How can we build an accurate tier system for the top cities? (rates, place)

[dtran103]

Originally Posted by 75 South

It's weird because every time I've gone to Houston (and stayed there) I've never felt like I was in a global city. Now, on the other hand I did feel like I was in a big US city. But when I'm in Boston, Philly, SF, DC (and the obvious big 3), I feel like I could be anywhere in the world but it just happens to be in the states. Just my opinion though.

I think you're confusing global with european. All of those cities tend to follow european architecture aesthetics. There are buildings in each of those cities that could be from ancient Greece or 17th century Paris, even though they were built just in the last century. To an american, SF seems foreign. But to a frenchman, Houston is more foreign.

[Lizz0rd]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

The truth hurts doesn't it?

San Francisco Bay Area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

uhh the truth is the census uses objective criteria and classifies it as a CSA and a solid media market...

[bmorefella]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

This is the normal tier system... if any altercations should be made to this... let me know.

Tier 1: New York

Tier 2: Chicago, Los Angeles

Tier 3: San Francisco, Houston, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C.

Tier 4: Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas,

Tier 5: Portland, Kansas City, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, Minneapolis

Tier 6: San Antonio, Nashville, Saramento, Milwaukee, Columbus, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Memphis, Austin, Cincinnati

Tier 7:Orlando, Phoenix, Tampa, Buffalo, San Jose, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Honolulu

Miami tier 4 Baltimore tier 5 that's an insult to Bmore!!

[peninsular]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

First... let's be clear. "The Bay Area" is not a metro. It is two metros. "The Bay Area" is also not a city. It is multiple cities. We have to be fair here when including these lists. We can't compare "The Bay Area" to Chicago.

Apparently, according to the link you provided for metros, we can include Bridgeport, CT (53 miles away) into NYC, Orange County (up to 60 miles away) into LA, Kenosha, WI (50 miles away) into Chicago, Galveston (47 miles) into Houston, but we can't include San Jose (41 miles away) into SF/Bay Area? Hmm...

[Rhymes with Best Coast]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

totally agree.

The Bay area is powerful, but like it or not the Bay area is NOT a city, so for the likes of me I dunno why people are ranking it with cities like Chicago.

Chicago is Chicago, LA is LA, NY is NY, Philly is Philly. The Bay is San Jose (The Largest city) plus SF-Oakland (the Largest metro), Plus Santa Rosa, plus Vallejo, plus Santa Cruz, Plus Napa.

Although they are all smooched together, they are NOT SF. SF is a city of 800K and a metro of 4M. The City of Chicago is three times as large as SF, and the metro is twice as large.

It is only when you combine those 6 metropolitan areas around the Bay do you even come near the population of Chicago's metro area.

As long as the world understands and acknowledges that it is indeed FACT, without any excuses or obfuscation, that an area SMALLER than the Chicago MSA (9581 sq miles) or Houston MSA (10,062 sq miles), designated as the SJ-SF-Oak CSA (6,984 sq miles) aka the Bay Area has more GDP output, more fortune 500 companies, higher income, better schools, and is more educated.

I think we have no problems.

Everything else is just semantics.

FYI: No where does it officially state that MSA = Metropolitan Area. Both the MSA and CSA have problems trying to define a Metropolitan Area, to outright state MSA = Metropolitan Area is a plain lie and you know it, however everything I have stated above are verifiable FACTS.

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by Rhymes with Best Coast

As long as the world understands and acnowledges that it is indeed FACT, without any excuses or obfuscation, that an area SMALLER than the Chicago MSA (9581 sq miles) or Houston MSA (10,062 sq miles), designated as the SJ-SF-Oak CSA (6,984 sq miles) aka the Bay Area has more GDP output, more fortune 500 companies, higher income, better schools, and is more educated.

I think we have no problems.

Everything else is just symantics.

