can large metro's be a victim of their own success ? (sales, schools)

[danco]

ie: Chicago/Seattle losing the Boeing deal?
Mobile Alabama looks to cash in on that deal.

I also noticed Chicago passed the highest sale tax of any
major city in the nation. Why ? Maybe to pay for an increase
of public services ?

I view large cities as anchors of a region but view smaller
satellite cities ( not suburbs ) as more livable and efficiant.

[SouthCali4LifeSD]

if you try hard enough, you can make an argument for both sides, but i say this without hesitation, NO WAY. big cities are more livable and efficient for obvious reasons. they have something for everyone and at SHORT distances, which increases productive efficiency for both the citizen, and for organizations and the commerce they conduct. the smaller the town, the harder it is to get resources to it efficiently.

In big cities, you have the urban core (city proctor) as well as the suburbs, like i said, something for everyone. Within big cities, you find attractions, excellent restaurants, health services, big schools both public and private, universities both public and private, efficient land use and zoning, tourists (who bring in extra revenue for the city), excellent infrastructure and typically public transportation, lots and lots and lots and lots of jobs, great social hangout spots (clubs, urban parks, etc), what else can i say?

big cities are the most attractive places for big businesses to be located because big cities attract college educated people who can actually afford to live in big cities, and therefore, there's this vicious cycle for small cities because all their children go off to college in bigger cities and most of their educated get promoted to a higher position found only in a bigger city (typically the headquarters) or as they get more educated, they can only find jobs in big cities where fortune 500 companies are typically located.

basically, people in big cities can afford all the luxuries that come with urbanity because 1) they're educated and can afford it for the very reason that 2) it's where big rich companies locate themselves because they know educated people live in urban centers. it's an interdependent relationship that protects both and therefore, outsourcing these jobs or relocating these companies alltogether would do more harm then good! by the way, i believe just about EVERY fortune 500 company is publicly traded (owned by the public through stocks and bonds), so there would have to be an EXTREMELY valid reason to relocate a headquarters because it's not up to an owner to decide, but rather, a board of directors lead by a chairman/CEO who work in the best interest of shareholders to maximize their stockholding wealth. I love this county!!

[danco]

The cost of doing business in a smaller metro (especially a startup)
is far less expensive, with only a slight drop off of amenities.

I argue why not have the best of both worlds.

Lower cost and better standard of living ( crime, traffic and pollution )

Big cities are indeed great for a reason. I just believe much like the Roman
Empire - there comes a point when you're too large to efficiently sustain
yourself..... and I won't even go off on the corruption issues.

[j33]

Chicago just passed that sales tax mostly due to out of control corruption and that the president of Cook County is one of the biggest idiots we've had in office in years, and that is saying a lot (given our history of idiots in office).

I will say that I do worry about the future of this city with the out of control taxation as of late. I don't see how it can sustain itself without business and population being lost because of it.

[krudmonk]

Yes, because they attract self-aggrandizing douchebags and push out the people of substance.

[oilpainter]

Originally Posted by danco

ie: Chicago/Seattle losing the Boeing deal?
Mobile Alabama looks to cash in on that deal.

Such language on this site. Mobile wins and is a small place, but Northrop is based in Century City and is part of a large metro.