U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-12-2007, 05:08 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,595,836 times
Reputation: 206

Advertisements

Well, Boeing actually moved its HQ to Chicago a while back (last year I think).

 
Old 11-12-2007, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Ne
884 posts, read 757,881 times
Reputation: 119
[quote=pittnurse70;1967689][quote=StuyTownRefugee;1932400][quote=pittnurse70;1930319]Since you did this ranking solely based on size, I would suggest a few adjustments. Omaha has >400,000 people. Richmond has <200,000. They should be switched. Boulder does not even have 100,000, and is irrelevant.

No you're comparing metros with cities standalones, the metro for Richmond is well over a million, Omaha's is about what you stated.[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_W View Post

The bold part is not part of my post. It is a quote of someone quoting me. Just FYI. I can't even find my original post in this mess. There have been at least 10 pages devoted to San Antonio vs Seattle.

Oh yeah, I know. When I tried to quote the other person it turned into that mess lol. Sorry about the confusion.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 602,182 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kettlepot View Post
Not to downplay the importance of economic output in relation to a city's ranking on these scales - it is very significant - but I believe concentrating on that alone leaves out some important more difficult to quantify factors. We should certainly recognize the dominant importance of economic production, but also recognize the import of cultural, political, and scientific/educational influence. Political power adds weight to DC's overall importance outside of it's economic output. LA's cultural importance does the same. Boston gains added influence because of the concentration of premier educational institutions in it's vicinity. Phoenix loses stature because it has no educational institutions that are of the first order.

These parameters are of course far more difficult to quantify and give greater latitude for dispute, but they can be key factors in adjusting the rank of cities that are otherwise closely matched in economic output.

Another intangible factor is whether a city has a strong base in an up and coming economic industry rather than one that is in decline. Even if the declining industry is still producing more value than the up and coming one, all of the buzz and excitement will surround the city whose prospects look brighter and are on the grow. That matters when judging cities on a global scale of status. People the world over will be making tracks to the city with buzz.

Another factor as I and others have mentioned is being caught in the shadow of a nearby large metropolis that completely outshines the one in question. San Diego, Philadelphia, and Baltimore all suffer from this. Sacramento will too even if it grows by millions as is predicted.

There are a lot of intangibles beyond the numbers of population and GDP involved in this discussion - or screaming match - depending on the posters involved.

So, the question I have is, what weight do you give these intangibles when ranking a city?

That's a great assessment. I give a city plenty of weight for power that does not have to be economic. In today's economies, soft power is probably more important and ends up interpreted into economic power.

Power and influence does not have to be calculated solely by money as money is now ebbing and flowing in bits, bytes, bauds digitally everywhere and often they create subhubs and nodes. Mobility is key. Cities aren't necessarily work hubs either now, people telecommute.

But still things have natural tendency to hierarchy in whatever system.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Chicago
395 posts, read 1,219,062 times
Reputation: 191
You're right, there is much more beyond economic output.

However, how WOULD you measure cultural impact, etc. or other measures that are not numeric?

You can include population? - number people who find "value" in living in the metropolitan region economically, culturally, etc (i think city population alone is very skewed, ie, minneapolis, miami, st. louis, atlanta, would get over looked)

Cities most visited? Shows how many people actually come to the city for its value.

Number of fortune 500 companies? But this fits into economic output.

History? But how to you measure historic impact?

I think the best way to measure is population of MSA, how many people visit, and economic output. These are all quantitative values and cover other implied values, ie cultural impact, etc. This of course is just IMHO.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
697 posts, read 2,021,973 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
A major city like NY? You could remove DC, Philly or Boston and it wouldnt make a difference one bit if NYC were still included in the comparison.


As a megalopolis sure the region is huge, but as individual metropoltian areas, its a bit less clear cut to say the least.

On the other hand BosWash's size may not really matter after all because as I stated earlier, in 2006, the West actually surpassed the NE as far as Total GDP which does illustrate a shift in the balance of power as far as our nation's economy is concerned.

But this is a natural progession of things imo. It was bound to happen sooner or later and is good for America.
The post that you were referring to was talking about "megalopolis", not individual metropolitans.

And where do you find that the West surpassed the Northeast in total GDP?
 
Old 11-12-2007, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,505,092 times
Reputation: 2627
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627 View Post

And where do you find that the West surpassed the Northeast in total GDP?


2006 GDP(in millions)

1. California - 1,727,000
14. Washington- 293,531
26.Oregon- 151,000

West- $ 2,020,682

3.New York-1,021,000
6.Pennsylvania-510,000
8.New Jersey-434,000
12.Virginia-369,000
13.Massachusettes-337,000
15.Maryland-257,000
23.Connecticutt-204,000
34.DC-87,000
38.Delaware-60,000
40.NH-56,000
44. RI-46,000
50.Vermont-24,000

DC-Boston Corridor -$ 3,405,000
 
Old 11-13-2007, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,270 posts, read 55,016,163 times
Reputation: 15312
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
2006 GDP(in millions)

1. California - 1,727,000
14. Washington- 293,531
26.Oregon- 151,000

West- $ 2,020,682

3.New York-1,021,000
6.Pennsylvania-510,000
8.New Jersey-434,000
12.Virginia-369,000
13.Massachusettes-337,000
15.Maryland-257,000
23.Connecticutt-204,000
34.DC-87,000
38.Delaware-60,000
40.NH-56,000
44. RI-46,000
50.Vermont-24,000

DC-Boston Corridor -$ 3,405,000
I believe that I already posted the data several pages back.

