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.
My ranking using GDP, population, and overall influence.
I'm excluding the NY and LA mega-cities because they are in leagues of their own.
Tier 1: Chicago, Washington, Houston, Dallas. 400B+ economies
Tier 2: SF, Philly, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Seattle, Minneapolis, Phoenix. 200B+ economies and with 3 million or more metro.
It gets pretty messy after this and I don't have that much time so I'll just say.
Tier 3: San Diego at the top and the rest with a 100B+ economy with more than 2 million population.
Tier 4: Metros that don't have 2 million but punch above it's weight in GDP with a 100B economy.
Tier 5: Economies with 50B or more and metros of 1M or more. That list robably goes past 50 and stops somewhere around Birmingham or Buffalo.
I guess I'm using similar metrics....maybe slightly less weighted towards GDP, as I did not have the numbers in front of me.
I saw an article some time ago that MSP had passed metro Detroit in GDP, but then I believe that the definitions of metro Detroit were expanded (or of the CSA, can't remember) and it jumped out in front again.
"Overall influence" is really tough to gauge. As I mentioned, my list is obviously very fluid and there are good arguments for why some cities should be higher up or lower down on it.
The OP also did not seem to differentiate between cities and metropolitan areas, which makes things even tougher.
I gave a little bit of special consideration to some tourist cities (like Honolulu) which would obviously be pretty reputable nationally or internationally, but aren't actually too influential economically, politically, or culturally on a national scale.
I also thought a little bit about history, and historical importance, which is how Charleston got on my list, and-- to a lesser degree-- Salt Lake City, as the seat of Mormonism, a distinctly American Christian movement of the late Great Revival.
Finally, I think relative geography played into my logic a bit. Anchorage gets an honorable mention mostly because it is the only large city in Alaska (by my standards, at least), and Alaska is a massive geographic area. I believe I also ranked Omaha higher than Jacksonville, which could be contentious, but again, Jacksonville is close to equidistant from Miami and Atlanta (two cities that are nationally, if not globally, important), with Orlando and Tampa closer by. Omaha is pretty close to KC, but between Omaha and Denver on I-80/76, there's basically a whole lot of nothing for...what? 400? 500 miles? Ditto to the north....Nothing besides Sioux Falls and Fargo until you hit Winnipeg. Nothing due northeast for hundreds of miles until MSP...not much due northwest until Seattle....not much due east besides Des Moines and the Quad Cities until you hit Chicago. Also, Omaha was historically a gateway to the West, critically important meatpacking and agri-business center, haven for immigrants, very important in the country's history of racial violence and civil rights movements, and a major center of rail.
But I digress. I guess I wasn't as calculated in my list as I could have been....I tried to represent different regions equally, consider all factors generally, and come up with the best list possible. I think the rankings themselves are somewhat less important than the fifty+ cities that I named. Besides those, I can't think of one that many Americans would think of as "important," but I may be being short-sighted on that, as well...
Detroit plunged over a cliff like no other city in the western industrialized world with it gut and soul shaken up. It hit rock bottom and could not get worse. Despite all of this, it is still 14th in the USA in terms of GDP trailing MSP. At any rate, the region's future is on an upswing. Many city services are being restored and downtown and midtown have momentum. So the city in 15-20 years will most likely be in a much better position. Trust me, 77 new restaurants opened up just in the last two years, and downtown now has a 99% rental occupancy rate and midtown has a 98% rental occupancy rate. ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND HOUSING! More development is underway with 45 square blocks being developed in the next two years, and the first leg of a metro system is being built. There is a lot of excitement here. So the future looks bright. As downtown and midtown become developed, other areas are seeing some gentrification. And people here don't care because as we say................... Detroit vs. Everybody! Plus, the millennials feel that there is nowhere to run to! Nowhere to hide!
Just from a general perception of prowess, reputation, and current climate, I'd say the T50 are:
1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Washington, D.C.
4. San Francisco / Oakland
5. Chicago
6. Miami
7. Boston
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Houston
11. Seattle
12. Dallas / FTW
13. San Diego
14. Phoenix
15. Minneapolis
16. Denver
17. Baltimore
18. Las Vegas
19. Detroit
20. Austin
21. Portland
22. Pittsburgh
23. St. Louis
24. San Antonio
25. Tampa
26. Kansas City
27. San Jose
28. Charlotte
29. Sacramento
30. Nashville
31. Cincinnati
32. Orlando
33. Cleveland
34. Indianapolis
35. Columbus
36. Milwaukee
37. New Orleans
38. Salt Lake City
39. Jacksonville
40. Raleigh
41. Memphis
42. Oklahoma City
43. Louisville
44. Providence
45. Richmond
46. Buffalo
47. Virginia Beach
48. Hartford
49. Honolulu
50. Albuquerque or Birmingham or Omaha or Rochester or Tucson
Sacramento is ranked way too high on the list. The next five cities below Sac have better name recognition, tourism, cultural amenities than Sac. I'd also move NO, Milwaukee and Memphis ahead of Sac, with Salt Lake City and Columbus below it.
