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)
View Poll Results: Region with the most robust Tier III & IV cities?
Northeast 9 15.25%
Southeast 17 28.81%
Midwest 27 45.76%
Southwest 1 1.69%
West 5 8.47%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2017, 03:57 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,149,330 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
I would also say that the 4-million metros are usually more similar to the 6-million metros in terms of subjective factors like "urban feel," "pace," "energy," etc., than they are to the 2-million metros. But, as you say, there's often not a lot of difference between a 2-million metro and a 4-million, either.
I tend to agree with that. I think doubling the population is pretty significant in terms of experienced size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2017, 04:09 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,149,330 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj0065 View Post
Austin
Nashville
Charlotte
Orlando
Tampa
Richmond
Louisville
New Orleans
Raleigh/Durham
Jacksonville
San Antonio
Birmingham
Knoxville
Chattanooga
Greenville
Charleston


These are all south/southeast cities that can compete with Tier 3/4 cities in the other regions. I don't think the Midwest takes this that easily
I like a lot of those towns (strongly dislike a couple, too), but except Tampa those are all 4th tier and (sometimes well) below in my mind. I mean, Knoxville, Charleston, Greenville? They're cool towns, but they're like the size of Wichita. That's not even on a tier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Westside Grand Rapids
3,570 posts, read 3,043,472 times
Reputation: 5494
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPonteKC View Post
I like a lot of those towns (strongly dislike a couple, too), but except Tampa those are all 4th tier and (sometimes well) below in my mind. I mean, Knoxville, Charleston, Greenville? They're cool towns, but they're like the size of Wichita. That's not even on a tier.
I think it's worth pointing out that there's no set standard for what constitutes a tier for cities. Any conversation classifying any of these cities into tiers is purely subjective. Although I would challenge the notion that Wichita and the like would not belong in a tier. Unless there is a rule that states you may only have a certain number of tiers with a minimum population requirement. Anything under doesn't count as a city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 06:35 PM
 
Location: California x North Carolina (soon)...
3,332 posts, read 2,253,146 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevanXL View Post
What about economic activity and importance of the city?
This is the best way to seperate and/or tier cities, because it gives the clearest perspective on which cities are comparable to each other...

Any city with a GDP below $200 billion is, at best, a Tier III city. So the best collective of Tier III and IV cities are those between $100-200 billion economies. By region that would be:

Northeast)Newark (if counted on its own merits), Baltimore, Pittsburgh
South)Charlotte, Tampa, Fort Worth (if counted on its own merits), Orlando, Austin, Nashville, San Antonio
Midwest)St. Louis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus, Milwaukee
West)Denver, Oakland (if counted on its own merits), Portland, Sacramento, Las Vegas

Looks like the South and Midwest take it for most robust Tier III/IV cities...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 07:42 PM
 
102 posts, read 55,146 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGuyForLife View Post
Which one?
Pittsburgh is clearly at least one tier above every other city mentioned in that list, most likely two or three, by almost any metric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
2,192 posts, read 3,336,232 times
Reputation: 2955
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPonteKC View Post
There aren't any in the Midwest. I pretty much consider them to be Miami, DC, Philly, Houston, Dallas, Boston and Atlanta.

(Actually, sometimes, I think of Chicago as a tier 2. Depends on my mood.)
I think the Twin Cities fits in nicely with the above list. It would be the smallest of the group population-wise (I think, too lazy to check right now) but not by much. It functions as the cultural capital of a huge region. It has major corporate presence. It has all four pro sports teams (plus the Lynx, as they love to say up there). Yes, it's cold, and that hampers the nightlife a bit. Nightlife in Boston isn't all that either, though...

Cleveland, my hometown, the place that I'm based, and a city that I love with all my heart, just feels smaller and slower than the Twin Cities in virtually every way. I actually feel like the Twin Cities metro is more similar to Chicago than to Cleveland, that the gap is smaller. The GDP numbers would not reflect this I'm sure, but I think subjective factors have a place in this discussion...

And I can't think of Chicago as a Tier 2 American city. I mean, it's by far the greatest urban center for hundreds of miles, and one of the great cities of the world. Chicago tier 1, Twin Cities tier 2, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, KC, Cincinnati et al., tier 3, that makes intuitive sense to me. Detroit tier 2 as well despite its issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 09:51 PM
 
1,522 posts, read 989,599 times
Reputation: 1307
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
I think the Twin Cities fits in nicely with the above list. It would be the smallest of the group population-wise (I think, too lazy to check right now) but not by much. It functions as the cultural capital of a huge region. It has major corporate presence.
From Boston to the Twin Cities is over a million drop in population, over two million from Atlanta to the Twin Cities. That is by MSA. By CSA, it is a drop of two and a half million from Atlanta to the Twin Cities. By Urban Areas, it is still over a two million difference. For corporations, I can really only think of three major ones from the area (General Mills, Target, and Best Buy) which doesn't seem notable for a metro of its size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 03:02 AM
 
Location: Westside Grand Rapids
3,570 posts, read 3,043,472 times
Reputation: 5494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhe View Post
From Boston to the Twin Cities is over a million drop in population, over two million from Atlanta to the Twin Cities. That is by MSA. By CSA, it is a drop of two and a half million from Atlanta to the Twin Cities. By Urban Areas, it is still over a two million difference. For corporations, I can really only think of three major ones from the area (General Mills, Target, and Best Buy) which doesn't seem notable for a metro of its size.
The twin cities have 18 Fortune 500 companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...0%93Saint_Paul

Not listed is privately held Cargill which if it were public would be Fortune 20 with $110billion in revenue. It may be smaller but the twin cities are well known for the corporate presence they have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 03:09 AM
 
Location: Seattle aka tier 3 city :)
1,078 posts, read 895,610 times
Reputation: 667
Seattle is the king of tier 3 cities, I say this with much pride!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 06:47 AM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,149,330 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
I think it's worth pointing out that there's no set standard for what constitutes a tier for cities. Any conversation classifying any of these cities into tiers is purely subjective. Although I would challenge the notion that Wichita and the like would not belong in a tier. Unless there is a rule that states you may only have a certain number of tiers with a minimum population requirement. Anything under doesn't count as a city?
Exactly. It's totally subjective, and I recognize that. Anyone is welcome to different opinion, which i why thre's a forum. And below a certain threshold I do stop thinking of places as "cities" and classify them as "towns".
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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