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

[75 South]

Almost every city vs. city thread eventually ends up with someone suggesting a tier system. The only city that truly has a tier is mighty NY. The others cities fall into every known category to man. Most notably, tier 2 you see LA and Chicago. But I often see DC, SF, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta and Houston tossed around by various posters. Outside of NY, how can we determine which tier everyone fits in? How do we determine the other heavyweights in their region like Seattle, Denver, Miami and Detroit? Do we use the following criteria:

GDP
Metro Size
Quality of Life
Resources (e.g. government, technology, petroleum, research facilities)
Global presence
Historical relevance
Cost of Living
Geographic location

Please help ...

[Summersm343]

Obviously the first two tiers are set...

Tier 1: New York City
Tier 2: Los Angeles, Chicago


D.C. can probably be added to tier 2... depending on what everyone thinks.

Now what are we comparing? Cities or Metros? That is the big question.

[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

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.

[8loody]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.

I guess the truth is going to hurt

[Summersm343]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.

Chicago... oh Chicago. I think most Americans and the world for the fact view it as America's "second largest city." It certainly has a great, large, manhattan-esk like central business district. It has Global Presence and is basically the center of the midwest... where as LA is more the Center of the west coast, not the Bay Area. Idk, that's a tough one.

[nashvols]

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, Nashville, Buffalo, San Jose, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Honolulu

Can we trade in our Tier 6 and Tier 7 for a Tier 5?

[Lizz0rd]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.

I also don't buy it. The Bay Area also has a higher GDP and more F500 companies than Chicago...I mean Chicago is a bigger city and better skyline, bigger downtown, but it also has much bigger swaths of uncontributing (for the most part) ghetto areas... but that doesn't make it better than LA now does it? I'd say no. So why does it automatically make it better than the Bay Area? The Bay Area has what I mentioned, but also better universities. More diversity, etc. To me it feels like a more international area. LA is

Greater LA is 17.8 Million people
Chicagoland is 9.8 Million people

now CLEARLY to me they are not on the same level.


Both SF and DC metro are both now on at least an equal playing field with Chicago, they both have higher GDP and seemingly have tremendous influence on the world. They both also seem to have a ritzier crowd, for what it's worth..

I'd do it like this.

NYC tier 1
LA tier 2
Chicago Bay Area DC tier 3
Boston Philly Houston Atlanta Dallas Miami tier 4

[Summersm343]

Originally Posted by nashvols

Can we trade in our Tier 6 and Tier 7 for a Tier 5?

There... fixed. Should have been Tier 6 not in both haha.

I can switch Nashville to Tier 5 and Baltimore to Tier 6 if you would like?? Haha

[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.

Also, the GDP for U.S. Metros is

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. D.C.
5. Houston
6. DFW
7. Philly
8. San Fran
9. Boston
10. ATL

List of metropolitan areas in the United States by GMP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If U.S. Metros were countries how would they rank?
If U.S. Cities Were Countries, How Would They Rank? - Richard Florida - Business - The Atlantic