U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Lakewood, CO
353 posts
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Well, I think that's true for lots of American metro areas. But when I assess a "city", I assess the CITY. I'm not interested in the suburbs, which are almost universally conservative in the US. So I'm comparing Dallas city to Denver city.



So you are saying there are no true liberals in CO or TX as we know them in the rest of the country?
No, no. There's plenty of liberals in both states. I'm only making the point that a "liberal" in CO or TX is a lot different from a liberal on the coast.

As far as city vs. city, it's not fair to compare the city of Dallas to the city of Denver because Dallas really dominates the metroplex. It's about a fourth of the whole msa--Denver is only 1/7 the total msa population. So the city of Dallas is quite representative of the metroplex while puny Denver is not at all representative of the metro area.

And, might I add, that suburbs are inextricably related to the core city. I mean, look at Denver, when you say, "I'm from Denver" it's about an 85% chance that you mean you're from the suburbs. The vast, vast majority of people in the metro are are not urban Denverites. So when I say Denver it conservative--I'm talking Denver metro--not the little city and county of Denver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 05-04-2007, 02:55 PM
 
40 posts, read 128,037 times
Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawlings View Post
In fact, the city and county of Denver is really only 1/7 the size of the entire msa.
That's interesting... last time I checked, the CITY of Denver was about 1/5 of the entire metro area. Considering that the city has a population of 557,917 people, wouldn't your "fact" lead us to beleive that the Denver metro has a population of around 3,900,000. Last time I checked, the metro population was around 2,800,000. The city of Denver makes up around 1/5 (20%) of the metro population. If you're going to create a compelling argument, perhaps you should use factual information.

Regardless of the number of people who live in the city vs. the suburbs does not discredit the importance of the city itself. The city is the anchor of the metro area: the center of culture, commerce and media influence (especially in cities like Denver that are the state capital). Without the city, the suburbs would not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Lakewood, CO
353 posts
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Caroline72 View Post
That's interesting... last time I checked, the CITY of Denver was about 1/5 of the entire metro area. Considering that the city has a population of 557,917 people, wouldn't your "fact" lead us to beleive that the Denver metro has a population of around 3,900,000. Last time I checked, the metro population was around 2,800,000. The city of Denver makes up around 1/5 (20%) of the metro population. If you're going to create a compelling argument, perhaps you should use factual information.

Regardless of the number of people who live in the city vs. the suburbs does not discredit the importance of the city itself. The city is the anchor of the metro area: the center of culture, commerce and media influence (especially in cities like Denver that are the state capital). Without the city, the suburbs would not exist.
Whether it's 20% or 15%--it's SMALL. I won't dispute the importance of the City of Denver to metro Denver life. I'm there every day, in fact. People drive on their roads, go to their sporting events, etc. every day. But politically Denver's influence is weak.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter how supposedly 'progressive' Denver is if it's overwhelmed numerically by the big ol' conservative suburbs. After all, during the average day Denver's population swells to double it's size because of all the suburban workers. In that sense, most of the time Denver is actually 'purple' as the liberals get outnumbered by the conservative businessmen and workers from outside of Denver. And don't think those subrubanites have no influence on how the city of Denver is run--they do!

Who makes the policy? Who votes? Who bring megachurches? The conservative suburbs and Colorado Springs have much more political and cultural power in Colorado than a few liberals in Denver might.

My point is that people may or may not have skewed views of Denver because when they come here they stop on the 16th Street Mall, Larimer Square, and Cherry Creek before they head up to Aspen. Of course they think the place is liberal! But if you look where the average Coloradan or Denverite lives--it's conservative. The impulse in Colorado is absolutely conservative. And most people wouldn't have it any other way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 07:57 PM
Status: "Maple tree is leafing out!" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
65,542 posts, read 51,899,948 times
Reputation: 17960
Default Rawlings

Quote:
Texas is the top spot for Colorado kids who go out of state (UT fielding the most).
What is your source for this statistic? That certainly was not the case for my kids' high school, one graduated in 2002 and one in 2005. I think the most popular out of state school was BYU in Provo, Utah. Also, schools in Cali, Ariz, and WA are popular. I do not remember very many kids at all going to Texas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Lakewood, CO
353 posts
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittnurse70 View Post
What is your source for this statistic? That certainly was not the case for my kids' high school, one graduated in 2002 and one in 2005. I think the most popular out of state school was BYU in Provo, Utah. Also, schools in Cali, Ariz, and WA are popular. I do not remember very many kids at all going to Texas.

It's one of the top states--I should have specified. But there was a stat in one of the Dallas papers stating that Colorado is the top choice for Texans leaving Texas.

