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

[EndersDrift]

Rank (Cost of Living Adjusted) Rank (Unadjusted Income) Metropolitan Area Per Capita Income 2009: Adjusted for Cost of Living | Per Capita Income 2009: Unadjusted
1 2 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV $47,780 | $56,442
2 1 San Francisco-Oakland, CA $47,462 | $59,696
3 8 Denver, CO $46,172 | $45,982
4 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI $45,772 | $45,750
5 4 Boston, MA $45,707 | $53,713
6 18 St. Louis, MO-IL $45,288 | $40,342
7 7 Baltimore, MD $44,908 | $47,962
8 15 Pittsburgh. PA $44,848 | $42,216
9 19 Kansas City, MO-KS $43,862 | $39,619
10 6 Seattle, WA $43,730 | $48,976
11 13 Houston, TX $43,581 | $43,568
12 16 Milwaukee. WI $43,477 | $41,696
13 11 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD $43,247 | $45,565
14 21 Cleveland, OH $42,734 | $39,348
15 12 Chicago, IL-IN-WI $41,990 | $43,727
16 3 San Jose, CA $41,255 | $55,404
17 5 New York, NY-NJ-PA $40,893 | $52,375
18 20 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX $40,494 | $39,514
19 23 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN $40,437 | $38,168
20 10 San Diego, CA $39,647 | $45,630
21 24 Detroit. MI $39,147 | $37,541
22 17 Miami-West Palm Beach, FL $38,124 | $41,352
23 26 Atlanta. GA $38,081 | $36,482
24 22 Portland, OR-WA $37,446 | $38,728
25 25 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL $36,561 | $36,780
26 14 Los Angeles, CA $35,045 | $42,818
27 27 Phoenix, AZ $33,897 | $34,282
28 28 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA $27,767 | $29,930

Estimated from BEA 2009 income data and 2006 regional price parity data, adjusted by local Consumer Price Index for 2006-2009.
Source: Regional Exchange Rates: The Cost of Living in US Metropolitan Areas | Newgeography.com


First thing to notice is that this, and nearly every survey and findings you will find distinguishes San Jose from SF/Oakland and only on City-Data do people try to use this interchangeably.

Second I'm not saying this should be the sole criteria but I think a lot of people are giving far too much emphasis on Population, GDP, or what the GAWC list says. That doesn't take into account salaries, cost of living, or quality of life.

[NowInWI]

GaWC - The World According to GaWC 2010

This ranking has some science and scholars behind it. To those who argue, do you really think you know more than ALL of the experts at GaWC? (Their credentials are there - you have to snoop around the site to find them). I place a lot more stock in this, than in those who argue the value of one city over another.

[75 South]

Thanks for the data ... I enjoy numbers like these.

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

Estimated from BEA 2009 income data and 2006 regional price parity data, adjusted by local Consumer Price Index for 2006-2009.
Source: Regional Exchange Rates: The Cost of Living in US Metropolitan Areas | Newgeography.com


First thing to notice is that this, and nearly every survey and findings you will find distinguishes San Jose from SF/Oakland and only on City-Data do people try to use this interchangeably.

Second I'm not saying this should be the sole criteria but I think a lot of people are giving far too much emphasis on Population, GDP, or what the GAWC list says. That doesn't take into account salaries, cost of living, or quality of life.

[po-boy]

As a few other people have noted, the problem is that what constitutes a "top" city is so subjective. First issue is whether to consider the city proper, the MSA, the urbanized area, or the CSA. Different people have different ideas about what is the most accurate measure of an area.

Once you decide on that, there are fairly definitive rankings for things like population and GDP, so rankings and tiers can be made for those.

However, it becomes much trickier when trying to rank things like cultural importance, history, aesthetics, political power, etc. Not to mention those who give specific industries more importance (energy, finance, science, research, education, healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, media, entertainment, etc).

And then trying to come up with a definitive list that combines numerous subjective categories is impossible. Because not only is there disagreement on the rankings of specific characteristics, there is also disagreement on the weight that different characteristics should carry.

A few specific examples: DC's rank tends to vary widely because of its unique roll as the seat of federal government. If you just look at the city by the numbers, it probably falls around 6-10. However, when you consider that is where the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the numerous federal agencies, it is harder to place it. Some people consider it the most important city in the country. Others place it around 4 or 5 (like me). Others don't give it special consideration and put it 6-10.

