Most Competitive Cities in 2025: Atlanta #33 (White, Plains: Home Depot, schools, taxes)

[masonbauknight]

Originally Posted by wxjay

And yet 6x more people live in Chicago than Atlanta.

Are you new to City-Data? We're talking about metropolitan areas, not the city proper (city limits do not define cities, and people on these threads are asking about the entire urban area, the job prospects in the entire urban area, cities and suburbs, quality of life among them, etc.). For this discussion, Chicago has 9.5 million people and Atlanta has 5.4 million. Chicago is America's third-largest city and Atlanta is the country's ninth-largest city.

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by masonbauknight

Are you new to City-Data? We're talking about metropolitan areas, not the city proper (city limits do not define cities, and people on these threads are asking about the entire urban area, the job prospects in the entire urban area, cities and suburbs, quality of life among them, etc.).

This may be true for the Atlanta metro or for other metros but not Chicago. When you ask a Chicagoan about the city and it's features and amenities, they will typically speak of only what is in the Chicago city limits unless what you are seeking will best be found in a specific suburb. Chicagoans don't define the city by it's suburbs and they are viewed as separate from the city. Chicagoland is not lumped together by Chicagoans the way metro Atlanta is by Atlantans.

Don't agree? Test it out. Go to the strictly Chicago forum and ask a question about Dolton, Naperville, Winnetka, Palatine or any random Chicago suburb and you will be immediately directed to the Chicago Suburb forum. Your question about a Chicago suburb probably won't even get entertained on the Chicago Forum. They will refer you to the suburb forum and move on.

It is this precise reason why the Illinois forum has a separate forum for Chicago and its suburbs and why the Atlanta forum has no such division. Because Chicago proper does have nearly 3 million people and because so much is contained within the city limits, Chicago doesn't need the suburbs to shape it's identity or account for its amenities--and many of Chicago's suburbs have what Chicago has (i.e. major emplyment centers, public transit to include the L or commuter railroad, sidewalks/walkability, grid street systems).

Chicago is a more established city built from the center out with everything revolving around The Loop/downtown. Atlanta's growth is newer and the growth has mostly been built from the suburbs in, during recent years with not so much focus on downtown. That's the difference.

[masonbauknight]

Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD

Chicago is a more established city built from the center out with everything revolving around The Loop/downtown. Atlanta's growth is newer and the growth has mostly been built from the suburbs in, during recent years with not so much focus on downtown. That's the difference.

I disagree. Chicago is Chicago to outsiders because it is a huge metro area of 9.5 million, not because of the 3 million within its city limits. I live in New York, also "an established city", and before that I lived in Philly, which is as "established" as Chicago is. But we're talking about people on City-Data who are contemplating a move to Chicago from elsewhere. They are interested in all of Chicago's amenities and advantages that come from its greater urban area -- just as pertinent to newcomers as those found in Greater Atlanta.

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by masonbauknight

I disagree. Chicago is Chicago to outsiders because it is a huge metro area of 9.5 million, not because of the 3 million within its city limits. I live in New York, also "an established city", and before that I lived in Philly, which is as "established" as Chicago is. But we're talking about people on City-Data who are contemplating a move to Chicago from elsewhere. They are interested in all of Chicago's amenities and advantages that come from its greater urban area -- just as pertinent to newcomers as those found in Greater Atlanta.

You're wrong. But ok lol.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD

You're wrong. But ok lol.

Your argument might hold some water on a different topic, but this thread is clearly comparing metropolitan areas. It took some digging to get solid proof, but the full report on the top cities in 2025 listed this as their guideline for what constituted a city:

Today cities are no longer limited to their political boundaries. They are rapidly metamorphosing into bigger urban agglomerations or metropolitan areas, with the city proper at the core. New York City, for example, has a population of only 8.2m, compared with 18.9m people living in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area. Typically, an urban agglomeration or metropolitan area is defined as the continuous area encompassing the city proper and smaller cities or towns close to the city’s boundaries at comparable urban density levels (World Urbanisation Prospects, United Nations, 2009). In the context of this benchmark, “city” is defined as the urban agglomeration or metropolitan area it holds together

Here is a link to the full report (as opposed to the summary linked by the OP):

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/citifo...tspots2025.pdf

The secondary discussion that has popped up on this thread concerning Chicago and Atlanta is also using metro statistics, at least the only one that anyone has cited, post #11 by Humanista. Note the Atlanta listing is for "Atlanta-Sandy Springs..." which happen to be the first two cities listed by the US Census for the Atlanta MSA. Note the majority of the other cities list the MSA name and have secondary cities listed (Houston - Sugarland, San Francisco - San Mateo, and.... wait for it.... Chicago - Joliet -Napierville)

You are free to start a thread comparing the city proper of Chicago with the city proper of Atlanta, but that is not what is being discussed on this thread. Neither is the limitations of any city's city limits the measure which is used to discuss comparisons of cities in any demographic study. If that were the case, Miami might as well close up shop and let Jacksonville be the premier city in the state. As if.