I can't imagine BYU being terribly popular unless you're in Grand Junction or in a big Mormon neighborhood. Either way, Utah is quite a conservative place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 10:49 PM
Status: "Maple tree is leafing out!" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
65,542 posts, read 51,899,948 times
Reputation: 17960
BYU is the most popular out-of-state college for students from Monarch High School to attend, in other words, the college with the largest number of students attending. I also heard the same of Broomfield High. Of course, students going to say, California, attend a number of different schools. In any event, Colorado students are not going to college in Texas in large numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 11:30 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
1,288 posts, read 3,358,672 times
Reputation: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawlings View Post
Vegas is rising and I just wonder how long before it is like the next LA or NY or maybe a mix of both--in the desert of all places!
I don't think that will be happening anytime soon, if ever. Vegas has no port, no major industry except gaming and tourism which makes the economy very vulnerable, is not a transportation hub, has no great or elite universities, research, medical or cultural institutions, has limited civic philanthropy, and lacks dynamic civic leadership and institutions--most all of which are essential elements to world class, alpha city status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-04-2007, 11:58 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,746 posts, read 2,912,162 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
Kansas City is an up and coming city like Houston was in the '80s. I was stunned that Kansas City didn't look like what I pictured when I passed through for the first time--like the same way non-Houstonians are stunned when they visit my city for the first time. I don't hear much about it so I thought it was just a sleepy plains town like Wichita or what I picture Omaha to be. Kansas City is much cleaner and newer than St. Louis IMHO. It's the best city on the plains because of its location. The scenery is beautiful. That would be my only alternative to Chicago!
Kansas City is much smaller than St. Louis, and St. Louis has a lot more **** to do. Trust me as a Missourian I know both cities well...St. Louis is a much larger and more major city overall than Kansas City for businesses, there is a lot more stuff to do here....the suburbs of St. Louis are cleaner than Kansas City will ever be...I disagree enormously about Kansas City being cleaner than st. Louis. Are you just anti-St. Louis? St. Louis is a great city, just as great as Kansas City and more...twice as big...twice as many businesses located here....education system in the metro area overall is fantastic....has fine colleges....has a lot more stuff to do! And landscape in St. Louis is very interesting! You get a mix of rolling plains and the Ozark foothills which are far more interesting than anything Kansas City has to offer. St. Louis is very underrated in this discussion and that is a BIG understatement. Anybody who thinks Kansas City is better than St. Louis does not know St. Louis AT ALL!!!!! St. Louis deserves minimum as many points as Cleveland, more than Kansas City or Columbus, Cincinnati, or Indianapolis. Except for maybe Cleveland or Cincinnati, St. Louis is a great city. If I have to go into specifics I well. Honestly I don't care if you disagree...because if you can't give St. Louis as a whole metro the points it deserves and would give Kansas City better rankings, then don't talk about how bad it is because you don't have a clue what you're saying. Leave my great city alone!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-05-2007, 12:10 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,746 posts, read 2,912,162 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawlings View Post
Great topic. Here's my list and I'm basing it off of international/national importance, economic strength, cultural vibrancy, size, and general reputation:

1.) New York
2.) Los Angeles
3.) Washington DC
4.) San Francisco
5.) Chicago
6.) Boston
7.) Seattle
8.) Houston
9.) Atlanta
10.) Phoenix

That's the top tier and really the only one that matters. The 'B-list' is as follows:

11.) Miami
12.) Detroit
13.) San Diego
14.) Dallas
15.) Detroit
16.) Philadelphia
17.) Minneapolis
18.) Cleveland
19.) St. Louis
20.) Nashville

Losers:

Denver, Austin, San Antonio, Tucson, Austin, Kansas City, Lousville, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Baltimore, Portland, Buffalo, Tampa

Notice that size doesn't always matter. A lot of it has to do with how you, as a city, sell yourself. Denver's a big city and has hosted major events--all star games, etc.--but it sells itself as less than world-class. It's identity is a family-town in the midwest whereas Cleveland and Nashville are 'bigger' in the minds of most people.

I'm of the opinion that if you're looking for stardom hit my top ten or top twenty. But if you're looking for a nice place to live and settle down with a family you'd go to a more unassuming place like Denver.

I just don't understand how Cleveland is any more world-class than St. Louis. As metro areas, they tie identically. You have to look at more than just the city limits. St. Louis is much more important historically, and it is every bit as large, rich, and business-headquarted as Cleveland. There is basically nothing Cleveland has that makes it more world-class than St. Louis at all....when somebody can say how Cleveland is so much better than ST. Louis i'll accept it. THese two cities are basically my hometowns....have relatives from both, know both equally. It's a tie between these cities. Cleveland I think aside from its climate is the most similar city to St. Louis in the Midwest...both are important Midwestern cities identical in size located in close proximity to many other cities, as big for business as one another, as world-class as each other...if this were 100 years ago St. Louis should've made the A list easily. i'd take the B list and put St. Louis above Cleveland. I actually think St. Louis is more world-class than Cleveland. Cleveland bigger in the minds of people than St. Louis?? I find that hard to imagine. And Nashville needs to be scrubbed from that list...Denver is ten thousand times the city Nashville is, so are Kansas City and Baltimore. Nashville is a major city yes, but like Denver, St. Louis, or Cleveland? NOT EVEN CLOSE! Louisville I've always thought is more world-class than Nashville.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-05-2007, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
3,857 posts, read 7,750,309 times
Reputation: 1779
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHarvester View Post
1. New York
2. LA
3. SF-Oakland-San Jose
4. Chicago
5. Washington-Baltimore
6. Seattle
7. Atlanta
8. Houston
9. Miami
10. Dallas

My list is based on considerations of present and future status and doesn't consider the historical dominance of cities like Philly, Detroit, Boston, etc. The "original ranking of world-class cities" listing looks outdated to me, and I agree with ajf that it's a total joke to rank a place like Columbus above St. Louis. Perhaps the list-maker is enamored of the Ohio State Buckeyes? As a Longhorn fan I find this highly offensive, LOL...
Theres alot more to Philadelphia and Boston than history my friend. You can't have a top 10 list of US cities and not include Boston and Philadlephia. That can't happen. Philadelphia and Boston are cultural,historical,educational, and economic giants. No offense to Miami,seattle and Atlanta but those are Mickey Mouse towns compared to Boston and Philly.

Seattle is a 1/3 of the economic engine that Boston and Philadelphia are. You inexplicably left out 2 of the top 5 economic powerhouses in the USA.

Last edited by rainrock; 05-05-2007 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:15 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top