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.
First of all, that GDP figure is totally invaid, use the BEA numbers. Philly isn't anywhere close to 4th largest in the US, let alone top 10 in the world, by any metric,city, MSA, or CSA.
The whole wealth metrics can all be lumped together( i.e. regional household incomes, banking deposits; we get it, Philly is a national center for wealth).
And all those individual school rankings from seperate universities mean nothing, number of highly ranked universities suffices, and Philly is a top 10 metro for education; with that said, Philly is still closer to DFW and Houston than Boston, and I would argue that Houston is more important, but thats for another thread.
Numbers speak for them selves friend.
Philadelphia is just as important as Boston and maybe more important, with all the medicine GDP and media market.
So what are you talking about?
Houston is more important than Boston to. Thanks fot reminding me.
I would think it's common sense that Minneapolis - St. Paul are a few tiers above Columbus and Austin in just about every category. Aside from having large universities, these cities/metros really have nothing common. Even if you do prefer cities like Columbus, Austin, Indianapolis, and Kansas City to Minneapolis, to state they are on the same level or above, is ridiculous.
I can also understand why one would place San Jose above Pittsburgh. A few reasons why I think San Jose places above Pittsburgh has to do with the fact that it has a higher GDP and it's part of Silicon Valley.
Here are mine:
Tier 1
New York
Tier 2
Chicago, Washington D.C. Los Angeles
Tier 3
San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, Houston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta
Tier 4
Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Phoenix, Denver, San Diego, Pittsburgh
Tier 5:
St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Portland
Tier 6:
Las Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Tampa
Again, have to disagree, you would have to spend time in all of these cities and/or have a reason to know about them in terms of demographics. Fortunately, I've done both. Demographically the cities are very similar. Actually most of the midwest metros are extremely similar with one another outside of Chicago and Metro Detroit. In terms of sales, incomes right around the same so you do not actually change income ranges regardless of the product/service you are pushing, while the income range would be raised for Cities like Chicago, All of Jersey, NYC, Certain parts of the Cleveland and Detroit Metros, Atlanta and Philly. Cities like Wichita, you can actually lower your income range. Minn-St. Paul, Indy, Columbus, Cincy, KC, St. Louis your numbers don't change they fit in the same category. The only difference mainly is population and latitude/longitude. No city offers anything another city doesn't in terms of amenities, only varying degrees. Look it's not personal, just straight business and business wise for me and what I do anyway, the cities don't have a difference in that regard, they are all on that same tier.
Now if you are throwing in global influence regardless of genre then it may change. I do not personally know if Minn-St. Paul has that type of name recognition overseas. There are still a whole lot of Americans who can't even pronounce it correctly believe it or not let alone spell it. Indianapolis is synonymous in racing and amateur sports so everyone knows the Indianapolis 500, NHRA, MotoGP and F1 before it died out here in the states. CBus and KC probably I would venture not have recognition while St. Louis definitely would have recognition across the globe. It's all a matter of preference and how that fits in to who each person is individually. You ask any mayor and they will all say they are a world class Tier I city and oddly enough you can't prove them wrong because there isn't a right or wrong answer only opinion.
What are the most important cities in the United States? Or put another way, the sudden disappearance of which U.S. cities would cause the greatest impact on the rest of the U.S. and the world at large?
The question is at once interesting and controversial. Many will claim that the question is inherently subjective, even unanswerable.
I disagree.
If U.S. News & World Report can successfully rank every college in America, and if Money magazine can tell you which places (out of 1,800+) are the best in which to live, then meaningful comparisons can surely be made amongst U.S. cities.
While New York is, undoubtedly, America’s most important city, which city is the U.S.’s second most important city? What would a list of the top 5 U.S. cities look like? And what about the top 10? Which cities deserve a place on that list? Obviously, these are incredibly difficult questions.
In my quest to determine the most important American cities, I discovered a number of studies that sought to rank U.S. cities in order of importance. Some of these studies were academic, others were put together by private companies, and nearly all of them focused on economics.