[bryantm3]

chicago is clearly larger, more well-established, and has deeper economic ties to the rest of the country than atlanta does. we as a city are just now hitting puberty. i think the ranking regarding chicago is correct, but i'm disappointed to see us below dallas and houston. i would think by 2025 we would have pulled ahead, especially seeing the path midtown and downtown are on. i think atlanta is headed to a different trajectory than dallas and atlanta. considering atlanta is the #2 city for federal jobs (outside of washington DC), i think they've drastically underestimated our importance globally.

the thing is, they ranked us 9 points lower for 2012, and we saw the biggest rank increase in the US. part of me wonders if they're scared to put too much of a change, because that would make it appear they were incorrect before. the fact that dallas was ranked #33 and atlanta was ranked #42 in 2012 makes me think they f**ked up the rankings for 2012 and are trying to correct their mistake without looking stupid.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

chicago is clearly larger, more well-established, and has deeper economic ties to the rest of the country than atlanta does. we as a city are just now hitting puberty. i think the ranking regarding chicago is correct, but i'm disappointed to see us below dallas and houston. i would think by 2025 we would have pulled ahead, especially seeing the path midtown and downtown are on. i think atlanta is headed to a different trajectory than dallas and atlanta. considering atlanta is the #2 city for federal jobs (outside of washington DC), i think they've drastically underestimated our importance globally.

the thing is, they ranked us 9 points lower for 2012, and we saw the biggest rank increase in the US. part of me wonders if they're scared to put too much of a change, because that would make it appear they were incorrect before. the fact that dallas was ranked #33 and atlanta was ranked #42 in 2012 makes me think they f**ked up the rankings for 2012 and are trying to correct their mistake without looking stupid.

Dallas and Houston's economies weren't rocked nearly as hard as Atlanta's in the last downturn. Would say Atlanta's higher rise in the ranking is relative to Atlanta getting back on its economic feet. On a global scale, the three cities are pretty similar, but Atlanta is still lagging the other two in job creation and population gains. Slightly, yes, but enough of a difference that Atlanta shouldn't be ranked ahead of the other two by great lengths. This ranking is pretty much right on.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Dallas and Houston's economies weren't rocked nearly as hard as Atlanta's in the last downturn. Would say Atlanta's higher rise in the ranking is relative to Atlanta getting back on its economic feet. On a global scale, the three cities are pretty similar, but Atlanta is still lagging the other two in job creation and population gains. Slightly, yes, but enough of a difference that Atlanta shouldn't be ranked ahead of the other two by great lengths. This ranking is pretty much right on.

Atlanta also has a better transit network than both. Dallas is working on connecting DART to DFW, while HJIA has been connected to the city for decades.

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by masonbauknight

Are you new to City-Data?

No. I have nearly 11x more posts and also a higher reputation than you.

We're talking about metropolitan areas, not the city proper (city limits do not define cities, and people on these threads are asking about the entire urban area, the job prospects in the entire urban area, cities and suburbs, quality of life among them, etc.).

You may be speaking about that. I am not, and as another poster mentioned, that is not how people in these other large cities speak about them. I would never, for example, mention a new conference center in White Plains, NY if I was talking about New York City. This is a fundamental difference, and I think it is important to note that and is actually very interesting to pursue.

For this discussion, Chicago has 9.5 million people and Atlanta has 5.4 million. Chicago is America's third-largest city and Atlanta is the country's ninth-largest city.

Again, that may be in your viewpoint. I am unsure why we have to assume your definition, especially since another person started the thread. I think we should welcome multiple viewpoints.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by wxjay

No. I have nearly 11x more posts and also a higher reputation than you.

You may be speaking about that. I am not, and as another poster mentioned, that is not how people in these other large cities speak about them. I would never, for example, mention a new conference center in White Plains, NY if I was talking about New York City. This is a fundamental difference, and I think it is important to note that and is actually very interesting to pursue.

Again, that may be in your viewpoint. I am unsure why we have to assume your definition, especially since another person started the thread. I think we should welcome multiple viewpoints.

Read my post above. Every statistic used in the original post and in the subsequent Chicago vs. Atlanta debate is on metro vs. metro. Every reliable measuring stick comparing cities is based on metro vs. metro.