Smaller Metros That Stack Up To Larger Mertros (comparison, cons, size)

[west336]

2 that REALLY stand out are Riverside, CA and San Jose, CA. I know SJ is a very very rich and successful town, but does that then make Riverside essentially the most worthless pile of feces on that list? It's the inverse of SJ.

[brewcrew1000]

Wow Riverside sucks, can't even really think of any big companies located there, ESRI, the GIS Software, company is out in Redlands, that might be the only real big company in the inland empire.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Economically speaking, San Jose, Charlotte & Indianapolis have the GDPs that are the most above their population size.

I compiled something similar on another thread, except I looked at metro GDP per working age population (18 to 64). Certain MSAs are really closely linked from an economic perspective, so I combined them: Riverside-LA, Raleigh-Durham, and the Bay Area. I kept Baltimore and DC separate because they are fundamentally very different places economically. Riverside would rate at the bottom, but the MSA is more or less a service/light manufacturing/distribution base for the Greater LA region. Highest GDP per working age capita of the 50 largest metros:

Bay Area 121,900
Washington DC 115,200
Hartford 114,500
New York City 105,700
Boston 105,500
Houston 101,900
Seattle 101,300
Charlotte 101,000
Salt Lake City 95,400
Denver 95,300
Indianapolis 95,100
New Orleans 94,900
Minneapolis 94,600
Dallas 92,700
Philadelphia 91,700
Raleigh-Durham 89,100
Chicago 88,700
Milwaukee 86,600
Portland 86,200
Honolulu 84,900
San Diego 84,900
Kansas City 83,400
Baltimore 83,000
Cleveland 82,500
Atlanta 80,100
Richmond 79,200
Columbus 78,600
Memphis 78,600
Pittsburgh 78,500
Nashville 78,400
Los Angeles 78,000
Orlando 75,900
Birmingham 75,600
Austin 75,300
Cincinnati 75,100
VA Beach 74,300
Miami 74,200
Phoenix 74,100
Detroit 73,600
Oklahoma City 73,600
St. Louis 73,400
Las Vegas 72,300
Louisville 72,200
Jacksonville 70,000
Rochester, NY 68,500
Sacramento 68,500
Tampa 66,400
Providence 64,700
Buffalo 63,500
San Antonio 61,600

The ones at the bottom of the list that really surprise me are San Antonio and Providence. The big surprises toward the top for me are Salt Lake City and Indianapolis. Charlotte felt right due to all the banking and New Orleans makes sense considering all of the reconstruction acitivity and oil/gas industry ties. Austin seems a bit low too. There's probably a big economic divide between tech/new economy Austin and the sizable recent immigrant pool.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Montreal feels bigger to him, as it probably does to many others, get over it.

It's nothing to get over. It's simply my opinion, based on quantitative data, including spacial expanse of the built-up areas of both metropolitan areas, as well as the expanse of both cities skylines. If you want to throw population in there, well, Atlanta is also considerably larger.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

Denver stacks up pretty well against other metros that are much larger. The Denver area has just over 3 million in the CSA, and has a wide range of offerings. I'd say that it can easily hang with many larger cities in the country up to the 5-6 million range.

Much of what determines if one city can "hang with" another though is subjective. For example, Denver can hang with Miami if you are not big into beaches. Likewise Miami can hang with Denver, unless you like mountains.

For most of the things that I do and enjoy, Denver can pretty much hang with any city in the U.S. with a few exceptions like Washington D.C. and New York City.

Denver can "hang" with metros in the 5-6 million range? Really?

[MilehiDenver]

Yep! Ever read the results of the polls in a Denver vs. thread? We more than stack up! In fact we win most of those matchups! Care to offer up something that a city in the 5-6 million pop. range has that Denver does not?

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

It's nothing to get over. It's simply my opinion, based on quantitative data, including spacial expanse of the built-up areas of both metropolitan areas, as well as the expanse of both cities skylines. If you want to throw population in there, well, Atlanta is also considerably larger.

The poster said that Montreal "feels more cosmopolitan and sophisticated" than Atlanta or Phoenix. The point wasn't that Montreal had more people or sprawled over a larger area--the point was that despite being a smaller metro, Montreal is a more urbane city than many larger sized metros in the United States--which is fairly true to most people who've visited there. It's a very dense, old-world-feeling, cosmopolitan city--much more so than most large cities in the US.

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Denver can "hang" with metros in the 5-6 million range? Really?

Yes, it can. Review the posts on this thread, I and other posters have already given arguments supporting how and why Denver can hang with metros in the 5-6 million range. If you disagree, feel free to post reasons supporting your position.

[jaboyd1]

Originally Posted by MilehiDenver

Yep! Ever read the results of the polls in a Denver vs. thread? We more than stack up! In fact we win most of those matchups! Care to offer up something that a city in the 5-6 million pop. range has that Denver does not?

I find that to be a dubious claim considering in consistently loses to Seattle and ties with Minneapolis in most of those "vs" threads, both of which are in the 4 million range. Not that any of those threads are particularly objective anyways.

[MilehiDenver]

Check the results of the Denver vs. houston, dallas, or Atlanta threads! All about double our size! Oh yeah, the miami one as well!