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 think that it's important to point out how absolutely tiny the land area of Raleigh's MSA is (without Durham's or the CSA) when compared to others like Nashville. Sure Raleigh's MSA alone has only 1.335 million, most of which is in Wake County alone, but it's also occupying 1/3 the land area of Nashville's MSA. Additionally, when Raleigh's and Durham's MSAs are added together, they are still smaller in land area than Nashville's by several thousand, yet together they yield an almost identical population to the Nashville. Even further, the Raleigh-Durham CSA with 2.2 million still has less land area than just the Nashville MSA. In this case, context of data matters.
I've been following urban area growth yearly through a source that I previously linked. In those annual reports, Raleigh's UA alone (no Durham) passed Nashville's earlier this decade. In the latest report, the source has determined that the UAs of Raleigh and Durham have connected enough to report them as one: further putting distance on the UA of Nashville. It's just a matter of time before the two Triangle MSAs are reunited as they once were prior to 2003.
While Raleigh lacks the brand identity of some of these other cities to be "included", it doesn't lack the population. Plus, it's growing a much faster rate than most places in the South.
I think you make a great point, but I think it is still honest to say regardless how one defines the Raleigh metro, the city of Raleigh does not have equal "big city amenities" as Nashville--or other cities that greater Raleigh-Durham would appear to liken themselves to in that group...
There's no airtight justification for considering Raleigh in the same class as Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, San Antonio, Tampa, Orlando. All six have over Raleigh: much larger populations, much larger economies, much larger downtowns, more areas/neighborhoods/districts of activity, greater nightlife, more air traffic (except SA), greater tourism....it just doesn't really have to be said that Raleigh isn't in that class of cities yet--and pretty much all of those cities are boomtowns just like Raleigh, so Raleigh isn't exactly catching up to those cities...
So sure, it's a more compact and denser metro than the others. All of the others still have an outsized influence that far exceeds Raleigh, and that has everything to do with "which city feels bigger" or "does City A belong in the same tier with Cities B/C/D?"
My opinion updated to reflect '17 gdp and population figures:
Tier I
Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami
Unchanged, for perhaps forever. I tend to view Dallas by its MD, separate from its MSA. I think it's a split between it and Atlanta, and Atlanta can argue for #2 based off off its cultural resonance and uber large sphere of influence. But Dallas is a more economically productive city (higher gdp and per capita gdp, less impoverished) with about 900,000 fewer people (again, MD Dallas). And Dallas is the only one of the two I believe has a real shot at one day surpassing or matching even with Houston; neither Atlanta nor Miami ever will...
Miami is the weakest of the four, perhaps the most popular, but is far behind the other three in too many measurements that count. #1 could go to either of the other three, but I think Houston overall is still the most powerful city of the bunch...
Tier II
Charlotte, Austin, Tampa, Nashville, Orlando, San Antonio, Fort Worth
First major developments here. At this point, I think its inarguable that Austin has leapfrogged San Antonio within Texas. Austin has also begun to separate itself from every city besides Charlotte here, it's just playing the game on another level...
It probably isn't wise to separate Tampa and Orlando, but I think the margin between Nashville and Orlando is closer than Tampa and Orlando. Nashville has seen a tremendous surge this decade, and I'm not just talking numbers, I'm speaking of its evolution as a city. A Top 3 fastest rising city in the country...
Fort Worth is the forgotten city in DFW and is last place by virtue of that, but is a metropolis in it's own right and if reviewed on it's own merits, belongs in this group of cities...
Tier III
Raleigh, Richmond, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Louisville
Raleigh I think is now in the driver's seat, but both Raleigh and Richmond continue to separate themselves from the pack. The economic burst in these two cities is too strong, and their evolutions as cities is at an accelerated pace compared to the others. I think Jacksonville is right behind them, though...
At some point we have to admit that while New Oeleans will always have the brand and cache of a larger city, in reality it is watching its influence wane. Also, my current Tier IV, I used to consider the same tier as these Tier III cities, but there is a clear separation from the lower Tier III cities to Tier IV...
Tier IV
Birmingham, Norfolk, Memphis, Tulsa, Baton Rouge
Birmingham is rising fast. Not fast enough to put it in Tier III, slightly higher level cities there, but it's definitely separating from the pack here. I have always appreciated Birmingham; it's a unique place with a strong culture and surprisingly more to do than you'd think...
Memphis is slipping fast, conversely. I actually do believe that it and Norfolk are interchangeable, and as a standalone city, Memphis has a larger profile. Neither it nor Norfolk are in their prime, and both are second cities to their respective states. They have a fair amount of things in common that I've touched in over the years...
I do think weighed overall, the margins between Memphis and Tulsa/Baton Rouge is closer than the margins between Louisville/Jacksonville and Memphis. It wasn't always this way, and maybe that says more about Tulsa and Baton Rouge, but it definitely isn't a positive for Memphis...
Tier V
Charleston, Greenville, Knoxville, Columbia, Greensboro, Durham, Little Rock
Arguably the most competitive division to me...
South Carolina is Ohio on a smaller scale, three similarly sized cities in close competition with each other. Charleston is in the process of eventually reestablishing itself as #1 in SC, and I don't think it will be long before it does; it's going to pull away from Greenville and already us pulling away from Columbia...
