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.
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.
Honestly, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. It wouldn't get so much negative energy if it wasn't so hyped up.
Yep, I was conflating “second-tier” and “second-rate”
Austin does well per-capita but it's only 30th in population.
For "importance" I'd probably go.
1. NYC
2. LA
3. SF/SJ (I don't respect this as two metros)
4. Chicago
5. DC
6. Dallas
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Seattle
10. Philly
11. Atlanta
12. Miami
13. Denver
14. Minn
15. Detroit
I rated SF higher than most because I measured it as the Bay Area as a whole, which is pretty damn important. I also put Seattle higher just because it performs VERY well per-capita, whereas Philly and Atlanta get by more on raw population. I feel like Dallas and Houston are both underrated by others on here. They aren't the urban rowhouse cities everyone loves but they are huge and are economic powerhouses. (We'll see how Houston does in the next decade, though). Finally, I gave Denver a bit of extra credit for how important it is as a CSA, thanks to its geographic isolation.
Austin does well per-capita but it's only 30th in population.
For "importance" I'd probably go.
1. NYC
2. LA
3. SF/SJ (I don't respect this as two metros)
4. Chicago
5. DC
6. Dallas
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Seattle
10. Philly
11. Atlanta
12. Miami
13. Denver
14. Minn
15. Detroit
I rated SF higher than most because I measured it as the Bay Area as a whole, which is pretty damn important. I also put Seattle higher just because it performs VERY well per-capita, whereas Philly and Atlanta get by more on raw population. I feel like Dallas and Houston are both underrated by others on here. They aren't the urban rowhouse cities everyone loves but they are huge and are economic powerhouses. (We'll see how Houston does in the next decade, though). Finally, I gave Denver a bit of extra credit for how important it is as a CSA, thanks to its geographic isolation.
Cities to watch by 2025 Seattle, Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Miami, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Austin, Portland
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. San Francisco Bay Area
5. DC
6. Dallas
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Philly
10. Seattle
11. Atlanta
12. Miami
13. Minneapolis
14. Phoenix
15 Detroit
16. San Diego
17. Denver
18. Baltimore
19. Charlotte
20. Portland
21. Austin
22. Saint Louis
23. Tampa
24. Pittsburgh
25. Indianapolis/Orlando
Next group battling for spot on top 30 group trying show top 25 they are upcoming Cleveland, Nashville, Cincinnati, Columbus, Sacramento, Kansas City, San Antonio, Milwaukee
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 can respect this list. I have a hard time with Atlanta, Houston and Philadelphia.
I can respect this list. I have a hard time with Atlanta, Houston and Philadelphia.
Imho I'd give Houston the nod over Philly & Atlanta due to the energy sector. It's essentially the global HQ for it.
I would also not put Dallas or Atlanta over Miami. It's to important for international trade and is the US's focal point for everything and anything Latin/South American.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereiend
Austin does well per-capita but it's only 30th in population.
For "importance" I'd probably go.
1. NYC
2. LA
3. SF/SJ (I don't respect this as two metros)
4. Chicago
5. DC
6. Dallas
7. Houston
8. Boston
9. Seattle
10. Philly
11. Atlanta
12. Miami
13. Denver
14. Minn
15. Detroit
I rated SF higher than most because I measured it as the Bay Area as a whole, which is pretty damn important. I also put Seattle higher just because it performs VERY well per-capita, whereas Philly and Atlanta get by more on raw population. I feel like Dallas and Houston are both underrated by others on here. They aren't the urban rowhouse cities everyone loves but they are huge and are economic powerhouses. (We'll see how Houston does in the next decade, though). Finally, I gave Denver a bit of extra credit for how important it is as a CSA, thanks to its geographic isolation.
why do you have Denver in your top 15, but not Phoenix? We have over twice metro Denver's population!
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.
