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.
Hmmm? I think that is a little bit ummm, I don't know, weird...
Overall, I don't think the listing is that weird. Listing Aurora along with Denver is a bit odd, but I was going off a previous list. Baltimore and San Jose could have been listed separate from D.C. and San Francisco, but a lot of people don't see them as being separate. Separating them would drop San Jose to tier 3 and Baltimore to tier 3 or even tier 4.
I'm assuming you think Detroit, San Diego, Orlando and Columbus should be ranked higher. You're probably right about San Diego, but you would really have to convince me about the other three.
I don't think anyone is arguing the size of metro areas. IMO, you can't put lists like this together without taking into account the central city's surroundings. For instance, in most metro areas, the major, corporate headquarters are located in the burbs.
The rankings can be based on many factors (i.e. corporate presence, GMP, number of universities, culture, etc...). With that said, it's hard to beat what I posted.
I don't think anyone is arguing the size of metro areas. IMO, you can't put lists like this together without taking into account the central city's surroundings. For instance, in most metro areas, the major, corporate headquarters are located in the burbs.
The rankings can be based on many factors (i.e. corporate presence, GMP, number of universities, culture, etc...). With that said, it's hard to beat what I posted.
So, if other factors beyond population are used (I assume you are using metro population figures), what exactly are they and how do did you come up with rankings outside of population? Seems that might be somewhat subjective. Also where tier 1 ends and tier 2 begins, etc. could be subjective.
So, if other factors beyond population are used (I assume you are using metro population figures), what exactly are they and how do did you come up with rankings outside of population? Seems that might be somewhat subjective. Also where tier 1 ends and tier 2 begins, etc. could be subjective.
I used GMP, no. of Fortune 500 companies, and a few other factors.
I didn't really take popularity and growth rate into account. IMO, growth rate isn't that important.
Plus Vegas is a foreclosure capital. It was real popular.... not really anymore.
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.
