Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-28-2012, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,528 posts, read 3,033,269 times
Reputation: 4338

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
This is strictly CSA level, not MSA level. Rand is MSA level so you are comparing apples to oranges and trying to use a CSA to prove a point against an MSA. It should either be MSA v MSA or CSA v CSA. By this account, Indianapolis would need to move up a tier as well as it sits 2 spots below Cleveland and one spot above St. Louis and one spot below Denver. All higher tiered cities.

These are not CSA or MSA numbers. They are Economic Area Population numbers which are compiled by The Bureau of Economic Analysis. Every US citizen is assigned to an Economic Area. These numbers represent the population assigned to each Economic Area. Given that The Ranally City Rating System measures economic importance, combined with factors such as education and healthcare; the ratings make sense. The numbers are what they are, if you find that problematic, take it up with The US government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2012, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
115 posts, read 206,807 times
Reputation: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastthemiddle View Post
Can anyone tell me why you care about this? It seems the equivalent of rating your dates on a scale of 1-10. If you like a place and are comfortable there, do you really need to parse these details? Do you discuss this at cocktail parties? Does this reinforce your already held opinion?

I just never understand why "tiers" get so much play around here.
I think it's kind of fun. For those who like geography and rankings, it's a cool way to see how our nation stacks up internally, through different sources and opinions. Sure it doesn't make or break a region, and in no way changes the value of a city or metro, but it gives a good system to reference if size or importance arguments come up. Data can be interesting, especially if it includes where you live .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 02:57 AM
 
3 posts, read 9,605 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in SC View Post
A few of those 2-AA should be moved to 2-BB IMO like Youngstown & Shreveport and a few should be moved up to 1-A like Charlotte & Austin. For the most part though, list seems fairly accurate.
You're not understanding the system. Every market area (basic trading area) in the country has EXACTLY one A-rated city. Other cities in the same basic trading area are rated B or C. Dallas is the A city, Fort Worth is the B city. Cleveland is the A city, Akron is the B city. Minneapolis is the A city, St. Paul is the B city. So a BB city is on a par with an AA city of the same number; it's simply not the largest city in its own market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 03:36 AM
 
3 posts, read 9,605 times
Reputation: 16
People posting in this thread seem to be questioning the ratings of various cities in the system, but no one has questioned the system itself.

The presence of major banks and bank deposits inform the Ranally ratings. The main reason Seattle was ranked lower than Cleveland, St. Louis, etc., I believe, stemmed from Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis being home to major banks and also Federal Reserve Banks. Seattle was not a banking headquarters; its banks were branches of California banks. Since the major mergers in banking, a lot of this has changed. Boston, Cleveland, St. Louis, Los Angeles, no longer banking HQ cities.

Newspaper circulation informs the ratings. The Seattle Times and P-I don't circulate much outside Washington. The Minneapolis paper is available from the Michigan UP to Montana. The Boston Globe is available throughout New England. The Atlanta Constitution is available over a large swath of the South.

Cleveland & St. Louis were also industrial powerhouses until recently. St. Louis had McDonnell Douglas. Merged out of existence. Boatman's Bank. Merged out of existence. TWA. Merged out of existence. May Department Stores. Merged out of existence. Ralston-Purina. Sold its cereal business. International Shoe. Defunct. Southwestern Bell. Moved to San Antonio.

Certainly they could rejigger the Ranally ratings to better take into account recent developments, but there will still be Major national centers > Other national centers > Major regional centers > Other regional centers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2013, 11:26 PM
 
Location: DC Suburbs
93 posts, read 263,881 times
Reputation: 144
I couldn't understand why this list looked like it did... until I clicked the link to Wikipedia and saw that the rankings were developed in 1964. While I know they have updated things here and there, it seems like a lot of changes in cities since have kind of slipped under the radar and too much weight is given to historical prominence.

For example, Youngstown, OH is ranked in a category above Akron, OH. In the 1960's, Youngstown was a steel manufacturing powerhouse with a population over 160,000. Today, the steel industry is all but gone, the economic base has been decimated, and the population is down to 60,000 (100,000 people are gone!) Akron has had its problems too, but it still has close to 200,000 people and the main industry (rubber) still has a presence. I can see the case for Youngstown having been more economically important 50 years ago, but today, Akron is still relevant in a way that Youngstown is not (except if this whole fracking thing takes off).

Similarly, as many posters have said, Seattle today seems like a much more important business center (hub for the technology industry, and a much larger metro population) than someplace like Cleveland, which has lost most of its manufacturing base and isn't an important national hub of anything in particular at this point.

I bet it would look a lot different if they scrapped the whole list and started over - right now it seems like it still has a lot of 1964 in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,943 posts, read 17,182,277 times
Reputation: 4680
Oklahoma City should be 2-AA. Austin and Charlotte should be moved up to 1-A.

I am not sure how they calculated it though. Obviously national perception had nothing to do with it. I think it has something to do with not only national but regional importance. Having to share the wealth with nearby San Antonio and with Dallas and Houston so close probably got Austin demoted to 2-AA. In North Carolina, Charlotte is top dog but its not that far ahead of Raleigh-Durham and Greensboro-WinstonSalem-High Point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Arizona
3,763 posts, read 6,673,726 times
Reputation: 2396
I would put SF and DC on this same list as Chicago and LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,768,566 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattywo85 View Post
I would put SF and DC on this same list as Chicago and LA.
This is not by csa, not even by msa. This is the city of SF and the City of SF alone.

Maybe it should not be lumped with the likes of Cleveland, but it certainly not on Los Angeles and Chicagos tier.

its time for new tiers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 11:40 AM
 
Location: SoCal
3,877 posts, read 3,855,130 times
Reputation: 3258
It just looks like an order in the size of metros to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 12:59 PM
 
811 posts, read 1,047,378 times
Reputation: 461
This is how it should be:

Tier 1: New York & Los Angeles
Tier 2: Chicago
Tier 3: Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami
Tier 4: Phoenix, Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle
Tier 5: San Diego, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, Denver, Tampa,
Tier 6: Kansas City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Orlando
Tier 7: Charlotte, Portland, Nashville, Columbus, Austin, San Antonio, Hampton Roads, Indianapolis, Sacramento, New Orleans
Tier 8: Louisville, Richmond, Memphis, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, Las Vegas, Raleigh-Durham,
Tier 9: Albuquerque, Hartford, Providence, Baton Rouge, Tulsa, El Paso, Omaha, Syracuse, Rochester, Allentown, Scranton, Grand Rapids
Tier 10: Charleston, SC, Greenville, SC, Spokane, Des Moines, Knoxville, Little Rock, Boise, Tucson, Piedmont Triad
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Over $104,000 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 > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top