But here it is again. And Virginia is not part of the NE.
Regional GDP, 2006
Northeast $3.106 Trillion(CT,DE,DC,ME,MD,MA,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,VT)

Midwest $2.522 Trillion(IL,IN,IA,KS,MI,MN,OH,NE,ND,SD, WI)

South $4.381 Trillion(AL,AR,FL,GA, KY,LA,MS,MO,NC,OK,SC,TN,TX,VA,WV)

West $3.138 Trillion(AK,AZ,CA,CO,HI,ID,MT,NV,NM,OR,UT,WA,WY)

State GDP, 2006
California $1.727 Trillion
Texas $1.065 Trillion
New York $1.021 Trillion
Florida $713.5 Billion
Illinois $589.5 Billion
Pennsylvania $510.2 Billion
Ohio $461.3 Billion
New Jersey $453.1 Billion
Michigan $381.0 Billion
Georgia $379.5 Billion
North Carolina $374.5 Billion
Virginia $369.2 Billion
Massachusetts $337.5 Billion
Washington $293.5 Billion
Maryland $257.8 Billion
Indiana $248.9 Billion
Minnesota $244.5 Billion
Tennessee $238.0 Billion
Arizona $232.4 Billion
Colorado $230.4 Billion
Wisconsin $227.2 Billion
Missouri $225.8 Billion
Connecticut $204.1 Billion
Louisiana $193.1 Billion
Alabama $160.5 Billion
Oregon $151.3 Billion
South Carolina $149.2 Billion
Kentucky $145.9 Billion
Oklahoma $134.6 Billion
Iowa $123.9 Billion
Nevada $118.3 Billion
Kansas $111.6 Billion
Utah $97.7 Billion
Arkansas $91.8 Billion
District of Columbia $87.6 Billion
Mississippi $84.2 Billion
New Mexico $75.9 Billion
Nebraska $75.7 Billion
Delaware $60.3 Billion
Hawaii $58.3 Billion
New Hampshire $56.2 Billion
West Virginia $55.6 Billion
Idaho $49.9 Billion
Maine $46.9 Billion
Rhode Island $45.6 Billion
Alaska $41.1 Billion
Montana $32.3 Billion
South Dakota $32.3 Billion
Wyoming $29.5 Billion
North Dakota $26.3 Billion
Vermont $24.2 Billion

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional...ewsrelease.htm
 
Old 11-13-2007, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
697 posts, read 2,021,973 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
I believe that I already posted the data several pages back.

But here it is again. And Virginia is not part of the NE.
Regional GDP, 2006
Northeast $3.106 Trillion(CT,DE,DC,ME,MD,MA,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,VT)

Midwest $2.522 Trillion(IL,IN,IA,KS,MI,MN,OH,NE,ND,SD, WI)

South $4.381 Trillion(AL,AR,FL,GA, KY,LA,MS,MO,NC,OK,SC,TN,TX,VA,WV)

West $3.138 Trillion(AK,AZ,CA,CO,HI,ID,MT,NV,NM,OR,UT,WA,WY)

State GDP, 2006
California $1.727 Trillion
Texas $1.065 Trillion
New York $1.021 Trillion
Florida $713.5 Billion
Illinois $589.5 Billion
Pennsylvania $510.2 Billion
Ohio $461.3 Billion
New Jersey $453.1 Billion
Michigan $381.0 Billion
Georgia $379.5 Billion
North Carolina $374.5 Billion
Virginia $369.2 Billion
Massachusetts $337.5 Billion
Washington $293.5 Billion
Maryland $257.8 Billion
Indiana $248.9 Billion
Minnesota $244.5 Billion
Tennessee $238.0 Billion
Arizona $232.4 Billion
Colorado $230.4 Billion
Wisconsin $227.2 Billion
Missouri $225.8 Billion
Connecticut $204.1 Billion
Louisiana $193.1 Billion
Alabama $160.5 Billion
Oregon $151.3 Billion
South Carolina $149.2 Billion
Kentucky $145.9 Billion
Oklahoma $134.6 Billion
Iowa $123.9 Billion
Nevada $118.3 Billion
Kansas $111.6 Billion
Utah $97.7 Billion
Arkansas $91.8 Billion
District of Columbia $87.6 Billion
Mississippi $84.2 Billion
New Mexico $75.9 Billion
Nebraska $75.7 Billion
Delaware $60.3 Billion
Hawaii $58.3 Billion
New Hampshire $56.2 Billion
West Virginia $55.6 Billion
Idaho $49.9 Billion
Maine $46.9 Billion
Rhode Island $45.6 Billion
Alaska $41.1 Billion
Montana $32.3 Billion
South Dakota $32.3 Billion
Wyoming $29.5 Billion
North Dakota $26.3 Billion
Vermont $24.2 Billion

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional...ewsrelease.htm
Ah, I see you are using the expansive definition of the west, even though that definition means almost half the entire United States geographically.

I was thinking of the "West Coast" states which is usually just comprised of WA, OR, CA, HI, and AK, against the "East Coast" which is basically the New England and Mid Atlantic states.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,595,836 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627 View Post
Ah, I see you are using the expansive definition of the west, even though that definition means almost half the entire United States geographically.

I was thinking of the "West Coast" states which is usually just comprised of WA, OR, CA, HI, and AK, against the "East Coast" which is basically the New England and Mid Atlantic states.
What? That wouldn't even make sense.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
697 posts, read 2,021,973 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
What? That wouldn't even make sense.
When I think of the West, I usually think of the West Coast states. Like when people think or talk about the East, they think of the East Coast.

Colorado, Wyoming and other such states I usually see as the Mountain West.

Nothing wrong with either definition, just needed the clarification.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:07 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top