ACADEMIC STUDIES
According to Wikipedia, one of the first attempts to categorize and rank cities was made by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) based at the geography department of Loughborough University in the UK. Every four years, the GaWC compiles a ranked list of “Global Cities,” dividing cities into “Alpha”, “Beta”, and “Gamma” categories.
Their 2008 list is their latest and lists New York and Chicago as the U.S.’s only “Alpha” cities. The GaWC, meanwhile, classifies Los Angeles, Washington, Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, Miami, and Houston as the U.S.’s ”Beta” cities. Finally, the GaWC lists Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Philadelphia, Portland, Detroit, and San Deigo as the U.S.’s “Gamma” cities.
This is what the GaWC’s ranked list of U.S. cities would look like:
Alpha++
1. New York
Alpha-
2. Chicago
Beta+
3. Los Angeles
4. Washington
5. Atlanta
6. San Francisco
Beta
7. Dallas
8. Boston
9. Miami
Beta-
10. Houston
Gamma+
11. Denver
12. Minneapolis
13. Seattle
Gamma
14. Philadelphia
15. Portland
16. Detroit
Gamma-
17. San Diego
The GaWC’s rankings are based on a city’s provision of “advanced producer services” such as accountancy, advertising, finance, and law. As such, the GaWC’s roster “denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational corporations providing financial and consulting services rather than denoting other cultural, political, and economic centers“—an obvious drawback.
Seeking to address several of the shortcomings of the GaWC’s rankings, Peter J. Taylor, a Loughborough University researcher, considered several additional cultural, political, and social dimensions excluded from the GaWC’s ranking calculations and compiled his own roster of cities in a report entitled “Leading World Cities: Empirical Evaluations of Urban Nodes in Multiple Networks.” Taylor considered the following variables in conducting his study:
Taylor concluded that there were six “global cities” and three “world cities” in the U.S. (In Taylor’s usage, the term, “world cities,” is a lesser designation than that of “global cities”.)
Here are Taylor’s findings:
Functionally comprehensive global cities:
Leading cities: New York
Smaller contribution and with cultural bias: Los Angeles & San Francisco
Incipient global cities: Boston & Chicago
Global niche cities (specialized global contributions):
Political and social: Washington
Worldwide leading cities:
Primarily economic contributions: Miami
Primarily non-economic contributions: Atlanta & Denver
Applying Taylor’s findings to a ranking, you end up with this:
1. New York
2. (tie) Los Angeles & San Francisco
4. (tie) Boston & Chicago
6. Washington
7. (tie) Atlanta, Denver, & Miami
While Taylor’s conclusions certainly add new perspectives to the GaWC’s study, all either study is really doing is measuring the amount of large multinational companies and organizations within several large cities.
RAND McNALLY’S RANKINGS
Rand McNally publishes an annual ranking of U.S. cities in its Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide called the “Ranally City Rankings.”
In the Ranally City Rankings system, cities are divided into categories based upon their economic functions. The system is designed to reflect an underlying hierarchy whereby consumers and businesses go to a city of a certain size for a certain function; some functions are widely available and others are only available in the largest cities.
The Ranally City Rankings “utilize a number of criteria, including population, total retail sales volume, shopping goods volume, volume of wholesaling, the number of headquarters of major corporations, banking activity and hospital facilities. Another important factor is circulation statistics for locally published daily newspapers, the extent of the area in which they circulate, and the degree to which they undergo competition locally with newspapers from other cities.”
The following is a list of all the cities ranked “1” in the Ranally City Rankings system. Cities ranked “1” are classified as “nationally important business centers.” According to Rand McNally, “each of these cities is an independent center of large-scale financial and wholesaling activity, as well as a very large retailing center. Each has a large tributary territory in which its dominant importance is overwhelming. Firms with nationwide distribution are almost certain to have important branches or outlets in every one of these cities.”
