Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2015, 09:45 AM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,139,089 times
Reputation: 6338

Advertisements

I didn't realize Seattle was so far from SF. Thought they were closer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2015, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
156 posts, read 244,903 times
Reputation: 185
To be clear, I spent a few days determining the importance of various cities. The map itself took less than an hour.

----------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
I agree, with this but I think you overlooked Honolulu and also think you should put Anchorage, because of isolation making it more important than the average half a million metro, besides that since this is based on size and personal judgement I only think you should add VB, maybe Boise, Wichita and definitely Fresno, San Bernardino-Riverside But then it would be hard to fit.
Although Virginia Beach is the largest city in the metro, I consider it a suburb of Norfolk.

I considered Honolulu, but was too lazy to add Hawaii.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2015, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Detroit
3,671 posts, read 5,889,088 times
Reputation: 2692
On the map it says mostly based on populations but I would make a few changes.

I would elevate L.A. to tier 1. LA is twice the size of Chicago and the only other mega city in the country. I consider Riverside apart of the LA area.

Chicago is alone in tier 2. The gap is too big between Chicago and Dallas (the largest out of tier 3)

I wouldn't put Seattle in Tier 3 population wise. The gap is too big from any other tier 3 city and much closer to the largest tier 4 city (Minneapolis). Without Seattle, tier 3 has a clear size difference from tier 2 and tier 4. But going by a few other factors than population, Seattle and maybe Minneapolis could both be tier 3.

I would make a couple of changes between tier 4 and tier 5.

Overall, pretty good list. I like how you showed love to some of the overshadowed cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2015, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,545,770 times
Reputation: 6253
Hasn't Baton Rouge surpassed New Orleans? It was larger after Katrina and continued growing rapidly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 03:47 AM
 
37,882 posts, read 41,970,495 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post
Hasn't Baton Rouge surpassed New Orleans? It was larger after Katrina and continued growing rapidly.
Baton Rouge proper was only larger than New Orleans proper for about a year or two after Katrina; New Orleans quickly reclaimed its status as the state's largest city. Metro New Orleans remained larger than metro Baton Rouge in the aftermath of Katrina.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 09:23 AM
 
4,344 posts, read 2,812,398 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Baton Rouge proper was only larger than New Orleans proper for about a year or two after Katrina; New Orleans quickly reclaimed its status as the state's largest city. Metro New Orleans remained larger than metro Baton Rouge in the aftermath of Katrina.
New Orleans has always felt larger too. Baton Rouge feels sleepy in comparison.

Odd seeing Seattle in the Same Tier as SF, Houston, DFW and DC.

Tier 1
NY, LA

Tier 2
Chicago, Boston, DC-Baltimore, Bay Area, DFW, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia

Tier 3
Seattle, MSP, Denver, San Diego, Phoenix, Cleveland, Orlando, ST Louis, Pittsburgh, Portland

Tier 4
Tampa, New Orleans, kansas City, SLC, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Austin, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Raleigh, Sacramento, Nashville, Columbus, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, and a few others

Tier 5
Jacksonville, El Paso, Albuquerque, and a bunch of others
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
9,818 posts, read 7,937,279 times
Reputation: 9991
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
New Orleans has always felt larger too. Baton Rouge feels sleepy in comparison.

Odd seeing Seattle in the Same Tier as SF, Houston, DFW and DC.

Tier 1
NY, LA

Tier 2
Chicago, Boston, DC-Baltimore, Bay Area, DFW, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia

Tier 3
Seattle, MSP, Denver, San Diego, Phoenix, Cleveland, Orlando, ST Louis, Pittsburgh, Portland

Tier 4
Tampa, New Orleans, kansas City, SLC, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Austin, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Raleigh, Sacramento, Nashville, Columbus, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, and a few others

Tier 5
Jacksonville, El Paso, Albuquerque, and a bunch of others
Almost perfect in my opinion, with two exceptions - Tampa belongs in Tier 3, Portland in Tier 4.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 11:56 AM
 
4,344 posts, read 2,812,398 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl View Post
Almost perfect in my opinion, with two exceptions - Tampa belongs in Tier 3, Portland in Tier 4.
Those were two I had problems with.
Tampa has a large metro(2.9M) and surroundings that should be linked but is not. While Portland MSA is only 2.3M.

Portland has a larger CSA (3.02M) but nothing much else around it. So was tempted to demote Portland and Promote Tampa.

By MSA Tampa hangs with SD and STL, while Portland hangs with San Antonio, but by CSA Tampa is shortchanged while Portland hangs with Denver and Orlando. I guess what I should have done is left Portland at 3 and promote Tampa to 3 as it is bigger than STL, Pittsburgh and Portland. At the most generous definition puts Tampa at 4.3 M people wHicham would make it bigger than all Tier 3 cities except maybe Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
9,818 posts, read 7,937,279 times
Reputation: 9991
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
Those were two I had problems with.
Tampa has a large metro(2.9M) and surroundings that should be linked but is not. While Portland MSA is only 2.3M.

Portland has a larger CSA (3.02M) but nothing much else around it. So was tempted to demote Portland and Promote Tampa.

By MSA Tampa hangs with SD and STL, while Portland hangs with San Antonio, but by CSA Tampa is shortchanged while Portland hangs with Denver and Orlando. I guess what I should have done is left Portland at 3 and promote Tampa to 3 as it is bigger than STL, Pittsburgh and Portland. At the most generous definition puts Tampa at 4.3 M people wHicham would make it bigger than all Tier 3 cities except maybe Phoenix.
All good points!

Tampa Bay feels like a 4 million + metro, it's pretty expansive. I just saw the Pinellas County side for the first time in years, and was blown away by the growth and changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,464 posts, read 5,712,176 times
Reputation: 6098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perseus7 View Post
I agree with pretty much all of this, especially about New Orleans, Nashville, and Milwaukee. However, I feel as if all those other cities are elevated to tier 2, then Chicago should definitely be upgraded to group one as well. I understand the OP's desire to class New York City in a tier by itself, but when working with tiers, its way to easy to class the few elite at the top, and then all the others towards the bottom, as Jennifat is suggesting is happening. I feel as though these changes would show a better picture of the nations' cities standings.
The grouping is made by metro areas. LA is much closer to Chicago than it is to NYC when we look at metro populations. Also, the lower you go, the more cities would fit the next tier definition, aka the 50,000 population tier probably would have like hundreds of cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:28 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top