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.
Almost every city vs. city thread eventually ends up with someone suggesting a tier system. The only city that truly has a tier is mighty NY. The others cities fall into every known category to man. Most notably, tier 2 you see LA and Chicago. But I often see DC, SF, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta and Houston tossed around by various posters. Outside of NY, how can we determine which tier everyone fits in? How do we determine the other heavyweights in their region like Seattle, Denver, Miami and Detroit? Do we use the following criteria:
GDP
Metro Size
Quality of Life
Resources (e.g. government, technology, petroleum, research facilities)
Global presence
Historical relevance
Cost of Living
Geographic location
Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.
Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.
Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.
Chicago... oh Chicago. I think most Americans and the world for the fact view it as America's "second largest city." It certainly has a great, large, manhattan-esk like central business district. It has Global Presence and is basically the center of the midwest... where as LA is more the Center of the west coast, not the Bay Area. Idk, that's a tough one.
Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.
I also don't buy it. The Bay Area also has a higher GDP and more F500 companies than Chicago...I mean Chicago is a bigger city and better skyline, bigger downtown, but it also has much bigger swaths of uncontributing (for the most part) ghetto areas... but that doesn't make it better than LA now does it? I'd say no. So why does it automatically make it better than the Bay Area? The Bay Area has what I mentioned, but also better universities. More diversity, etc. To me it feels like a more international area. LA is
Greater LA is 17.8 Million people
Chicagoland is 9.8 Million people
now CLEARLY to me they are not on the same level.
Both SF and DC metro are both now on at least an equal playing field with Chicago, they both have higher GDP and seemingly have tremendous influence on the world. They both also seem to have a ritzier crowd, for what it's worth..
I'd do it like this.
NYC tier 1
LA tier 2
Chicago Bay Area DC tier 3
Boston Philly Houston Atlanta Dallas Miami tier 4
First... let's be clear. "The Bay Area" is not a metro. It is two metros. "The Bay Area" is also not a city. It is multiple cities. We have to be fair here when including these lists. We can't compare "The Bay Area" to Chicago.
Also, the GDP for U.S. Metros is
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. D.C.
5. Houston
6. DFW
7. Philly
8. San Fran
9. Boston
10. ATL
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.