1-AAAA (Unique rating): New York
1-AAA (Unique rating): Los Angeles & Chicago
1-AA (Major national business centers): Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington
1-A (Other national business centers): Baltimore, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, and Seattle
On New York’s unique 1-AAAA rating: “New York City is the only city with this ranking, in recognition of its unique business importance and nationwide economic influence”
On Los Angeles’s and Chicago’s unique 1-AAA ratings: “Los Angeles and Chicago have been recognized with this special rating, as the only cities besides New York whose economic importance and influence operate over a large part of the U.S.”
MASTERCARD RANKS U.S. CITIES
Strangely enough, MasterCard, has also attempted to rank cities in a research project it calls the “Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index.” In two reports, one in 2007 and another in 2008, MasterCard used seven evaluative dimensions to identify and rank the “75 most influential cities that drive the global economy.” Like the GaWC studies and the Ranally City Rankings, the MasterCard rankings are heavily weighed toward a city’s economic importance, rather than its cultural or political importance.
Here is the ranking of U.S. cities in MasterCard’s 2008 “Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index”:
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Boston
Atlanta
San Francisco
Miami
Houston
Dallas
Washington
(For whatever reason, Dallas and Philadelphia were left out of MasterCard’s 2007 index. It should also be noted that MasterCard made several adjustments to way it calculated its rankings between the 2007 and 2008 indices.)
FOREIGN POLICY’S “GLOBAL CITY INDEX”
In 2008, the bimonthly American news magazine Foreign Policy, in collaboration with A.T. Kearney and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, released their own ranking of world cities called the “Global Cities Index.”
FP’s “Global Cities Index” ranked 60 international metropolitan areas according to 24 metrics across five dimensions:
“Business Activity”: the value of a city’s capital markets, the number of Fortune Global 500 firms headquartered there, and the volume of goods that pass through the city
“Human Capital”: the percent of residents with university degrees, the number of international schools, the size of the immigrant population
“Information Exchange”: the number of international news bureaus, the amount of international news in leading local papers, and the number of broadband subscribers
“Cultural Experience”: the number of performing arts venues and major sporting events, and attractions for travelers and residents
“Political Engagement”: the degree to which a city influences global policymaking and dialogue, the number of embassies and consulates, major think tanks and international organizations, and political conferences.
By also including measures of cultural, social, and political importance, the “Global Cities Index”, in my view, offers a more well-rounded picture of a city’s overall importance—and not just its economic or financial importance. The published list contained only 60 cities, eight of which were American. Here are the eight U.S. cities in the order that they appeared on the list:
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington
San Francisco
Boston
Miami
Atlanta
So far, the Foreign Policy “Global Cities Index” seems to be the best for comparing U.S. cities against each other. But even that list is far from perfect.
OTHER INTERESTING STUDIES
While researching this topic, I also encountered other interesting lists that ranked U.S. cities. One such list involves the degree to which U.S. cities are connected to other U.S. and international cities. This list appeared in the Brookings Institute report “U.S. Cities in the World City Network.” Like the GaWC studies, the report examines the economic connections among U.S. and international cities’ global advanced service firms.
The report also divides cities into different tiers based on their “connectivity.” Here’s a listing of the first five tiers:
Strata I: New York
Strata II: Chicago & Los Angeles
Strata III: San Francisco, Atlanta, Miami, & Washington
Strata IV: Boston, Dallas, Houston, & Seattle
Strata V: Denver, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, St. Louis & Detroit
The report places New York in its own tier, and Chicago and Los Angeles are the only second tier cities. Miami’s high position is attributed to its status as “Capital of Latin America”; San Francisco’s being the nation’s “western gateway/financial center”; Atlanta’s due to it being a “media center” and also to its role as being the “unchallenged capital of the large and growing South”; and Washington’s on account of its role as the U.S. national capital. In the fourth tier, “regional capitals in New England and the Pacific Northwest (Boston and Seattle) are joined by the two Texan world cities, one as regional center (Dallas) and the other as the world’s energy capital (Houston).”
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE: TERROR RISK
At the outset of this post, I grimly asked: “the sudden disappearance of which U.S. cities would cause the greatest impact on the rest of the U.S. and the world at large?”
