U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 03-05-2012, 11:54 AM
 
3,272 posts, read 2,933,407 times
Reputation: 1471
QUOTE]Has any of those cities hosted the Olympic games?[/quote]

Boston, DC, NYC, Philly, Chicago. SF.

...are cities that have not hosted the Olympics. There are worthwhile points to make, hosting the Olympics is not a very useful one.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2012, 11:58 AM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,813,281 times
Reputation: 1164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
Boston, DC, NYC, Philly, Chicago. SF.

...are cities that have not hosted the Olympics. There are worthwhile points to make, hosting the Olympics is not a very useful one.
It is, but its not the only indication. Just because a city miss one thing doesn't say much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:19 PM
 
8,687 posts, read 11,727,229 times
Reputation: 1937
Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:21 PM
 
1,617 posts, read 912,000 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunwoodyPanhandle View Post
Set in stone? A city's status is never set in stone. See Alexandria, Egypt for an example.
For now it is
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:44 PM
 
3,961 posts, read 2,486,229 times
Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
This has nothing to do with the unemployment rate, rate of inflation and etc. MSA are commuter rate base. A very bad unemployment rate is lets say 10% and up. The commuter rate is 25% base. It only take 25% of workers from point A to point B, for CSA 15%. More than 25% of a county are workers. Out of 85% to 90% of the workers of a county don't commute to meet the criteria WoW. If a high unemployment rate effect the commuter rate it doesn't deserve to be one metro. A county most have barely meet the commuter criteria in the first.

Population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your alternate index is call "DENSITY" That's Not new or a good indicator of a place size. That doesn't measure anything of outward growth, urban sprawl or anything in relation with causation. There doesn't suppose to be a radius count on things that grow out ward, because places don't sprawl equal. That's what your missing your not accepting some places should have more area than others, because they sprawl more.

Top in ten in what? because Atlanta is top 10 in a lot of things. Getting in the top 10 club is old and there really special about it. What a up hill battle is trying to pass the other top cities, Atlanta peers. The sad thing is I'am not even trying to boast but you seem to be strong on trying undermined Atlanta and, trying put Detroit over. Detroit peers are Seattle, Minneapolis and Phoenix.
I am not trying to repudiate, but rather, educate. Your point seems to be centered on geographical foot print. The Atlanta MSA's footprint is about 8,000 square miles (which gives it like 5.2 million). The Detroit MSA footprint is about 4,000 square mile (which gives it like 4.2 million). The footprint is determined by commuting patterns. Thus, the Atlanta area has a larger geographical area, for MSA counting purposes, because of the commuting patterns of people who live outside Atlanta and tend to drive into the city more than they do in Detroit. It does not mean that Detroit does not have more people living outside of Detroit than Atlanta has living outside of Atlanta; it just means that these people don’t commute to the city of Detroit!

If all of a sudden downtown Detroit went on a building boom and most office jobs in the area shifted to Detroit, overnight, Detroit’s MSA population would probably increase by half a million people or more overnight, as people would now have to drive into Detroit for work. Someone looking at that would logically think that Detroit area's population INCREASED by over half a million, when what really happened is that commuting pattern changed and more people drove downtown. A real life example of the flaw is Grand Rapids Michigan. It used to have a MSA population over 1 million people (Kent, Ottawa and Allegan counties). However, now its MSA population is about a 775k, despite the area actually growing in population. The reason its MSA population changed from one census to the next has nothing to do with population growth or decline of the area, but rather, one of the counties (Ottawa 250,000 +) fell below the 25% commute threshold with Kent county and hence the Grand Rapids MSA footprint shrunk along with a quater of a million people. So did the area experience a population decline? According to you.....yes.....when the truth is that the area has actually been a steady growth region in Michigan.

