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.
I see them a step ahead of Jacksonville, Columbus, and Portland, and a half step behind Denver and San Diego. So equal to Charlotte and Cleveland and Cincy (not listed, but equal). Just my opinion though!
I see them a step ahead of Jacksonville, Columbus, and Portland, and a half step behind Denver and San Diego. So equal to Charlotte and Cleveland and Cincy (not listed, but equal). Just my opinion though!
seems arbitrary. what are you basing it on? i see denver, baltimore, st. louis and cleveland on the same playing field. charlotte is on a tier below.
seems arbitrary. what are you basing it on? i see denver, baltimore, st. louis and cleveland on the same playing field. charlotte is on a tier below.
How is Charlotte on a tier below when its gdp is higher than these cities. It ahs basicallly the same cultural amenites, sports scene, population and is rated higher in of Fortune 500 companies???
How is Charlotte on a tier below when its gdp is higher than these cities. It ahs basicallly the same cultural amenites, sports scene, population and is rated higher in of Fortune 500 companies???
Its GDP is not higher than these cities. Here are the GDPs from 2008:
Baltimore: $133.012B
Denver: $150.810B
St. Louis: $128.467B
San Diego: $167.325B
Charlotte: $118.350B
So Overall I'd say they're about on the same level as one another.
I personally consider the Fortune 500 rankings a bit overrated. Don't get me wrong, Fortune 500 companies are important, but it is based solely on the revenue of a company. There are tons of important things which won't show up in revenues of companies or GDP of a city.
One example would be Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. It's one of the finest medical institutions in the world...it's top-notch not only as a hospital, but a medical research center. That won't show up in its GDP, but its importance is undeniable.
Its GDP is not higher than these cities. Here are the GDPs from 2008:
Baltimore: $133.012B
Denver: $150.810B
St. Louis: $128.467B
San Diego: $167.325B
Charlotte: $118.350B
So Overall I'd say they're about on the same level as one another.
I personally consider the Fortune 500 rankings a bit overrated. Don't get me wrong, Fortune 500 companies are important, but it is based solely on the revenue of a company. There are tons of important things which won't show up in revenues of companies or GDP of a city.
One example would be Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. It's one of the finest medical institutions in the world...it's top-notch not only as a hospital, but a medical research center. That won't show up in its GDP, but its importance is undeniable.
How is Charlotte on a tier below when its gdp is higher than these cities. It ahs basicallly the same cultural amenites, sports scene, population and is rated higher in of Fortune 500 companies???
one amenity charlotte most certainly does not have that the others do is good urban fabric. charlotte is too new to have developed the quality of urban neighborhoods the other cities have en masse. that's a major distinction.
^exactly right. the most urban neighborhoods in charlotte would be like mid-ring suburbs in baltimore or st. louis. it is a very immature city.
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.