Unfortunately, there actually are groups actively working toward the “sudden disappearance” of America’s cities. Which cities do these groups think are important? According to a 2007 RAND Corporation study entitled “Terrorism Risk Modeling for Intelligence Analysis and Infrastructure Protection”, “four cities—New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Los Angeles—account for most of the total attack likelihood” to the United States. In other words, the cities of New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles remain the cities most attractive to prospective terrorists.
The RAND study used sophisticated modeling in order to determine the concentration of terrorism likelihood in individual U.S. cities. The report found that “cities with more locations believed to be attractive targets are, unsurprisingly, estimated to be at higher likelihood of attack, since there are many more options for terrorist attacks in these cities.” The report then divided U.S. cities into tiers based on the total likelihood of terror attacks against them:
Tier 1: New York & Washington
Tier 2: Chicago, Los Angeles, & San Francisco
Tier 3: Boston, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, & Philadelphia
Tier 4: Cleveland, Detroit, San Diego, & Seattle
Tier 5: Atlanta, Buffalo, Dallas, Denver, Orlando, San Jose, St. Louis, St. Petersburg, & Tampa
It’s no surprise that the most attractive cities to terrorists are the same cities that were so highly ranked in the studies we’ve already examined.
CONCLUSIONS Every study I encountered ranked New York as the U.S.’s most important city. Which city is the nation’s second city, however, is unclear, as it seems to be a tie between Chicago and Los Angeles. In a very crude and unscientific attempt to quantify each of the rankings above, I attached scores to each of the city rankings. In each study, the city ranked #1 was given a score of 25, the city ranked #2 was given a score of 24, the city ranked #3 was given a score of 23 and so on until the first 25 cities ranked in each survey were given scores. In the case of the Ranally and RAND rankings, I gave scores according to each city’s tier: tier 1 cities received scores of 25, tier 2 cities received 24’s, and so on. Each city’s study scores were then added together to give the city a total score. The fifteen highest scoring cities are in the chart below: Unsurprisingly, New York received the highest score. Chicago and Los Angeles were virtually tied for second place, with a single point being the only difference between the two. (My gut, however, tells me that Los Angeles is #2, and that Chicago is #3.) San Francisco, meanwhile, was clearly in fourth place, and Washington narrowly edged out Boston and Atlanta for fifth place.
Here’s the total ranking:
1. New York
2. (tie) Los Angeles & Chicago
4. San Francisco
5. Washington
6. Boston
7. Atlanta
8. Miami
9. (tie) Dallas & Houston
11. Philadelphia
12. Denver
13. Seattle
14. Minneapolis
15. Detroit
U.S. Most Important City: New York
U.S. Top 3 Cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago
U.S. Top 5 Cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington
U.S. Top 10 Cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston
U.S. Top 15 Cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit
The relatively high rankings of Miami and Atlanta and the relatively low rankings of Philadelphia and Seattle are what surprised me most about the studies. The other rankings seem about right.
Washington’s ranking is the only one I’m not confident about, and it is easily the most difficult American city to rank. Clearly, Washington’s importance is derived from its status as the U.S. national capital—Washington is, after all, the seat of American power. But if the city of Washington was suddenly stripped of its national capital status—and the capital moved elsewhere—it seems within the realm of possibly that Washington, much like contemporary Detroit, would slowly wither away. And yet as the capital of the most powerful country in the world, a convincing argument can also made for Washington to be ranked as the U.S.’s second, or even first, most important city. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the Soviets had had more missiles pointing at Washington than any other American city.)
Whenever I think of big cities, tall buildings are among the first things that come to mind. Curiously enough, the fifteen highest scoring cities from the studies are also the fifteen U.S. cities that have the most tall buildings within their city limits.
Notes:
I’m seeking to determine the contemporary importance of U.S. cities—not their historical importance.
All of the above studies were published within the last five years.
The above studies ranked cities along with their metro areas. For example, nearly all of the studies included San Jose and Silicon Valley with San Francisco.
