Cities: Most Diver-To-Least Diverse US Economies (best, map, largest, America)

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

It's interesting to note that Baltimore is on the polar opposite side of the spectrum than compared to Washington DC. And Oakland is on the opposite spectrum than compared to San Jose. Arguably the more affluent cities economically at the present moment are less diverse than their counterparts in their respective Metropolitan Areas.

Very good observation, and I will add what does this mean to for the future of these cities? When a place (like Detroit or Las Vegas) focuses too much on one industry, it more than likely will end up being disastrous for that city when that industry decides to move on to greener pastures.

However for DC, I doubt that there will be any serious change in the factors of it's economy. Despite the renewed talk in "shrinking the government", it has been pretty much the goal of several high powered people and groups since the New Deal.

San Jose fortunes for the future....not so bullish in regard to Silicon Valley.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by justme02

This has to be by city. There is no way this is metro area data.

I was thinking the same. DC metro area has a more diverse economy than what's suggested here.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by justme02

This has to be by city. There is no way this is metro area data.

I thought so too at first because there were a few cities that I didn't see that I thought were viable, Boston, San Francisco, & Dallas-Fort Worth.

It's by Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) according to the article.

Moody's economic diversity analysis provides investors with a sophisticated measure of diversity in CMBS pools by focusing on the industry breakdown in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
Chicago most diverse major U.S. economy. (Commercial). | Banking & Finance > Banking, Lending & Credit Services from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/real-estate-mortgage-loans/589324-1.html - broken link)

This article seems to be dated in 2003 though. There has been significant changes since then, half of these Metropolitan Areas are like 800,000 people larger now and in Washington DC's case, 500,000 people larger.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

I thought so too at first because there were a few cities that I didn't see that I thought were viable, Boston, San Francisco, & Dallas-Fort Worth.

It's by Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) according to the article.

This article seems to be dated in 2003 though. There has been significant changes since then, half of these Metropolitan Areas are like 800,000 people larger now and in Washington DC's case, 500,000 people larger.

There is something seriously wrong with this. I dont know how anyone can make study with a straight face that Boston, DFW, and San Francisco have less diverse economies than Las Vegas. Perhaps they just didnt include them?

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by justme02

There is something seriously wrong with this. I dont know how anyone can make study with a straight face that Boston, DFW, and San Francisco have less diverse economies than Las Vegas. Perhaps they just didnt include them?

Yeah. I noticed that they mentioned the 10 most diverse cities and then the 10 least diverse cities, and then just threw some random names in the third paragraph to get attention for readers.

It would have been better if they released their article in a list standard. Like look at the third paragraph and it says Philadelphia is 12th most diverse, and it already gave you the first 10 in the first paragraph, so who was number 11?

They skipped around with it. And they just threw in some popular names in their third paragraph for their own article purposes. It's an incomplete list, I believe.

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Very good observation, and I will add what does this mean to for the future of these cities? When a place (like Detroit or Las Vegas) focuses too much on one industry, it more than likely will end up being disastrous for that city when that industry decides to move on to greener pastures.

However for DC, I doubt that there will be any serious change in the factors of it's economy. Despite the renewed talk in "shrinking the government", it has been pretty much the goal of several high powered people and groups since the New Deal.

San Jose fortunes for the future....not so bullish in regard to Silicon Valley.

Detroit is doing some really cool stuff. As of two days ago the Michigan State Legislator approved the development for Aerotropolis. A economic restoration plan that was proposed in 1990. After 20 years, they got that project rolling!
Aerotropolis: Aerotropolis approved for tax incentives, could lure jobs | freep.com | Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20101203/NEWS15/101203008 - broken link) (http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index....pproved?blog=5)
Along with more things going on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzXtinfq1Xk

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

I was thinking the same. DC metro area has a more diverse economy than what's suggested here.

DC has diversity in support of the Gov't but the central theme is not very diverse at all really

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by justme02

There is something seriously wrong with this. I dont know how anyone can make study with a straight face that Boston, DFW, and San Francisco have less diverse economies than Las Vegas. Perhaps they just didnt include them?

That has to be it...there is zero chance those cities are less diversified economically than Vegas haha

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

That has to be it...there is zero chance those cities are less diversified economically than Vegas haha

I believe it is more in that not all cities were listed, just top and bottom with a few others sprinkled in, I would think Boston and DFW would score fairly well on Diversity, probably a top 20, but just a guess, SF maybe just at the end to outside that range

Also FWIW these data are from 2003, imagine Houston would fare better today etc. and maybe some worse, i would expect DC to be a tad better as well

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Blasphamany

For NE standards the rate DC is growing is very alarming; if they propose freezing government activity and that cant be good sign for DC

I don't know dude. I live in a Sunbelt city, for me going to school 10 years ago on a bus I would see construction going on and whole trees and forests torn down to make way for new shopping plazas and homes and businesses. And I thought that was the normal notion for everywhere in the country. I thought every place got new things rapidly, but I didn't know some places see little revitalization or construction for years sometimes decades. That concept was new to me entirely.

Later when I developed a personal hobby for Urban Planning, I found out its because the Metropolitan Area I live in is one of the fastest growing places in the country (Houston Metropolitan Area). I then also found out the County I live in has experienced 53% increase from 2000-2008, and doubled in its population.

When I would go back to Chicago I always noticed construction but it was a misleading factor because I live in Downtown/The Loop there. And that area always has a history with construction and adding new towers.

So for me to hear about people going nuts over 11% increase rate, it's like "so they built a couple of houses huh?" because to me its the normal to expect it. I grew up with it and didn't know any better.

So let me ask you as a Northeasterner: Is 14% Increase Rate for Washington DC MSA for a 9 year period an alarming number for the population gains in the area? And if so, why do you feel it is unsustainable?

Because to me, honestly I don't know any better. Its been this way since I was a kid, I remember seeing all these cool new things and places just popping up out of no where every few months. It was a great childhood experience, but I didn't know it varied from part of the country to another part.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

I don't know dude. I live in a Sunbelt city, for me going to school 10 years ago on a bus I would see construction going on and whole trees and forests torn down to make way for new shopping plazas and homes and businesses. And I thought that was the normal notion for everywhere in the country. I thought every place got new things rapidly, but I didn't know some places see little revitalization or construction for years sometimes decades. That concept was new to me entirely.

Later when I developed a personal hobby for Urban Planning, I found out its because the Metropolitan Area I live in is one of the fastest growing places in the country (Houston Metropolitan Area). I then also found out the County I live in has experienced 53% increase from 2000-2008, and doubled in its population.

When I would go back to Chicago I always noticed construction but it was a misleading factor because I live in Downtown/The Loop there. And that area always has a history with construction and adding new towers.

So for me to hear about people going nuts over 11% increase rate, it's like "so they built a couple of houses huh?" because to me its the normal to expect it. I grew up with it and didn't know any better.

So let me ask you as a Northeasterner: Is 14% Increase Rate for Washington DC MSA for a 9 year period an alarming number for the population gains in the area? And if so, why do you feel it is unsustainable?

Because to me, honestly I don't know any better. Its been this way since I was a kid, I remember seeing all these cool new things and places just popping up out of no where every few months. It was a great childhood experience, but I didn't know it varied from part of the country to another part.

I know this inst posed at me, but unless this growth gets fueled by something other the Federal Gov't in the coming years or flattens it will mean to me we are continuing to build a huge debt and a vastly too large Federal Gov't - Growth overall is good but when fuled by a larger Gov't, to me not so much...