Where does Seattle belong? (cost, comparison, places, Atlanta) - City-Data Forum

kidphilly · 07-09-2010, 10:02 AM

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 (U.S. City tiers of importance(Rand McNally)City Rating System.) the question was posed on Seattle. Which category of cities does is belong.

Is it more closely realted to:

*1-AA Major national business centers Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (13 cities)

or these:

*1-A Other national business centersBaltimore, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, and Seattle (14 cities)

Just interested in the thoughts and rationale.

johnatl · 07-09-2010, 10:15 AM

Definately 1-AA in my opinion.

They have heavy trade with the Pacific Rim that is only increasing - the Port of Seattle blows everything else in the Pacific NW out of the water. They have also gained several new nonstops to Asia after the Delta/NW merger, and Delta has larger plans for them in the future.

Quite an impressive stable of homegrown corporations, several of which are undisputed industry leaders. Add one of the healthiest Downtowns in the U.S. (especially considering the size of the metro) with a very impressive collection of retail (including the flagship Nordstrom & the regions flagship Macy's), a wonderful quality of life and a location that could only be described as stunning. They are late to the game when it comes to rail, but that is being addressed with the opening of the first phase of Link Light Rail. Sounder Commuter Rail has been in place for a while now, and is a resounding success.

The only drawbacks are the cost of living and the weather (for some).

Seatte punches WAY above its weight, imo.

kcmo · 07-09-2010, 10:28 AM

OKC should be on some lower tier and Seattle should be higher.

toughguy · 07-09-2010, 10:33 AM

I would move Seattle into Tier 1-AA and move St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland into tier 1-A. Not only is Seattle much larger (CSA) than those cities, it also has much more economic firepower and is a major port city.

Of the cities in the 1-A list, I would say that Denver, Phoenix, San Diego and Baltimore are a lot closer to Seattle's stature than places like Columbus, Indianapolis, San Antonio, OKC, etc....

HenryAlan · 07-09-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnatl

Definately 1-AA in my opinion.

They have heavy trade with the Pacific Rim that is only increasing - the Port of Seattle blows everything else in the Pacific NW out of the water. They have also gained several new nonstops to Asia after the Delta/NW merger, and Delta has larger plans for them in the future.

[snip]

Seatte punches WAY above its weight, imo.

The bolded part is why it does not punch above its weight. Of course it is more important than Portland, that doesn't mean it's on the same level as San Francisco. And I'm not talking about ports, so much as the contextual comparison you've made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by toughguy

I would move Seattle into Tier 1-AA and move St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland into tier 1-A. Not only is Seattle much larger (CSA) than those cities, it also has much more economic firepower and is a major port city.

I would agree that some in 1-AA probably are over ranked, but that doesn't mean that Seattle belongs there. Move the Pittsburgh's and Clevelands to 1-A, so that they can join Seattle.

HtownLove · 07-09-2010, 10:58 AM

Seattle belongs right where it is; in the north west.

I might be alone in this department, but I love Seattle's weather. Seattle is also gorgeous

EastSideMKE · 07-09-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Seattle belongs right where it is; in the north west.

I might be alone in this department, but I love Seattle's weather. Seattle is also gorgeous

johnatl · 07-09-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

The bolded part is why it does not punch above its weight. Of course it is more important than Portland, that doesn't mean it's on the same level as San Francisco. And I'm not talking about ports, so much as the contextual comparison you've made.

I would agree that some in 1-AA probably are over ranked, but that doesn't mean that Seattle belongs there. Move the Pittsburgh's and Clevelands to 1-A, so that they can join Seattle.

I never said anything remotely to the effect that it was on the Bay Areas level. Are you aware of the contributions the Port of Seattle makes to the regions economy?

Seattle DOES punch above its weight, whether you believe it or not. It is the "go to" place for a huge region stretching from Alaska to Oregon - including British Columbia.

HtownLove · 07-09-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

kidphilly · 07-09-2010, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnatl

I never said anything remotely to the effect that it was on the Bay Areas level. Are you aware of the contributions the Port of Seattle makes to the regions economy?

Seattle DOES punch above its weight, whether you believe it or not. It is the "go to" place for a huge region stretching from Alaska to Oregon - including British Columbia.

What about Vancouver?

So then would Seattle be closer to SF or Portland on this scale?