To answer/respond to some questions, my OP is aimed at cities. However, when judging economy, gdp/gmp is a metric that is almost universally characterized by a city's metro, so that is a qualifier for this convo as well. On that note, though, while I believe gdp is one of, if not the, most important of metrics, it certainly isn't the overriding factor of a top city list. The Inland Empire (Riverside/San Bernardino) is a metro that in '13 contributed a $127 billion gdp, placing it amongst cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Tampa. However, is either Riverside or Berdoo really in the same lane as any of those three cities? I think not...
Another example of a multinodal metro is Hampton Roads (Norfolk/Virginia Beach), with an $89 billion GDP, putting it in the same range as San Antonio, Milwaukee, Las Vegas, and New Orleans. Again though, is either Norfolk or Virginia Beach really as important as any of those four cities? It's a little more arguable than the class the IE's GDP places it in, but I'd gather Norfolk and the Beach are likely seen as lesser than these four cities, too. So my point is that GDP definitely can't be the sole reason of placement in a top city list...
The problem with a top fifty ranking activity like this is which metrics to use. Does one use city metrics, metro metrics or urbanized metrics? In metro data, does one use MSA, CSA or PSA? How does one fold in GDP, incomes, education, growth, etc? How do you incorporate subjective criteria like image and historical significance?
As the previous post says, how does one take into account for multinodal metros? In addition to Hampton Roads, this dynamic plays out in many, many metros: large, medium and small. Why would San Francisco be separated from San Jose while Dallas isn't separated from Ft. Worth and Miami isn't separated from Ft. Lauderdale and W. Palm Beach?
As my baseline, if a city is top 50 in municipal, MSA and UA population; it's in the top 50, no questions asked.
From a population perspective, I am inclined to use the PSA numbers and rankings as a major part of the "science" part of my rankings and the more subjective criteria to negotiate the "cities" at the bottom of the list. For example, while clearly in the top 50 of municipal population, Omaha falls way down the list when looking at its metro. Nonetheless, I'd probably include it in the top 50 over a place like Harrisburg, PA and possibly over stagnating Buffalo and Rochester, NY.
Greensboro, Greenville and Grand Rapids are three other cities/metros that would cause me pause from population alone as to whether they belong on a list of 50 over places like Omaha, Honolulu or Albuquerque.
Two cities that I see making inroads toward the top fifty are Charleston, SC and Des Moines, IA. However, both of them are a decade or two away IMO.
The problem with a top fifty ranking activity like this is which metrics to use. Does one use city metrics, metro metrics or urbanized metrics? In metro data, does one use MSA, CSA or PSA? How does one fold in GDP, incomes, education, growth, etc? How do you incorporate subjective criteria like image and historical significance?
As the previous post says, how does one take into account for multinodal metros? In addition to Hampton Roads, this dynamic plays out in many, many metros: large, medium and small. Why would San Francisco be separated from San Jose while Dallas isn't separated from Ft. Worth and Miami isn't separated from Ft. Lauderdale and W. Palm Beach?
As my baseline, if a city is top 50 in municipal, MSA and UA population; it's in the top 50, no questions asked.
From a population perspective, I am inclined to use the PSA numbers and rankings as a major part of the "science" part of my rankings and the more subjective criteria to negotiate the "cities" at the bottom of the list. For example, while clearly in the top 50 of municipal population, Omaha falls way down the list when looking at its metro. Nonetheless, I'd probably include it in the top 50 over a place like Harrisburg, PA and possibly over stagnating Buffalo and Rochester, NY.
Greensboro, Greenville and Grand Rapids are three other cities/metros that would cause me pause from population alone as to whether they belong on a list of 50 over places like Omaha, Honolulu or Albuquerque.
Two cities that I see making inroads toward the top fifty are Charleston, SC and Des Moines, IA. However, both of them are a decade or two away IMO.
Rochester isn't stagnating actually. It isn't growing like wildfire, but it is a metro area that has never suffered a population loss in an official census. This is why people need to view areas individually. Albany is similar in this regard.
Rochester isn't stagnating actually. It isn't growing like wildfire, but it is a metro area that has never suffered a population loss in an official census. This is why people need to view areas individually. Albany is similar in this regard.
As for the education metric, that's one of the many metrics to consider.
But it's not stagnating as ckhthankgod pointed out. It is growing. Stagnation to me is a metro that has flatlined in population and hovers around the same total. That's not Rochester. The metro has grown 20,000 to 30,000 every census. (2%-3%)
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.
