Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Where does Seattle Belong? Importance Tiers
With 1-AA (Atlanta, Dallas, San Fran, Philly etc.) 71 48.30%
With 1-A (Denver, Baltimore, San Diego, Phoenix etc.) 76 51.70%
Voters: 147. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2010, 12:00 AM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,071,664 times
Reputation: 1113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by toughguy View Post
How is that reaching...Milwaukee has a bunch of fringe F500s. Saying that it has one more than Seattle and then using that as a measuring stick is disingenious.
My point was that Seattle is right where it belongs with the rest of the 1-A's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2010, 12:10 AM
 
1,989 posts, read 6,596,478 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark View Post
Spokane was a poor example, Boise would have been better. Detroit does dominate Lower MI, which is where 90% of the state resides. Cleveland shares the spotlight with Columbus and Cincinnati, with Akron being part of Cleveland's CSA and Toledo falling under Detroit's sphere of influence. Pittsburgh covers the western half of PA as well as most of WV.



I think it's the complete opposite scenario. People can't believe that those dirty Rust Belt cities could possibly be more important than a trendy hipster mecca like Seattle.
You keep writing Seattle off as this trendy flash in the pan hipster city, as if that somehow invalidates all of it's industry and cultural exports. I detect an agenda against successful cities that rose to national importance in the last 30 years, surpassing more traditionally powerful cities in the process. My contention is that if Cleveland and St. Louis are rated 1-AA, than surely Seattle belongs in that same tier.

Last edited by toughguy; 07-10-2010 at 12:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2010, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,071,664 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughguy View Post
My contention is that if Cleveland and St. Louis are rated 1-AA, than surely Seattle belongs in that same tier.
Well I, and the experts at Rand McNally, disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2010, 12:30 AM
 
1,081 posts, read 2,266,949 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
I am curious about Seattle, it is definately a media darling, but also a bit isolated and not top of mind. It is a large metro but not huge. So in reading a post in another thread (https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...ance-rand.html) the question was posed on Seattle. Which category of cities does is belong.

Is it more closely realted to:

*1-AA Major national business centers Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (13 cities)


or these:

*1-A Other national business centersBaltimore, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, and Seattle (14 cities)


Just interested in the thoughts and rationale.
I'd place Baltimore in a higher bracket than Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta. Just saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2010, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,071,664 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCOriolesfan View Post
I'd place Baltimore in a higher bracket than Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta. Just saying.
Just saying, because you're from Baltimore?

B'more doesn't hold a candle to Atlanta, Detroit, or Minneapolis as far as GDP is concerned. Aside from hospitals, John Hopkins, B'more doesn't match up to St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland in the area of universities and fine arts. While all the cities you listed exert more influence over their Economic Areas thanks to B'more's proximity to DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2010, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Spain
1,854 posts, read 4,919,808 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlefanatic View Post
I'm going to disagree with most things here. You seem to have not even a fundamental knowledge of anything in relation to Seattle except sports teams. Pittsburgh and St. Louis definately do not compare to Seattle in terms of arts. Seattle Opera is the only opera company in the Western Hemisphere to perform the complete Ring cycle. PNB has one of the top three ballet training institutions in North America, and Seattle Symphony is one of the worlds most recorded orchestras, plus Northwest Sinfonia is an ensemble that is used extensively for soundtrack recording, especially with Michael Giacchino. Seattle has the most equity theaters outside of NYC, and Pioneer Square is one of the nations foremost art gallery districts with numerous galleries. Cleveland has the better orchestra, by far, but thats the only thing any of the cities have over Seattle arts. Also, Seattle is home to grunge music and garage rock and such people as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Jimi Hendrix, Soundgarden, and, unfortunately, Kenny G, plus many more.
I'm generalizing here, but I believe most people would say better scenery, better restaraunts, better music scene, higher quality of life, more literate, trendier and "all that stuff" would certainly mean it is a higher caliber city, I mean, those are things that make a city better than others.
If you don't recognize that Seattle is on the rise, then you have been living under a rock since the mid-90's. Port os Seattle was the only port in North America in '08 that exported more to China than it did import. Seattle is strapped in and ready for the future what with its relationship with Asian countries, especially China. It's also one of the only cities in the nation to actually gain population rather than lose it.
Lets not kid ourselves. In '08 Seattle's port traffic fell by 16% which was by far the largest in the U.S., in second place was Long Beach at 8%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 10:41 AM
 
1,989 posts, read 6,596,478 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
Lets not kid ourselves. In '08 Seattle's port traffic fell by 16% which was by far the largest in the U.S., in second place was Long Beach at 8%.
Things are on the rebound.

U.S., Seattle port traffic increasing - Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 01:10 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,500,336 times
Reputation: 5879
moral of the story is, don't discount the history of the cities already established at creating strong ties. I'm sure Seattle will be among them at some point the way it is growing but there are a lot of other cities, that have been there, done that, now they are dealing with social problems their boom periods caused. Just because they are not media darlings or in some cases, the medias whipping boy, doesn't mean they aren't still strong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 01:38 PM
 
1,989 posts, read 6,596,478 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
moral of the story is, don't discount the history of the cities already established at creating strong ties. I'm sure Seattle will be among them at some point the way it is growing but there are a lot of other cities, that have been there, done that, now they are dealing with social problems their boom periods caused. Just because they are not media darlings or in some cases, the medias whipping boy, doesn't mean they aren't still strong.
So the perception is that Seattle is a boom town that is just now starting to establish and assert itself (sort of like a Charlotte or an Austin). Meanwhile, it surpassed cities like St. Louis and Cleveland quite some time ago, and has been growing steadily ever since. I never said that Cleveland and St. Louis aren't strong cities or that they deserve condemnation, I'm just saying that Seattle is being comically overlooked if you think it doesn't have as much influence or importance as cities 2/3 the size and 1/2 the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 01:53 PM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,895,654 times
Reputation: 7976
I think a Seattle versus Hoboken thread may in order
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 $104,000 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. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top