Which cities are maturing into World Class? (Atlanta, Los Angeles, people)

[mhays25]

I like some of those cities but let's be real...

Seattle has a far bigger and denser traditional urban core than those cities.

[Mezter]

Originally Posted by Tosin007

Who voted for Denver? LMAO try having a Larger Downtown than Calgary 1st.

Skyline =/= Downtown. Denver's urban core is much larger than Calgary's. Now Denver has a long way to go before being considered World Class, but those tall building surrounded by suburbia (AKA Calgary) are not comparable.

[zlxt]

New nonprofit questions for whom Denver is “a world-class city”

https://denverite.com/2017/08/28/new...ld-class-city/

[jpdivola]

From a regional and economic perspective, Atlanta is the most world class. However, given the sprawling nature of the region it's core (although improving) is still fairly underwhelming. It is so spread out it doesn't really have the critical mass of activity to give it a true "world class city feel"

I would say Denver or San Diego still have better urban cores when it comes to vibrancy, walk-ability.

IMO, in the US the world class cities are basically: NYC, Chi, SF, DC, Bos, Philly, LA and maybe Miami (although maybe world class destination more than city). Seattle is probably on the bubble.

Of these, I would say only Atlanta has the scale to really achieve world class status in the next 20-years. But, it would require a massive transformation of the core. Denver could probably get to a Seattle like bubble stage.

The nice thing is regaurdless of what happens, pretty much all of these cities are improving and becoming a better version of themselves.

[mhays25]

I'd draw the list more narrowly than some people, and always differently depending on what's being counted. World class as a visual/functional cityscape is very different from world class economically or in some aspect of culture.

NYC, DC, Miami, SF, Boston...each is world class in multiple ways. Others such as Chicago, Philly, LA, and Seattle are world class in smaller ways. For example as a Seattle resident I'd say we're world class for tech (base of two of the top four English-based techs) with a bonus for scenery but we're a way off for cityscape and function.

[Pemgin]

God dude every post of yours tries to shoehorn Seattle into this.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

Because its not set up for public transportation and the citizens can afford cars...

Plus public transportation isn't really an important indicator if a city is world class or not... its only taken seriously by City-Data posters who find old brick buildings, museums and trains more important than economic factors.

But it is worth noting that Hartsfield Jackson International Airport is one of that 5 percent of US airports that you can get to on rail transit.

Here's the list of all of them, with the type of rail service and any required transfers noted. "Metro" here refers to a "heavy rail" rapid transit subway or elevated line, as the term is used in Europe and Asia. "Regional rail" is what's commonly referred to as "commuter rail" in most US cities. "Light metro" refers to a light rail line whose operating characteristics are more like those of a heavy rail metro:

Atlanta: Hartsfield Jackson International (metro station next to terminal)
Baltimore: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall (shuttle bus from regional/intercity rail station and light metro station next to terminal)
Boston: Logan International (loop shuttle bus from on-airport metro station)
Chicago: O'Hare International (metro station inside terminal)
Chicago: Midway Airport (metro station next to terminal)
Cleveland: Hopkins International (metro station inside terminal)
Dallas: Dallas/Fort Worth International (light metro station inside one terminal and loop shuttle bus from off-airport regional rail station)
Denver: Denver International (regional rail station inside terminal)
Los Angeles: Los Angeles International (loop shuttle bus from off-airport light metro station)
Miami: Miami International (regional rail and metro stations next to terminal)
Minneapolis-St. Paul: Minneapolis-St. Paul International (World Chamberlain Field) (light rail station next to terminal)
Newark: Newark Liberty (monorail loop shuttle from off-airport regional and intercity rail station)
New York: John F. Kennedy International (loop people mover from off-airport regional rail and metro stations)
Oakland: Oakland International (people mover from off-airport metro station)
Philadelphia: Philadelphia International (regional rail stations between terminals and baggage claim facilities)
Portland: Portland International (light metro station next to terminal)
San Diego: Lindbergh Field (loop shuttle bus from off-airport light metro station; regular bus route from two other nearby light metro stations)
San Francisco: San Francisco International (metro station inside terminal)
St. Louis: Lambert-St. Louis International (light metro station next to terminal)
Seattle: SeaTac International (light metro station next to terminal)
Washington: Ronald Reagan Washington National (metro station next to terminal)

So these 17 metropolitan areas (San Francisco and Oakland are one, as are Newark and New York; throw Washington and Baltimore together and you get 16) are at the very least "world class" in that one regard. Eight or nine of these have already been dubbed members of that club in multiple respects by others posting to this discussion.

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

God dude every post of yours tries to shoehorn Seattle into this.

Yes, all two of them.

[gabetx]

Honestly San Antonio shouldn't even be on this list. Just because it is big, does not mean it is approaching world class.

No Light rail
No dense, walk-able neighborhoods outside of downtown
Small airport with no intercontinental destinations
HDRC is very closed minded and prevents a lot of modern development
Lack of diversity, (vast majority Hispanic)
Low wages, due to large service industry
Not even classified in Alpha/Beta/Gamma global cities

Don't get me wrong. San Antonio is a very nice city with a lot of growth and low cost of living. I would enjoy living there myself. But it has a LONG way to go before even being brought up in a conversation about world class cities.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by mhays25

NYC, DC, Miami, SF, Boston...each is world class in multiple ways. Others such as Chicago, Philly, LA, and Seattle are world class in smaller ways. For example as a Seattle resident I'd say we're world class for tech (base of two of the top four English-based techs) with a bonus for scenery but we're a way off for cityscape and function.

I guess I can see LA not being a world class city due to its decentralized nature, but not sure how Chicago isn't but Boston is? I cant think of anything you can do in Boston that you cant due in Chicago?