Greensboro over Durham by virtue of it still being the larger of the two and the most significant impact of the two within NC....
............
There are other nice cities in the South, but none are really viable here, and all other cities would have to at minimum match Little Rock and Durham pound-for-pound...
Baton Rouge belongs in Tier V and I believe would have the largest GDP among those cities. I would also include Lexington and Winston-Salem.
Interesting also that you didn't include Oklahoma City if you included Tulsa (and Dallas-Fort Worth). I'd place it in Tier III.
Once upon a time, Winston-Salem, NC was around a Tier III southern city thanks to the tobacco industry, but since it's separately from Greensboro like Fort Worth is from Dallas, it would likely be in your "Tier VI" along with Mobile, Lexington KY, Chattanooga, Roanoke, both Fayettevilles (including the Springdale and Bentonville for AR), Huntsville (possibly Tier V IMO), Jackson MS, Tallahassee, and Georgia's four mid-sized cities. Important to the local area and with strong regional influence, but not so nationally well-known. Any other cities are just too small to really be a player and are just locally important with the exception of some tourist destinations, although Myrtle Beach is probably around a VI.
If you include El Paso, I'd put that around a Tier IV. It tends to be overlooked since its essentially next to a dangerous Mexican city (Juarez) and is so far removed from the traditional south it might as well be "New Mexico's largest city" just like a similar connotation is used for Memphis and Mississippi.
Baton Rouge belongs in Tier V and I believe would have the largest GDP among those cities. I would also include Lexington and Winston-Salem.
I think Baton Rouge is too much of an economic over performer to belong in Tier V. It's a Tier V city in terms of population, but its economy dwarfs Tier V cities. As I'm not intimately familiar with BR, I don't know why that is, but it's an interesting case study. Its economy is still over 25% larger than Durham's, the closest Tier V city...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borntoolate85
Interesting also that you didn't include Oklahoma City if you included Tulsa (and Dallas-Fort Worth). I'd place it in Tier III.
Once upon a time, Winston-Salem, NC was around a Tier III southern city thanks to the tobacco industry, but since it's separately from Greensboro like Fort Worth is from Dallas, it would likely be in your "Tier VI" along with Mobile, Lexington KY, Chattanooga, Roanoke, both Fayettevilles (including the Springdale and Bentonville for AR), Huntsville (possibly Tier V IMO), Jackson MS, Tallahassee, and Georgia's four mid-sized cities. Important to the local area and with strong regional influence, but not so nationally well-known. Any other cities are just too small to really be a player and are just locally important with the exception of some tourist destinations, although Myrtle Beach is probably around a VI.
If you include El Paso, I'd put that around a Tier IV. It tends to be overlooked since its essentially next to a dangerous Mexican city (Juarez) and is so far removed from the traditional south it might as well be "New Mexico's largest city" just like a similar connotation is used for Memphis and Mississippi.
OKC was a mistaken exclusion. I think it's the last city in Tier III...
Once upon a time, Winston-Salem, NC was around a Tier III southern city thanks to the tobacco industry, but since it's separately from Greensboro like Fort Worth is from Dallas, it would likely be in your "Tier VI" along with Mobile, Lexington KY, Chattanooga, Roanoke, both Fayettevilles (including the Springdale and Bentonville for AR), Huntsville (possibly Tier V IMO), Jackson MS, Tallahassee, and Georgia's four mid-sized cities. Important to the local area and with strong regional influence, but not so nationally well-known. Any other cities are just too small to really be a player and are just locally important with the exception of some tourist destinations, although Myrtle Beach is probably around a VI.
I believe that Winston-Salem belongs in the same tier as Greensboro, although going by population and GDP it would rank below Greensboro within the tier
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
I think Baton Rouge is too much of an economic over performer to belong in Tier V. It's a Tier V city in terms of population, but its economy dwarfs Tier V cities. As I'm not intimately familiar with BR, I don't know why that is, but it's an interesting case study. Its economy is still over 25% larger than Durham's, the closest Tier V city...
The petrochemical industry and the port gives BR an advantage with respect to GDP. Overall I'd put it in the same tier with SC's big three, Greensboro, Durham, etc. but at the top. I don't think a Tier IV classification for BR is warranted overall.
Another tidbit: The smaller Florida metros are hard for me to pin down. I know that many of them are like Myrtle Beach, catering significantly to tourists and retirees, which results in lower GDPs so they may have simply ranked below Tier V in your book.
What do you think about Lexington?
If NoVA could be considered on its own, I'm thinking I'd rank it Tier IB at the lowest.
If NoVA could be considered on its own, I'm thinking I'd rank it Tier IB at the lowest.
I too wondered about NOVA. Also Baltimore, El Paso, Northern KY, and Lexington. Lexington is tough to place because of the small metro population, but larger regional influence.
I too wondered about NOVA. Also Baltimore, El Paso, Northern KY, and Lexington. Lexington is tough to place because of the small metro population, but larger regional influence.
Aside from the fact that Baltimore is not in the south. It is located in the NE and is culturally similar to cities in the NE.
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.
OKC was a mistaken exclusion. I think it's the last city in Tier III...
