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.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with having pride in your city--a lot of us in Minneapolis feel the same way. The problem comes when we overstretch the significance of our cities by comparing them to cities which exist on a clearly different plain of importance. I've lived in Boston, and I know Philadelphia fairly well. Spending any time in these cities, then going on to Seattle (or Minneapolis or Denver), makes it clear that they are on a different level as urban centers.
When I traveled from Seattle to Boston or Philadelphia I never looked at them oooohing and aahhing saying wow these cities are more important and on another level. I look at them as much older, more dense with different architecture. Simply different looking cities. Now that I live in Los Angeles do I walk the streets and say, LA you're on another tier from Philadelphia and Boston and much more important.!? Absolutely not.
I know! What's with this "tier" thing? Whenever I visit other cities I don't "tier" them on their importance or blahbedy blah blah blah that others seem to hinge every morsel of their insignificant lives on.
When I traveled from Seattle to Boston or Philadelphia I never looked at them oooohing and aahhing saying wow these cities are more important and on another level. I look at them as much older, more dense with different architecture. Simply different looking cities. Now that I live in Los Angeles do I walk the streets and say, LA you're on another tier from Philadelphia and Boston and much more important.!? Absolutely not.
Of course no one really does that in real life--but this is City Data, baby! It's all just one big pissing contest ranking and categorizing cities until we finally, decide the ultimate city rankings and prove what are truly(in an objective, scientific way with absolutely no cases of homerism or boosterism) the top 10 cities in the entire United States!
Which might vary slightly from when we talked about what the top 10 cities in the US were last week--but it will basically be the same 10 biggest metros in the country.
I went to San Diego last year and when I was sitting on the beach looking at the pretty girls in 75 degree weather in March, I wasn't thinking "It'd be nice to live here if I could get a job and afford it!" More so I was thinking, "San Diego is a obviously of a lower tier than Atlanta and Detroit. I mean their airport traffic volume doesn't even rank among the top 15 in the country!"
It's hard to place Seattle. I guess I would break it down in a simple way like this: Population, Fortune 500, TV Market Size, Airport Traffic... San Diego, Minneapolis and Denver in Blue. Seattle in Red.
Size (metro):
Dallas: 6.4 million
Philly: 6 million
Houston: 6 million
Miami: 5.6 million
DC: 5.6 million
Atlanta: 5.3 million
Boston: 4.6 million
SF: 4.4 million
Detroit: 4.3 million
Seattle: 3.4 million
Minneapolis: 3.4 million
San Diego: 3.1 million
Denver: 2.6 million
Using those "metro areas" as a measure is silly. Both SF and Boston are around 7.5 million CSA - bigger than Dallas and Miami, and much bigger than Seattle and Minneapolis. The metro areas are somewhat arbitrary and slice continuous urban areas in half.
The point is anyone who has been to the SF Bay Area or the Boston Area knows those areas feel way, way bigger than Seattle - it's not even close.
In most cases I think the MSA is the best representation of the size of a metro. There are a few polycentric exceptions like the Bay Area but for the most part CSAs are way to large to be a true representation of a metro area. They tend to include far flung satellite cities. Originally the concept of metro area came into being because the rise of the suburbs made city limit populations obsolete when considering what was the true population of a city. CSAs include a lot more than just the suburbs, unless you consider places like Providence, Boulder, St Cloud or Flint to be suburbs; I think most people would consider those places to be peripheral to their core cities. I think in most cases CSAs are better seen as a measure of a cities' sphere of influence rather than a measure of the city itself. Of course on urbanism websites there are a lot of boosters and they prefer the CSA to MSA numbers because they are bigger and make a place look more important.
In most cases I think the MSA is the best representation of the size of a metro. There are a few polycentric exceptions like the Bay Area but for the most part CSAs are way to large to be a true representation of a metro area. They tend to include far flung satellite cities. Originally the concept of metro area came into being because the rise of the suburbs made city limit populations obsolete when considering what was the true population of a city. CSAs include a lot more than just the suburbs, unless you consider places like Providence, Boulder, St Cloud or Flint to be suburbs; I think most people would consider those places to be peripheral to their core cities. I think in most cases CSAs are better seen as a measure of a cities' sphere of influence rather than a measure of the city itself. Of course on urbanism websites there are a lot of boosters and they prefer the CSA to MSA numbers because they are bigger and make a place look more important.
Remember though, CSA's use the same measure for each city, its not like someone just decided Providence was part of Boston but Olympia wasn't part of Seattles CSA for the hell of it.
I know! What's with this "tier" thing? Whenever I visit other cities I don't "tier" them on their importance or blahbedy blah blah blah that others seem to hinge every morsel of their insignificant lives on.
But the thread isn't asking that, most people also don't look at population, cultural, economics and etc stats, World or national history, or generally know geography as much as most city data posters do anyways. But since this is the city data forum were posters generally have interest in geography the thread asking about specific so posters are decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhymes with Best Coast
Answer should be neither of these options.
Tiering would go like these for this bucket of cities.
(SF, DC, Philly, Boston, Houston, Dallas) - for the sake of simplicity, let's call this the "same tier".
(Seattle, Miami, Atlanta) - I see these as the next tier. Seattle's peers.
(San Diego, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Denver) - that's the tier below.
Again Economics is not everything, in fact basing squarely off Economic output is noise LOL. Again looking at diversity, national and international influence, population size, and etc. Seattle is not in the same tire as Miami and Atlanta. and those cities peers are SF, DC, Philly, Boston, Houston, and Dallas.
Below
Miami to Seattle, Miami 6-1
Atlanta to Seattle, Atlanta 6-2
Using those "metro areas" as a measure is silly. Both SF and Boston are around 7.5 million CSA - bigger than Dallas and Miami, and much bigger than Seattle and Minneapolis. The metro areas are somewhat arbitrary and slice continuous urban areas in half.
The point is anyone who has been to the SF Bay Area or the Boston Area knows those areas feel way, way bigger than Seattle - it's not even close.
Well then make up a list and come up with an opinion. I never said my reasoning was exact or even made sense. It's just the way I would look at it, something concrete and easy. It shows who lives there, where the people work who live there, who's travelling from and going to there, and how big of a media impact the area has.
The point of the lists were to give an understand and a clear picture of how Seattle Clearly is in a group with Minneapolis and Denver, not with the DCs or Bostons of the world.
If I have learned anything it's that San Diego doesn't even belong in the same sentence as MPLS or Denver or Seattle. It's clearly less important on a national scale. I would put SD in the same category as St. Louis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I have family in SD and have been there over 10 times and the entire SD county area seems huge, but the area just doesn't have that national appeal, maybe because LA is so close..
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.
to place Seattle. I guess I would break it down in a simple way like this: Population, Fortune 500, TV Market Size, Airport Traffic... San Diego, Minneapolis and Denver in Blue. Seattle in Red.
