It's offensive that you use Yankee as a pejorative. To foreigners, a Yankee is an American. To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner. To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner. To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.
That's fine. But initially when someone says that Houston is gaining on Chicago...and that in fact Chicago's population is shrinking, compared to a rapidly growing Houston area...and that Houston is currently 4th in population while Chicago is 3rd...that's all entirely true defining it the way it's typically been defined through the census.
I personally don't consider Houston on the same level as NYC, LA or Chicago regardless of if the metro population is passed. Houston has a long ways to go to catch any of them IMO.
In terms of what? Culture? Urbanization? Population density? There are a lot of factors in play here, but the biggest one of them all is perception. The country perceives Houston to be small, and inconsequential on a national level (especially when compared to the 3 cities you listed), but in reality, over the next 25 years, it might have a bigger impact than all 3 combined (oil and healthcare).
MD Anderson is the only hospital worth mentioning when talking about elite medical institutions. Houston is the energy capital of the world, and that will take it to the next level over the next several decades.
All of those things. Right now in all the research done, I have yet to see Houston mentioned in the same class as a global city compared to those 3. I'm sure over the next 25 years, Houston will have come a long ways, all I'm saying is right now, I don't consider it to be close. While it may pass up Chicago in that 25 years and LA in X amount of years, I still don't see it touching NY. NY is pretty much a global powerhouse. It's economic, cultural, and political values and influence are really one of a kind in this country.
New York is the worlds top city. 2008 Global Cities: 1. New York City (unchanged) Alpha++ 2. London (unchanged) Alpha++ 3. Paris (unchanged) Alpha+ ... 6. Los Angeles (was 7) Alpha 7. Chicago(was 6) Alpha+ ... 38. Houston (unchanged) Beta+ ... 2012 Economist Global City Competitiveness 1. New York 2. London 3. Singapore ... 9. Chicago ... 19. Los Angeles ... 23. Houston Houston is in the same tier as Berlin, Vancouver, Rome. Not bad company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
The actual rankings has Houston behind NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and LA. Other ranking has Houston also behind Miami. In all this means Houston can continue to grow in prestige. Additionally, as the population grows Houston will begin to export its culture across the globe. In my opinion, Houston is better than LA. In a few decades of growth, it'll catch up to Chicago. NYC will have to be its own ruin.
Yeah they have the worst criteria and aren't credible at all. Well to be fair, metro Chicago is well over nine million and Chicago has a much larger urban area. And its GDP is quite a bit above Houston, too. But Houston's GDP grew by over 8% between 2011-2012, so its definitely growing fast. And with the Panama Canal expansion coming next year, Houston is about to boom even more...
