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.
For all intents and purposes Boston, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia are the same tier. It's hard to rank different places (of similar size and economies) when they have different specialties. Probably wont be able to do so until any pull away from each other (or the rest).
The real laggards are Atlanta and Miami, Miami has, at least linguistic and cultural influences as it's the bridge between North and South America. It's GDP doesn't have to be high but it's role as a delegation center and financial prowess for upstart financial institutions from developing world countries cant be under-sold. So for all intents and purposes, I typically give it that pass and put it in the same tier as the other four I mentioned, albeit, it's definitely the weakest link of the five. Atlanta? We'll have to see where it goes, it's growth has dramatically dropped off which is not good since it was the one city that needed it to bulk up the statistics sheet (the larger a place gets, the larger it's GDP and such become) and the only way to get into the top ten is to replace somewhere, problem is, there is a massive bay between it and the others. It's economy is covered by Dallas, they both have diverse economies, Dallas is just much larger and richer, and has more powerful corporations and is a more ideal logistics hub (freight, road, airport all mixed in). I'm not trying to put Atlanta down, it's a fine city, but it's potential is blurred at the present moment.
Philadelphia is a very prominent city, I can speak first hand, in my field (programming) it's easily top three in the country (ahead of Boston). It's ace is being the United States headquarters of SAP, it's where all beginners eventually have to travel to get training. A diverse economy that spans many sectors (like Dallas), and an even balance between public and private sector (which is ideal). The real ace though is that the pharmaceutical belt running from Philadelphia proper to New York proper is the world's single largest pharmaceutical production belt, not even close otherwise (Switzerland is also very good too).
Dallas (logistics), Houston (energy), Boston (education and medical facilities), Philadelphia (over-the-counter and pharmaceutical), Miami (cultural, linguistic, and delegation power of North and South America). Atlanta will get there too (and very soon, as it rebounds) but I think it's fair to say it's not as low as Seattle, Denver, Twin Cities, or Phoenix but not quite on the same stage as these other five cities.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 04-24-2014 at 04:38 PM..
If Chicago and Illinois are incapable of fixing the pension problems that plague both governments, then I could definitely see Chicago falling by the wayside due to a mess that was of our own creation and that should have been completely avoidable.
On the other hand, I can also see midwest1's point. Chicago has been proclaimed to be dead, or at the very least done, numerous times over the previous decades, and yet the city continuously found a way to keep moving forward.
I could also see the coming back of many of the Rust Belt cities as well. Most likely not to their former population sizes or national rankings, but almost certainly bigger than they are now. With the development going on in many of them, it almost seems inevitable. That's a topic for another thread though.
I don't think Chicago will be dead, I just think it is a safe bet it will be passed up. DC and SF are growing quite a bit more in terms of raw numerical gains, SF looks to surpass Chicago in just 16 years despite its high cost of living. Chicago will be fine, it will keep chugging along at a slow and steady growth rate, it just won't be #3 in the near future.
For all intents and purposes Boston, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia are the same tier. It's hard to rank different places (of similar size and economies) when they have different specialties. Probably wont be able to do so until any pull away from each other (or the rest).
The real laggards are Atlanta and Miami, Miami has, at least linguistic and cultural influences as it's the bridge between North and South America. It's GDP doesn't have to be high but it's role as a delegation center and financial prowess for upstart financial institutions from developing world countries cant be under-sold. So for all intents and purposes, I typically give it that pass and put it in the same tier as the other four I mentioned, albeit, it's definitely the weakest link of the five. Atlanta? We'll have to see where it goes, it's growth has dramatically dropped off which is not good since it was the one city that needed it to bulk up the statistics sheet (the larger a place gets, the larger it's GDP and such become) and the only way to get into the top ten is to replace somewhere, problem is, there is a massive bay between it and the others. It's economy is covered by Dallas, they both have diverse economies, Dallas is just much larger and richer, and has more powerful corporations and is a more ideal logistics hub (freight, road, airport all mixed in). I'm not trying to put Atlanta down, it's a fine city, but it's potential is blurred at the present moment.
Philadelphia is a very prominent city, I can speak first hand, in my field (programming) it's easily top three in the country (ahead of Boston). It's ace is being the United States headquarters of SAP, it's where all beginners eventually have to travel to get training. A diverse economy that spans many sectors (like Dallas), and an even balance between public and private sector (which is ideal). The real ace though is that the pharmaceutical belt running from Philadelphia proper to New York proper is the world's single largest pharmaceutical production belt, not even close otherwise (Switzerland is also very good too).
Dallas (logistics), Houston (energy), Boston (education and medical facilities), Philadelphia (over-the-counter and pharmaceutical), Miami (cultural, linguistic, and delegation power of North and South America). Atlanta will get there too (and very soon, as it rebounds) but I think it's fair to say it's not as low as Seattle, Denver, Twin Cities, or Phoenix but not quite on the same stage as these other five cities.
Atlanta's too busy trying to be diverse and not trying to up it's game in one of the booming economies. I wouldn't really say there is any industry Atlanta has that is booming or is set to boom. Logistics? Nope. Media? I don't think so. Finance? Not strong enough. Tech? Not strong enough. It has a decent IT sector though. Energy? Non-existent. Transportation? Nope.
Question: If Baltimore has a sudden influx of people from (let's say) the medical field, and the metro grows dramatically, would that still be counted as growth in the DC area by the people of City Data?
Question: If Baltimore has a sudden influx of people from (let's say) the medical field, and the metro grows dramatically, would that still be counted as growth in the DC area by the people of City Data?
Of course it would. You already know DC boosters would use that to their advantage. lol.
Why? Pretty sure that within the next few decades, the American people will finally wrestle the federal government (and by extension kleptocratic DC) hydra back down to its constitutionally intended size, and the Bay area seems to be reaching its limits in terms of natural resources/cost-of-living, develop-able land, not to mention potential devastating earthquakes.
.
1) As the nation grows larger, so will the reach of the Federal Government. It is what it is. Short of more constitutional amendments limiting the growth of the Federal Government (which I support BTW, since its starting to impinge on Federalism), DC will continue to grow. Ever notice how whenever the country goes through a bad time, the Federal government grows larger and DC explodes? It's not coincidental.
2) The Bay Area is growing inland. Developable land isn't a problem. There's a reason why Stockton was added to its CSA. And earthquakes haven't stopped Tokyo, Mexico City, Beijing, Hong Kong, Manila, Jakarta, etc. from growing.
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.