Source: 41Latitude - The Most Important Cities in the United States (http://www.41latitude.com/post/400972984/most-important-cities-united-states - broken link) by Justin O'Beirne
^The premis of this while an assmeblance of quantitiative data has two dramatic flaws - one on GaWC - the Philadelphia effect directly to proximity and consulting firms (Way too much significance as the determining factor) and is severely under-reported on this report. This factor is also a significant influence on Taylor and Brookings.
Also on your table another fatal flaw is you accumulate the rankings when some cities were not even part of the scoring, without weigthing the scores and accounting for non scores this accumulation is also seemingly useless.
Rand and Ranally and to a lessor extent Mastercard are the most inclusive without such significant reliance on Consulting Office location as criteria (and my beef on the consulting office location is that due to extreme proximity to NYC; the NYC offices for many of the consulting fims also serves the Philly market) though all have their flaws and none will be perfect but to me this an example where one specific criteria (even though the Philly market is extremly well served in close proximity by these offices) drops the ranking by as much 3-4 levels in some of these. While Philly is the outlier on this specific ranking Atlanta placing 4 levels above Philadelphia specific to the ranking seems to raise an eyebrow or that Philly in the same category as Portland also makes no logical sense.
^The premis of this while an assmeblance of quantitiative data has two dramatic flaws - one on GaWC - the Philadelphia effect directly to proximity and consulting firms (Way too much significance as the determining factor) and is severely under-reported on this report. This factor is also a significant influence on Taylor and Brookings.
Also on your table another fatal flaw is you accumulate the rankings when some cities were not even part of the scoring, without weigthing the scores and accounting for non scores this accumulation is also seemingly useless.
Rand and Ranally and to a lessor extent Mastercard are the most inclusive without such significant reliance on Consulting Office location as criteria (and my beef on the consulting office location is that due to extreme proximity to NYC; the NYC offices for many of the consulting fims also serves the Philly market) though all have their flaws and none will be perfect but to me this an example where one specific criteria (even though the Philly market is extremly well served in close proximity by these offices) drops the ranking by as much 3-4 levels in some of these. While Philly is the outlier on this specific ranking Atlanta placing 4 levels above Philadelphia specific to the ranking seems to raise an eyebrow or that Philly in the same category as Portland also makes no logical sense.
Yes, we've all been over this time and time again.
But this is a cumulative ranking and is the only one of its kind that I know of and the fact that some cities are not included in every ranking I think among other things, is a statement of how important(or unimportant) a city was to the authors of that particular study.
^The premis of this while an assmeblance of quantitiative data has two dramatic flaws - one on GaWC - the Philadelphia effect directly to proximity and consulting firms (Way too much significance as the determining factor) and is severely under-reported on this report. This factor is also a significant influence on Taylor and Brookings.
Also on your table another fatal flaw is you accumulate the rankings when some cities were not even part of the scoring, without weigthing the scores and accounting for non scores this accumulation is also seemingly useless.
Rand and Ranally and to a lessor extent Mastercard are the most inclusive without such significant reliance on Consulting Office location as criteria (and my beef on the consulting office location is that due to extreme proximity to NYC; the NYC offices for many of the consulting fims also serves the Philly market) though all have their flaws and none will be perfect but to me this an example where one specific criteria (even though the Philly market is extremly well served in close proximity by these offices) drops the ranking by as much 3-4 levels in some of these. While Philly is the outlier on this specific ranking Atlanta placing 4 levels above Philadelphia specific to the ranking seems to raise an eyebrow or that Philly in the same category as Portland also makes no logical sense.
Those studies and lists are very flawed. I stopped taking it serious when Miami was consistently ranked over Houston and Dallas. Than on top of that; Philly, Houston and Dallas are missing from a few of the lists. Those lists are nothing but a popularity contest. Houston, Dallas and Philadelphia are practically the leaders of the Tier 3 cities.
Those studies and lists are very flawed. I stopped taking it serious when Miami was consistently ranked over Houston and Dallas.