Another good example is Houston. It is a center for energy and a fast growing area with a large population, so some people rate it is as highly as #4 in the country. Others see it as a place with little personality or history, and put it much lower.

Population-wise, Boston is only about #10, however it is very important to American history, is very dense, has a high media profile, and has arguably the best collection of colleges and universities in the world, so lots of people put it as high as 4 or 5.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Lizz0rd

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

All measures have their flaws and positive aspects

I believe Philly gets considerably shortchanged at the MSA and CSA level while the DMA (Media Market) is the 4th largest in the country at nearly 8.5 million (actually pretty close to the size of the Chicago Media market)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 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

I mostly agree; especially through the 4 grouping; it gets tougher after that

For example to me Pittsburgh would be at least on the level with NOLA and ahead of Austin or SA IMHO but it gets really difficult at some point


On the topic; it is a combination of quantitative, qualitative and some intagables so not everyone will ever agree

I do like your tiers 1 through 4 and would be hard pressed to argue these; oddly the Bay and DC/Balt both leap a level at the CSA; so the combos put them ahead of 4 IMHO; as well as some other factors when aggregated and DC on the Gov't influence. Though would probably drop Phoenix down to 5)

[kidphilly]

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..

While impressive this is very short-sighted and a media genre hyped interpretation.

Other aspects of innovation including defense innovation (probably far more remarkable actually), medical innovation, and educational innovation among others (telecon, media etc.) all play into this.

Facebook is glamorous, the technology that is developed by the defense industry is mind-blowing

[Summersm343]

Originally Posted by 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

Phoenix is WAYYYYYYYYY to high. Other than that I can agree with this.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by peninsular

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...

Like cities, metros are not determined by size. a metro is determined by connectivity.

why does distance a person has to drive to work matter in determining where the center of commerce is. Fact of the matter is SF metro has a smaller metropolitan base.

Originally Posted by Rhymes with Best Coast

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.

oh no one would argue that the area those people are in isn't compact, but like I said above, metros are determined by something other than compactness. SF cannot mooch off of its neighbors and vicariously claim population because those people are near. And you know that that is all SF is claiming. SF has a strong per capita GDP on its own. apart from SJ the other metros kinda bring it down.

Originally Posted by 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

Nice list. I would switch 3A and B and 4 E and F and 6Band C.

Heck 6D should be B, so leave Austin at C, make STL at B and put SA at D. That is what I would do.


Baltimore and Pittsburgh should be moved a full tier up to the 5s

Phoenix should not be with the 4s, maybe low 5s or maybe even the high 6s

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..

soley responsible???? tons of patents still come from Boston, Philly, DC and many other parts of the country.

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

Estimated from BEA 2009 income data and 2006 regional price parity data, adjusted by local Consumer Price Index for 2006-2009.
Source: Regional Exchange Rates: The Cost of Living in US Metropolitan Areas | Newgeography.com


First thing to notice is that this, and nearly every survey and findings you will find distinguishes San Jose from SF/Oakland and only on City-Data do people try to use this interchangeably.

Second I'm not saying this should be the sole criteria but I think a lot of people are giving far too much emphasis on Population, GDP, or what the GAWC list says. That doesn't take into account salaries, cost of living, or quality of life.

agree with you all around.

1. SF is a very important city. ON ITS OWN. Even without Oakland that little nub that is SF is important. I think it diminishes the place trying to claim the Bay as SF. Yes people move around and whatever, but SF is not the Entire Bay. SJ and some of the other Metros have a long history and identity OF THEIR OWN. Same with Baltimore and DC, Same if they ever Join Chicago and Milwaukee.
Their paths are so independent that every list apart from City Data lists have them as separate areas.

2. I agree too that people place too much emphasis on one thing. That is why so many people have a hard time placing DC.

Originally Posted by kidphilly

I do like your tiers 1 through 4 and would be hard pressed to argue these; oddly the Bay and DC/Balt both leap a level at the CSA; so the combos put them ahead of 4 IMHO; as well as some other factors when aggregated and DC on the Gov't influence. Though would probably drop Phoenix down to 5)

if you can't tell the Bay was the only one he ranked as a CSA. Baltimore was not ranked with DC it is waaaaay down at the bottom.

[Mezter]

Can someone tell me what puts Phoenix so low???