In light of that, if someone was looking to market a product or open a new franchise or startup in the area, but they see that the population has dropped by over a quarter of million people, it creates the impression of a depressed area. If a company wants to locate in a stable or growing metropolitan area, and they see that Grand Rapids metro has fallen in people, they might not invest. However, if one simply looked at the 25 mile radius or 50 mile radius of Grand Rapids, they would see that the population actually had grown. Hence, someone who is looking at an area for marketing purposes and wants to know information about population growth and change in the area, the MSA is flawed. Simply looking at the radius population and its growth is a much better metric than a count that is based on commuting patterns.

Detroit’s metro count has been grossly reduced due to the well-known problems of the city of Detroit proper, which is currently at about only 40% of its peak population and which has suffered massive business disinvestment over the last few decades. Hence, why do people need to commute to Detroit when there is nothing left? Much of the offices building in Detroit have very high vacancy rates and most of the factories in the city moved to the suburbs long ago. Hence, people from outside of the city don’t commute to the city because there are far fewer jobs in the city than there used to be and far fewer jobs in the city than in Atlanta. All one has to do is look at the Atlanta skyline compared to Detroit’s to realize that downtown Atlanta and bulkhead is a major employment center relative to Detroit’s downtown. Therefore, people outside Atlanta commute to Atlanta for work because the city has a large concentration of jobs while the city of Detroit does not, so people do not commute to Detroit and hence those outside areas do not get to be in the Detroit MSA footprint.

I totally understand the point that you are making. You are not presenting anything over my head nor am I ignoring your point. What I am doing is filling in the gaps of the methodology used by MSA, which are flawed. Again, when you have a metropolitan area that is GROWING, yet, reports a MSA population loss of over a quarter a million people, due to nothing more than its commuting percentage in an outlying county dropping from 25% to 23%.......that’s a flawed metric. I mean…..honestly……an area MSA changing SIMPLY because a 2 percentage point change in commuting patterns……Please. This is flawed and no intelligent person looking to do REAL RESEARCH and MARKET ANALYSIS would base it on flawed MSA metrics.

Last edited by Indentured Servant; 03-05-2012 at 12:58 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:53 PM
 
6,537 posts, read 3,919,709 times
Reputation: 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
That site knocks Atlanta out...barely.

Alpha++ New York
Alpha+ Chicago
Alpha Los Angeles, San Francisco, DC
Alpha- Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Miami, Philadelphia
Beta+ Houston
Beta Minneapolis, Seattle
Beta- Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, San Diego, St Louis
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 01:00 PM
 
6,537 posts, read 3,919,709 times
Reputation: 1596
I should add that numerically in the world the Global Cities ranks for the US are

1. New York
6. Chicago
7. LA
12 San Francisco
13. DC
19 Boston

...and that's it for the listed top 30
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 01:16 PM
 
6,537 posts, read 3,919,709 times
Reputation: 1596
Global Power City Index for the US gives

1. New York
13. LA
16. Boston
21. San Francisco

...for the top 25.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 01:27 PM
 
6,537 posts, read 3,919,709 times
Reputation: 1596
And the KNIGHT FRANK GLOBAL CITIES INDEX that measures economic activity, political power, quality of life, and knowledge and influence lists for the US

1. New York
6. LA
11. Chicago
12. DC
16. San Francisco
29. Boston
30. Miami

...for the top 40

So maybe Atlanta ain't there yet.



http://www.knightfrank.com/documents/wealthreport/TheWealthReport2011.pdf (broken link)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 01:57 PM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,813,281 times
Reputation: 1164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
I am not trying to repudiate, but rather, educate. Your point seems to be centered on geographical foot print. The Atlanta MSA's footprint is about 8,000 square miles (which gives it like 5.2 million). The Detroit MSA footprint is about 4,000 square mile (which gives it like 4.2 million). The footprint is determined by commuting patterns. Thus, the Atlanta area has a larger geographical area, for MSA counting purposes, because of the commuting patterns of people who live outside Atlanta and tend to drive into the city more than they do in Detroit. It does not mean that Detroit does not have more people living outside of Detroit than Atlanta has living outside of Atlanta; it just means that these people donít commute to the city of Detroit!