Which is why the ultimate ranking for me is the Combined Statistical Area(and Largest uncombined MSA) GDPs
A quantifiable value of a region's contribution to the national and world economy.
2009
1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA $1,379,570 Billion
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area $78,805
Kingston, NY Metro Area $4,636
New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area $38,834
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area $1,210,387
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area $21,499
Torrington, CT Micro Area
Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metro Area $25,409
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA $876.468 Billion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area $730,941
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area $34,962
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area $110,565
3. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA $550.549 Billion
Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area $138,420
Lexington Park, MD Micro Area
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area $407,463
Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area $4,666
4. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $535.327 Billion
Napa, CA Metro Area $7,057
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area $335,563
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area $147,370
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area $9,969
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area $19,603
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metro Area $15,765
5. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $515.119 Billion
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area $508,712
Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metro Area $3,054
Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area $3,353
6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA $411.505 Billion
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area $298,256
Concord, NH Micro Area
Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area $20,865
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area $64,341
Worcester, MA Metro Area $28,043
7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $363.201 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area $363.201
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA $359.835 Billion
Athens, TX Micro Area
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area $356,615
Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area $3,220
9. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA $354.573 Billion
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area $335,112
Reading, PA Metro Area $14,588
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area $4,873
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL $270.856 Billion
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area $264.700
Gainesville, GA Metro Area $6,156
11. Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area $252.647 Billion
12. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA $251.636 Billion
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metro Area $8,809
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metro Area 5,219
Oak Harbor, WA Micro Area
Olympia, WA Metro Area $8,811
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area $228,797
13. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA $217.394 Billion
Ann Arbor, MI Metro Area $17,583
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area $185,800
Flint, MI Metro Area $10.816
Monroe, MI Metro Area $3,495
14. Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud, MN-WI CSA $197.396 Billion
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area $189,801
St Cloud, MN Metro Area $7,595
15. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area $190.725 Billion
16. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA $177.511 Billion
Boulder, CO Metro Area $17,581
Denver-Aurora, CO Metro Area $152,868
Greeley, CO Metro Area $7,062
17. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area $171.471 Billion
Yes, we've all been over this time and time again.
But this is a cumulative ranking and is the only one of its kind that I know of and the fact that some cities are not included in every ranking I think among other things, is a statement of how important(or unimportant) a city was to the authors of that particular study.
I disagree on the last statement (and actually find it quite pompous) as two where Dallas and Philly were excluding and were specifically in the methodology sections as limitations. They limited and deliberately reduced the numbers for the analysis. And also specifically stated that they believed was a flaw and based on their understanding these two cities in particular may have scored better than those included. In fact one specifically stated that DFW was left out because they limited the US inclusion and chose only one in TX and for Philly specifically excluded because of its proximity to NYC and interconnectivity so as to get a better regional sample in the US. On this fact alone I find your comment pointedly ill-informed and further speaks to flaws. While the exercise was the best that could be accomplished based on the available data it also has many flaws and the accumulated score to me is rendered useless for the aformentioned reasons.
Philly and NYC might as well be combined. The largest and fourth largest markets, with overlapping metros and UAs. I think the argument could definitley be made that it has a comparable to SF/SJ and DC/Bmore. The distance may be slightly further, but that is negated by the fact that thier urban footprints are much larger, 1st and 4th, less than 100 miles from eachother. That kind of dynamic does not exist anywhere else in the country. Thier public transit overlaps in trenton, and they are also connected via HSR. To pretend like Philly's proximity to the Alpha city of the world.
Philly and NYC might as well be combined. The largest and fourth largest markets, with overlapping metros and UAs. I think the argument could definitley be made that it has a comparable to SF/SJ and DC/Bmore.
The day that New York and Philadelphia combine is the day San Francisco will adopt Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Salinas and possibly Reno and Chicago marries Milwaukee, and Los Angeles and San Diego are also joined.
The likening of NY/Phi to SF/SJ is totally wrong and we've gone down this road at least 100 times.
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.