FYI: No where does it oficially state that MSA = Metropolitan Area. Both the MSA and CSA have problems trying to define a Metropolitan Area, to outright state MSA = Metropolitan Area is a plain lie and you know it, however everything I have stated above are verifiable FACTS.

[CaliSon]

• 1. NYC
• 2A. LA
• 2B. Chicago
• 3A. San Franisco/Bay Area
• 3B. DC
• 4A. Boston
• 4B. Philly
• 4C. Houston
• 4D. DFW
• 4E. Miami
• 4F. Atlanta
• 4G. Phoenix
• 5A. Seattle
• 5B. Detroit
• 5C. Minneapolis
• 5D. Denver
• 5F. San Diego
• 6A. New Orleans
• 6B. San Antonio
• 6C. Austin
• 6D. St. Louis
• 6E. Orlando
• 6F. Las Vegas
• 6G. Charlotte
• 6F. Salt Lake City
• 6H. Indianapolis
• 6I. Portland
• 6J. Pittsburgh
• 6K. Baltimore
• 7A. Kansas City
• 7B. Cleveland

This is my list of city/metro, I'm sure I misplaced and forgot quite a few, and you could go ahead an critique my list, I will make sure to not respond

[kkalvarez86]

You cannot put San Francisco below Chicago when silicon valley is almost solely responsible for whatever is left of America's reputation as an innovative country. The national conversation is religiously all about Apple, Google, Facebook, whatever..

[CelticGermanicPride]

Originally Posted by kkalvarez86

You cannot put San Francisco below Chicago when silicon valley is almost solely responsible for whatever is left of America's reputation as an innovative country. The national conversation is religiously all about Apple, Google, Facebook, whatever..

no it's not and since when is it all about google and facebook? chicagoland's an industrial and transportation hub just as the bay area is an internet hub, dc a political hub, houston an energy hub..

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

The problem with these ratings are the criteria to measure what is "best" and what is "less" is not defined or even if it is not all posters accept or read or agree with the criteria. Even if all agreed upon the criteria the data or knowledge of posters about all the cities is limited despite the good set of data avaiable on CD and else where about cities. So your mistake about the economic impact of Houston and Dallas tells me you probably didnt look at the data or dont know enough about the cities to have a good handle on them or perhaps both.

But that is what makes CD fun....its like the college football national champion. Its almost always subjective and subject to much debate and discussion hence huge forum with interesting and fun posts. What I learn by reading posts is more about the poster than the city under discussion in most cases....

I agree with this, but there's so many rankings that it becomes a repetitive pattern of nearly the same out come. Regardless of that people have a personal bias to which city they personally like more, there's usually a strong anti sunbelt bias on this site but what ever. There's usually posters who don't like a sourced ranking,... too bad.... that call a Selection bias. If a city ranks low in one, than it ranks low in one. Go on to the next one. I don't agree with everything but it doesn't mean it should be ignore, it is what it is. When looking at numerous rankings what's the overall come out?

Yes some of these rankings are messing cities, but in all you still get the overall pattern, what about the ones that include all cities. This is just an example anyways.
All the "Most Important Cities" Rankings Combined

It nearly follows the population ironically, with the exception of Boston and SF not being over 5mil, all the metro above 5 million rank the highest in GDP and nearly everything else. Tires don't mean they are equal but they are peers.

1. NY is alone duh, 2. Chi and LA are a tire duh. DC, SF, Houston, Boston, Dallas, Philly, ATL, and MIA are a tire. Again tires don't mean they are equal but they are peers. There's cities lower and higher up in that tire but overall they all are above tire 4. Tire 4 it's the same thing, Only after the 4th tire in tire 5 does it become really debatable. But there's a clear pattern.

1. NY

2. LA, Chi

3. DC, SF, Houston, Boston, Dallas, Philly, ATL, MIA

4. Detroit, Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, maybe Phoenix

and etc.

And yeah I learn so much more about other cities on this site... though these city vs city threads and etc. And even when a poster change there user name you tell who they are by there post.