical causes low birth rate or all four?
I was going to list the four NYC Burroughs... Only to have that joke spoiled by facts.
I would go with NYC, LA, San Francisco, and Miami. Those are the four cities that, internationally, everyone knows and wants to go see.
Chicago isn’t an international city like the other 4 here. It’s just… very large. And in that sense it’s like Houston, Detroit or Atlanta. Large, important cities in the US but not particularly relevant on the world stage.
(And yes I know I’m gonna get angry Chicagoans responding, I’m kinda shitposting a bit here)
I’m not a Chicagoan, Chicago is definitely a global market, especially in the financial industry.
Non-american with unfortunate closeness/experience with the US here, and I would agree with this. I might consider replacing SF with Seattle to have one in each corner and everyone also knows Seattle (Nirvana..). We all know SF for sure but I think mostly think of it as a smaller (but richer) place than these other ones.

top 100 comments