If all of a sudden downtown Detroit went on a building boom and most office jobs in the area shifted to Detroit, overnight, Detroitís MSA population would probably increase by half a million people or more overnight, as people would now have to drive into Detroit for work. Someone looking at that would logically think that Detroit area's population INCREASED by over half a million, when what really happened is that commuting pattern changed and more people drove downtown. A real life example of the flaw is Grand Rapids Michigan. It used to have a MSA population over 1 million people (Kent, Ottawa and Allegan counties). However, now its MSA population is about a 775k, despite the area actually growing in population. The reason its MSA population changed from one census to the next has nothing to do with population growth or decline of the area, but rather, one of the counties (Ottawa 250,000 +) fell below the 25% commute threshold with Kent county and hence the Grand Rapids MSA footprint shrunk along with a quater of a million people. So did the area experience a population decline? According to you.....yes.....when the truth is that the area has actually been a steady growth region in Michigan.

In light of that, if someone was looking to market a product or open a new franchise or startup in the area, but they see that the population has dropped by over a quarter of million people, it creates the impression of a depressed area. If a company wants to locate in a stable or growing metropolitan area, and they see that Grand Rapids metro has fallen in people, they might not invest. However, if one simply looked at the 25 mile radius or 50 mile radius of Grand Rapids, they would see that the population actually had grown. Hence, someone who is looking at an area for marketing purposes and wants to know information about population growth and change in the area, the MSA is flawed. Simply looking at the radius population and its growth is a much better metric than a count that is based on commuting patterns.

Detroitís metro count has been grossly reduced due to the well-known problems of the city of Detroit proper, which is currently at about only 40% of its peak population and which has suffered massive business disinvestment over the last few decades. Hence, why do people need to commute to Detroit when there is nothing left? Much of the offices building in Detroit have very high vacancy rates and most of the factories in the city moved to the suburbs long ago. Hence, people from outside of the city donít commute to the city because there are far fewer jobs in the city than there used to be and far fewer jobs in the city than in Atlanta. All one has to do is look at the Atlanta skyline compared to Detroitís to realize that downtown Atlanta and bulkhead is a major employment center relative to Detroitís downtown. Therefore, people outside Atlanta commute to Atlanta for work because the city has a large concentration of jobs while the city of Detroit does not, so people do not commute to Detroit and hence those outside areas do not get to be in the Detroit MSA footprint.

I totally understand the point that you are making. You are not presenting anything over my head nor am I ignoring your point. What I am doing is filling in the gaps of the methodology used by MSA, which are flawed. Again, when you have a metropolitan area that is GROWING, yet, reports a MSA population loss of over a quarter a million people, due to nothing more than its commuting percentage in an outlying county dropping from 25% to 23%.......thatís a flawed metric. I meanÖ..honestlyÖÖan area MSA changing SIMPLY because a 2 percentage point change in commuting patternsÖÖPlease. This is flawed and no intelligent person looking to do REAL RESEARCH and MARKET ANALYSIS would base it on flawed MSA metrics.
You still not getting it. What you saying is call Density That's all your stating it's well known the Detroit area is denser. Props to Detroit I wish Atlanta was denser. No one is even debating that. But understand it mean nothing. If you want to say Detroit is bigger because of density than find Detroit is bigger by density but that don't say much. If the area is not acting like it's part of the metro then it's not. It is what it is, cities can grow upwards and outwards. Just like a city pop can decline the metro can shrink, yes you can lose a county. There no pity for that, that means a region is not acting like a region should no more. The unity is going away. There less holding the region together.

Again I have nothing against Detroit "Other then that Detroit is call D Town in which what I Identity as Dallas" But Detroit historical architecture is Bananas, and I wish Detroit roared like did in it's glory days. But it's a Dead Horse debating this, Atlanta is the larger fully united region by population.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top