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.
Agree with this. I think Memphis is a good example of what a metro area of around 1.3 million should offer. Louisville as well.
In that tier, Richmond and New Orleans punch above their weight and Oklahoma City below. I am undecided on Jacksonville and don't want to judge it until I've spent time there myself. From what I've heard, it punches slightly below its weight but not as much as OKC.
Those places aren't great, but are they really below what you would expect? I mean Lincoln, NE isn't much more than a large town. I know very little about Fresno but wasn't it once several smaller towns that decided to merge? Bakersfield is about what you would expect given its location and economic circumstance. A case can be made for El Paso being that it compares somewhat unfavorably to Albuquerque and Tucson.
Los Angeles isn't everyone's favorite city, but "punching below its weight" is never something I would associate with it at all.
Whhhhhat, No Not Memphis LoL, As recently as two years ago that sentenced would have been considered Blasphemy and Ten Pages would have followed saying outside Beale Street, Memphis is a dump, how have times changed....well Idk maybe those people haven't showed up to post yet
Raleigh's CSA is overinflated by about 200,000 with far flung exurbs. However, it should be considered one MSA with Durham, which would put the Triangle at around 1.826 million. The Triangle feels like one cohesive metro, so its fair to compare it to: Providence, Hampton Roads, Nashville, Indianapolis, Austin, Columbus, and Cleveland...
On a metropolitan scale, I think it fits well into this tier. I think Indy is an underperforming metro of this group. Hampton Roads and the Triangle compare favorably to each other, and I've heard Raleigh described as Austin-lite, and similar to Columbus. Judging off city proper only, I'd say Raleigh is definitely a step behind Nashville. I find it and Providence to be comparable, as well Raleigh and Norfolk, and Raleigh and Indianapolis. I haven't been to the other cities in this size tier, but I'd venture Raleigh probably is trailing Austin, Cleveland, and Columbis as cities...
The next tier up, size-wise, is metros 30-19 (Kansas City to Denver). In order for the Triangle/Raleigh metro to be an overperformer, it would have to match up well in that tier. Besides maybe 3-4 cities, I think the Triangle is clearly outclassed here. So it punches at its weight definitely, mayble slightly above....and I think its clear that it doesn't punch below its weight, to smaller sized metros...
Rocky Mount, NC: not sure whether to label it an underperformer or not. It definitely lacks for its size, especially if you've been to Ithaca, NY or Petersburg, VA...
Florence, SC is in the same boat. Fayetteville is an underpeformer--it offers nothing more than Lynchburg, VA, which has 117,000 fewer people. Fayettevilke is easily outclassed by cities of similar size--Savannah, Asheville, Myrtle Beach, etc...
Little Rock performs at its weight, no more, no less. Same with Knoxville...
The Harrisburg region of South Central PA is rich in culture but underperforming for a true region of over one million. Upstate South Carolina is an underformer as well. It's the largest metro in the state (~1.2 mil) but is more comparable to Columbia or Charleston, and gets smoked by every metro currently between 1-1.5 million...
The Triad of North Carolina is slightly underwhelming, but overall in its rightful place, considering its size (~1.569) is comparable to Memphis, Jacksonville, and other underperformers...
Memphis is out of its league. It is outperformed by Richmond, Salt Lake, New Orleans, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, damn near every city of similar size. Such a depressing city. More comparable to cities between 950k-1.15 million (Birmingham, Buffalo, etc)...
Nope, Wrong It used to be, It's Not Depressing any more, It's been booming with projects, But for real though Yea it did used to be
I find it strange that you would say that Indianapolis punching below its weight while its GDP is higher than Cleveland, Kansas City, Columbus, Sacramento, Salt Lake City and Orlando. All those named cities have a metropolitan population greater than Indy's. If anything it is punching above its weight.
I find it strange that you would say that Indianapolis punching below its weight while its GDP is higher than Cleveland, Kansas City, Columbus, Sacramento, Salt Lake City and Orlando. All those named cities have a metropolitan population greater than Indy's. If anything it is punching above its weight.
Some people are. There is no set criteria to determine if a city punches below its weight; you can look at it economically, culturally, in terms of amenities, etc.
I think that only reinforces LA punching below its weight in that department.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhe
That is a pretty low bar, seeing as C-D seems to have very low perceptions of those three cities to begin with, in terms of urban form. Plus, the fact that LA's density is more than double the densities of the three cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'm not a cookie
That's not really saying much lol.
Haha, LA makes up for it with the outdoor activities; outside of San Francisco, Seattle, and Pittsburgh, most larger urban cities are flat and lack outdoor activities.
Haha, LA makes up for it with the outdoor activities; outside of San Francisco, Seattle, and Pittsburgh, most larger urban cities are flat and lack outdoor activities.
I don't really feel outdoor activities really pertain to this thread. Seems rather irrelevant to the topic.
Raleigh's CSA is overinflated by about 200,000 with far flung exurbs. However, it should be considered one MSA with Durham, which would put the Triangle at around 1.826 million. The Triangle feels like one cohesive metro, so its fair to compare it to: Providence, Hampton Roads, Nashville, Indianapolis, Austin, Columbus, and Cleveland...
On a metropolitan scale, I think it fits well into this tier. I think Indy is an underperforming metro of this group. Hampton Roads and the Triangle compare favorably to each other, and I've heard Raleigh described as Austin-lite, and similar to Columbus. Judging off city proper only, I'd say Raleigh is definitely a step behind Nashville. I find it and Providence to be comparable, as well Raleigh and Norfolk, and Raleigh and Indianapolis. I haven't been to the other cities in this size tier, but I'd venture Raleigh probably is trailing Austin, Cleveland, and Columbis as cities...
The next tier up, size-wise, is metros 30-19 (Kansas City to Denver). In order for the Triangle/Raleigh metro to be an overperformer, it would have to match up well in that tier. Besides maybe 3-4 cities, I think the Triangle is clearly outclassed here. So it punches at its weight definitely, mayble slightly above....and I think its clear that it doesn't punch below its weight, to smaller sized metros...
Rocky Mount, NC: not sure whether to label it an underperformer or not. It definitely lacks for its size, especially if you've been to Ithaca, NY or Petersburg, VA...
Florence, SC is in the same boat. Fayetteville is an underpeformer--it offers nothing more than Lynchburg, VA, which has 117,000 fewer people. Fayettevilke is easily outclassed by cities of similar size--Savannah, Asheville, Myrtle Beach, etc...
Little Rock performs at its weight, no more, no less. Same with Knoxville...
The Harrisburg region of South Central PA is rich in culture but underperforming for a true region of over one million. Upstate South Carolina is an underformer as well. It's the largest metro in the state (~1.2 mil) but is more comparable to Columbia or Charleston, and gets smoked by every metro currently between 1-1.5 million...
The Triad of North Carolina is slightly underwhelming, but overall in its rightful place, considering its size (~1.569) is comparable to Memphis, Jacksonville, and other underperformers...
Memphis is out of its league. It is outperformed by Richmond, Salt Lake, New Orleans, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, damn near every city of similar size. Such a depressing city. More comparable to cities between 950k-1.15 million (Birmingham, Buffalo, etc)...
Umm no. You haven't been to Memphis in awhile , right ? I want know your reason on this.
Not really; public transit, economy, etc..are definitely punching below their weight.
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.
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.
