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.
Population has little to do with determining Alpha status.It more has to do with density, accessibility,and infrastructure,and multiple transportation options.
Not to mention that Houston currently is ranked lower than Dallas,Atlanta
Population has little to do with determining Alpha status.It more has to do with density, accessibility,and infrastructure,and multiple transportation options.
Not to mention that Houston currently is ranked lower than Dallas,Atlanta
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1
Population has little to do with determining Alpha status.It more has to do with density, accessibility,and infrastructure,and multiple transportation options.
Not to mention that Houston currently is ranked lower than Dallas,Atlanta
Austin before Charlotte?But I suppose Austin is really up there with Seattle and Atlanta,NOt
But from your given criteria on density, infrastructure, accessibility, and multiple transportation options, shouldn't Boston be higher than Atlanta on the Beta + list. In fact Boston is on the Beta tier while Atlanta is a whole tier above it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston14
Boston should Honestly be in the Alpha- category
Boston should definitely be a tier higher on Beta + instead of the Beta tier it's on. But I think the only other American city to get to Alpha World City should be Washington DC. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, & Washington DC are just something else compared to Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, & Miami.
But from your given criteria on density, infrastructure, accessibility, and multiple transportation options, shouldn't Boston be higher than Atlanta on the Beta + list. In fact Boston is on the Beta tier while Atlanta is a whole tier above it.
But from your given criteria on density, infrastructure, accessibility, and multiple transportation options, shouldn't Boston be higher than Atlanta on the Beta + list. In fact Boston is on the Beta tier while Atlanta is a whole tier above it.
Boston should definitely be a tier higher on Beta + instead of the Beta tier it's on. But I think the only other American city to get to Alpha World City should be Washington DC. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, & Washington DC are just something else compared to Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, & Miami.
The criteria I mentioned are just some that are considered.I added those because the previous poster I was responding to did not even consider those factors to his answer.I dont necessarily disagree with you about Boston being higher than it is.I think Boston ranked lower,is mainly due to lesser political power and also influence.Those criteria are also used .These rankings are subjective but they are all very close to each other in their findings.
Someone mentioned earlier about D.C becoming the next Alpha.They made a good case for it which i never really considered.The main thing D.C. is lacking is corporate power other than that I don't see why it would not be the next alpha city.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1
The criteria I mentioned are just some that are considered.I added those because the previous poster I was responding to did not even consider those factors to his answer.I dont necessarily disagree with you about Boston being higher than it is.I think Boston ranked lower,is mainly due to lesser political power and also influence.Those criteria are also used .These rankings are subjective but they are all very close to each other in their findings.
Someone mentioned earlier about D.C becoming the next Alpha.They made a good case for it which i never really considered.The main thing D.C. is lacking is corporate power other than that I don't see why it would not be the next alpha city.
Yeah that was me who talked about Washington DC. Lol.
Political power? Boston is also a state capital, and not only does it serve as kind of like a "primate city" for it's state but also for it's Sub-Region of New England.
It's a very big driving force for it's Sub-regions economy. And not only that but it's CSA goes and includes all of Rhode Island (which includes it's capital city) and leaks over to New Hampshire also.
I think Boston is just as much a driving force if not just a tad bit more than Atlanta, because the CSA is home to nearly 8 million people.
I just don't get it. But I'll look into the reasons why they're ranked as they are later on.
I don't know that just puzzles me how they rank Boston/Atlanta differently. But of course, they are the professionals. So they must have some reason.
I didn’t vote because there are no criteria listed as to what defines a world city. If we use the GaWC rankings which some have referenced, it becomes much easier. Under those rankings; Dallas, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Boston, and Atlanta have all been defined as global (“world”) cities for the last three published GaWC reports. Philadelphia was added in the most recent listing.
Cities not making the cut are defined as showing either “High Sufficiency” or “Sufficiency”. Phoenix is listed as possessing high sufficiency and Las Vegas is listed as showing sufficiency.
Under the GaWC rankings the answer would seem to be Phoenix since it is the closer of the two cities which are not currently defined as global.
If this is merely a subjective question; I would say that none of these cities is, or will likely ever be, a truly world city. I think we tend to overstate the importance of US cities to people in other parts of the world. Aside from New York (for a host of obvious reasons), Washington (for political influence), and Los Angeles (for its cultural influences); few American cities have an especially strong impact on the lives of people throughout the world.
Great post, especially the last paragraph. I think those 3 cities are it. Boston, San Francsico, Miami and Seattle might be contenders. I'd have to say not really for any of the others - two generations ago, we'd be asking the same question about Detroit or Cleveland or Buffalo - for good reason. And look at what they are now. NYC, Washington, Los Angeles, SF, Miami, Boston and Seattle (and far less so with Seattle) have a permanence - literal and figurative - in their economies and culture - that boom/bust cities (there are many very large ones in the US, some of which have been having a great run for a few decades, but most of them haven't yet hit a real crisis-like turning point yet - the kind of massive-scale structural economic shift that would [for example] make two sibling cities diverge: think Chicago soaring while Detroit plunges into some sort of death spiral) haven't yet acquired.
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.