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.
I agree with you concerning Austin but not so much regarding Miami for real world reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
This thread is about America’s most important cities, and that criteria as established and agreed upon by some of the world’s leading authorities on urbanization, including urbanism researcher Richard Florida and urban psychologist Zubeda Mohammed, theorized that the following encompass a city’s “importance”
- wealth
- power and influence to other countries, including hosting the largest capital markets
- wealthy multinational companies
- good infrastructure
- better economy
- well-educated
- diverse populations
- powerful organizations
- good political structure that are linked to the other parts of the world
Which of those is Miami lacking enough in to not be considered one of the United States’ most important cities?
Reading this thread just confirms the prevailing notion of City Data forum: in the real world of urban geography, urban psychology, informed data collection and analysis, and travel, too many posters here would get laughed out of the building.
That Miami doesn’t have an overwhelming advantage on this poll and didn’t qualify for the top 10 and that Austin is being relegated to 3rd or 4th tier status and being compared with the likes of Albuquerque and Tulsa is an absolute denigration to the respective cities and an embarrassment to the posters.
Two of the most hated cities on this site. Austin is hated by national and Texas posters alike. You can figure out why.
This thread is about America’s most important cities, and that criteria as established and agreed upon by some of the world’s leading authorities on urbanization, including urbanism researcher Richard Florida and urban psychologist Zubeda Mohammed, theorized that the following encompass a city’s “importance”
- wealth
- power and influence to other countries, including hosting the largest capital markets - wealthy multinational companies
- good infrastructure
- better economy
- well-educated
- diverse populations
- powerful organizations
- good political structure that are linked to the other parts of the world
Which of those is Miami lacking enough in to not be considered one of the United States’ most important cities?
I don't think it is that Miami lacks the criteria you mentioned, but rather that other cities have more important multinational companies within even smaller metro areas. Miami does not perform as well in critical areas due to poverty, low wage jobs, and lack of STEM grads to support modern industries.
That Miami doesn’t have an overwhelming advantage on this poll and didn’t qualify for the top 10 and that Austin is being relegated to 3rd or 4th tier status and being compared with the likes of Albuquerque and Tulsa is an absolute denigration to the respective cities and an embarrassment to the posters.
Austin is a 4th tier city... and it would be at the bottom of any grouping that places it in 3rd tier.
I've also seen people suggest Austin should be considered in top 11-15. That's pretty ridiculous as well. It's not exactly a one-sided hatefest for Austin. Plenty of people hype it up as well.
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 976,158 times
Reputation: 1406
Let me redo mine (bumped Philadelphia down 1 spot).
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC
5. SF
6. Boston
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Dallas
11. Miami
12. Seattle
13. Detroit
14. Phoenix
15. Minneapolis
16. Denver
17. San Diego
18. Charlotte
19. Baltimore
20. St. Louis
Next would be (not in order): Portland, Sacramento, Austin, San Antonio, Tampa, Orlando, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis (also maybe Kansas City, Nashville, Columbus)
I don't think it is that Miami lacks the criteria you mentioned, but rather that other cities have more important multinational companies within even smaller metro areas. Miami does not perform as well in critical areas due to poverty, low wage jobs, and lack of STEM grads to support modern industries.
The point is that these so-called deficiencies are not enough to argue that Miami isn’t a top-10 city, as some people would like to claim. Further, Miami’s ranking in many of the other categories more than make up for what it lacks. On a global scale, you will not find many urban authorities that do not place Miami among the upper tier of preeminent cities in the world, much less the United States.
Austin is a 4th tier city... and it would be at the bottom of any grouping that places it in 3rd tier.
I've also seen people suggest Austin should be considered in top 11-15. That's pretty ridiculous as well. It's not exactly a one-sided hatefest for Austin. Plenty of people hype it up as well.
I wouldn’t call a top-20ish city 4th tier. Hell, the term “second-tier” is considered a general insult. Anyway, this is all semantics. The point is, Austin is probably within the top 20 when it comes to nationally important cities. But in NO WAY should it be considered on the same tier as Albuquerque or Oklahoma City. The extreme overcompensation by people on this site trying to bring Austin down is ludicrous and makes so many posters non-credible and unworthy to be taken seriously.
I wouldn’t call a top-20ish city 4th tier. Hell, the term “second-tier” is considered a general insult. Anyway, this is all semantics. The point is, Austin is probably within the top 20 when it comes to nationally important cities. But in NO WAY should it be considered on the same tier as Albuquerque or Oklahoma City. The extreme overcompensation by people on this site trying to bring Austin down is ludicrous and makes so many posters non-credible and unworthy to be taken seriously.
I think people are defining tiers as
Tier 1: 1-5
Tier 2: 6-10
Tier 3: 11-15
etc
...
...
...
So by those definitions, for the case of this thread:
A strong case could be made to single out the top 5 as Tier 1, but Tier 2 becomes more debatable, as some of the cities posters have marked as 11, 12, 13, can easily be interchanged for some of the more popular choices.
And Tier 3 becomes an even bigger blur.
Where Austin fits, IMO? Definitely not in the same category as a city like Jacksonville -- that's ridiculous.
So by those definitions, for the case of this thread:
A strong case could be made to single out the top 5 as Tier 1, but Tier 2 becomes more debatable, as some of the cities posters have marked as 11, 12, 13, can easily be interchanged for some of the more popular choices.
And Tier 3 becomes an even bigger blur.
Where Austin fits, IMO? Definitely not in the same category as a city like Jacksonville -- that's ridiculous.
Gotcha, that makes sense. Even so, I agree, Austin is not in a tier with some of these other cities. In my opinion, numbers shouldn’t separate a tier; level of importance should. Using the criterion I listed earlier and basing my list almost exclusively on the rankings of a consolidation of global cities list by leading minds of urbanism, I think tiers should be something like this:
Tier 1: NYC, LA, Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle in that order.
Tier 2: Minneapolis, Phoenix, Detroit, San Diego, San Jose, Denver, Charlotte, and Baltimore, in that order.
Tier 3: St. Louis, Austin, Tampa, Portland, Pittsburgh, Orlando, Cleveland, Nashville, Indianapolis, Sacramento, Columbus, and Cincinnati, in that order.
I wouldn’t call a top-20ish city 4th tier. Hell, the term “second-tier” is considered a general insult. Anyway, this is all semantics. The point is, Austin is probably within the top 20 when it comes to nationally important cities. But in NO WAY should it be considered on the same tier as Albuquerque or Oklahoma City.
Second-tier is an insult? I think you are overthinking this whole tier thing. It doesn't mean a place is inferior... Frankly, I'd prefer tier 2/3 San Diego over most of the tier 1 cities. Same with Austin
I agree...it doesn't belong w/ ABQ and OKC. It also doesn't belong in the top 20...yet.
Quote:
The extreme overcompensation by people on this site trying to bring Austin down is ludicrous and makes so many posters non-credible and unworthy to be taken seriously.
Honestly, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. It wouldn't get so much negative energy if it wasn't so hyped up.
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.
