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.
Unless it's 1870, places like St. Louis and Pittsburgh don't belong in the top tier.
Seattle, like Boston, has exceptionally high foreign trade, and handles more international air passengers than Philly, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Phoenix, and more passengers on non-US airlines than Atlanta. It has the highest pop density of any city > 500,000 that's not in a top 10 MSA, and is growing faster than any city with more people and higher density.
Metro Seattle doesn't have the cheap land or weather to grow into another DFW or Atlanta, but combining just its current growth with its concentration of high paying jobs, high levels of educations, and int'l connections, it's taking the same position on the West Coast that Boston has on the East.
I am curious about Seattle, it is definately a media darling, but also a bit isolated and not top of mind. It is a large metro but not huge. So in reading a post in another thread (http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...ance-rand.html) the question was posed on Seattle. Which category of cities does is belong.
I would put Seattle ahead of several 1AA cities on the list including Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburg, Minneapolis, Detroit, and will surpass others such as Miami & Philly in the near future....due to high tech economy.
Unless it's 1870, places like St. Louis and Pittsburgh don't belong in the top tier.
Seattle, like Boston, has exceptionally high foreign trade, and handles more international air passengers than Philly, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Phoenix, and more passengers on non-US airlines than Atlanta. It has the highest pop density of any city > 500,000 that's not in a top 10 MSA, and is growing faster than any city with more people and higher density.
Metro Seattle doesn't have the cheap land or weather to grow into another DFW or Atlanta, but combining just its current growth with its concentration of high paying jobs, high levels of educations, and int'l connections, it's taking the same position on the West Coast that Boston has on the East.
Good comment, I agree other than Boston has superior Universities but in terms of its importance in the tech industry and shipping, similar to Boston.
Seattle is the sole occupant of the middle zone between the 5-8 million cities and the 2-4 million cities. Technically Phoenix is in the same group but it bats with the smaller cities. So put Seattle in either group depending how you define the group. I think it's with the larger group due to importance in key areas including innovation, military, and popular culture.
Sometimes impressions are based on the urban core. In that case, Seattle again occupies the middle ground, but the list of bigger cities is smaller...NY, SF, Chicago, Boston, maybe Philly and DC. LA might also be in the middle but not if you're only counting downtowns.
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 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.
