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.
And? Every city on the list is a different size. So are the metros. I see no reason to cherrypick.
There is no reason to cherry pick because there are really only about 4 cities on that list relevant of the discussion. Arbitrarily bringing an extra city into the discussion doesn't change that.
I think it's because your thought of international is based strictly on foreign born population.
Not institutions like the Cavaliers, Cardinals, the Cleveland Orchestra, The Arch, etc. Which are obviously all well known, and more known than anything in Columbus besides maybe OSU. And most international people do not know it's in Columbus.
The CLEVELAND Cavaliers, the ST. LOUIS Cardinals, ETC.
The Cavs may or may not be known to some outside of the US, but I am not sure how the Cavs themselves represent an international presence. I also think you're overestimating how much these things are known outside of Cleveland. Living in Mexico, I have found that people have probably heard of Cleveland here, but they don't know anything about it. And this is a next door neighbor. Do you really think that gets better in say, Australia or Japan or Turkey or Argentina? I would argue that even the US' largest cities like NYC, LA and Chicago only have a handful of things that most foreigners would know about, like the Statue of Liberty or Hollywood, truly iconic representations of those cities. I don't think the Cavs or the Cleveland Orchestra are at that level whatsoever. And even I don't know what the Arch is, and I am from Ohio and have been to Cleveland several times. This really goes for all of these cities. Few to none have real international recognition. I think people want to believe they do more than they actually do.
And because of all that, I think that the real international presence in the form of foreign population matters a lot more. These are the people that are providing international culture, cuisine and influence to their respective cities. If a city doesn't have a strong international base, I just don't think living off "legacy" means anything.
There is no reason to cherry pick because there are really only about 4 cities on that list relevant of the discussion. Arbitrarily bringing an extra city into the discussion doesn't change that.
It wasn't arbitrary, though. I thought the list was trying to include the largest cities in the region, and since I didn't include the 4 non-Midwest cities from the list, it made sense to include one of the largest Midwest cities missed. I don't see the big deal about including it.
An interesting point noted in an earlier post. Of course, the criteria of cosmpolitan/diverse don't really relate to that, but is it entirely possible that cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis are more well known/cosmopolitan than Minneapolis because of their legacy status/institutions, in spite of their size? Similarly to how Detroit will for some time be more well known than Minneapolis will, even if their GDPs are moving closer and closer together. However, I'm sure that argument about those cities has been beaten to death, so I'll let someone else answer on any of those. Obviously, Minneapolis is an awesome city, and it's economy is performing well, and it has higher favorables probably than any city in this list, especially because several cities in this group easily have higher unfavorables than just about any city, regardless of reality. To Minneapolis posters: What things historically, culturally, etc., would you feel are internationally renowned? I know that it was (is?) home to General Mills, but I don't know if most people would. I think Minneapolis for the lakes and I think others do, but in general, they think of Minnesota being the place with the lakes (I'd guess there are many people who think Minnesota is the name of the city). The Mall of America I think is pretty well known. Also the Mississippi River, though, I think it is less known for being a river city than St. Louis or New Orleans. Minneapolis park and recreation system gets a lot more press than just about any other, and it certainly is among the best, but there are other similar park systems that don't get as much praise. I'm trying to think out loud here: I'd say that Minneapolis and Cleveland are more or less peers culturally, both with impressive scenes that punch well above their weight. Target? Ironically, I still think Cleveland and probably Pittsburgh are still better known than Minneapolis, but ironically probably more for their supposed and actual shortcomings.
3.) St. Louis: While more diverse than Pittsburgh I'd argue it's the least racially- and ethnically-harmonious of these three. Like Pittsburgh the city proper has a lot of segregation along racial and socioeconomic lines, but I feel it is more visibly pronounced in St. Louis's city proper than it is in Pittsburgh's city proper. While "diversity on paper" is one thing, how that diversity works out in real life when thrown into a snow globe and shaken is another thing entirely. St. Louis does have some greatly integrated suburbs, just like Cleveland, but whereas ~50% of Cleveland's suburbs seem to be well-integrated along racial lines that percentage seems to be much lower in Greater St. Louis.
This perception is based solely on stereotypes and headlines, not reality. The only reason Pittsburgh has less pronounced racial strife is because it has a much, much lower black population than St. Louis and Cleveland. STL and Cleveland are absolutely interchangeable and neither is better or worse than the other when it comes to segregation or racial politics. It's like splitting hairs, they are cut from the same cloth socially and demographically.
Quote:
GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL:
I combined these two categories because international prestige and recognition in terms of economic power and cultural/institutional prowess often go hand-in-hand.
3.) St. Louis: The fact that I'm struggling to name one Fortune 1000 company based in St. Louis besides Anheuser-Busch, as well as not being able to name one local cultural institution that would be internationally-recognized (other than the iconic Gateway Arch, of course) is worrisome. I know the Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS) is there just because I was a former Federal employee in the DC Metro Area. Nobody else would know that domestically, let alone abroad. A quick Wikipedia search DOES turn up some companies I've heard of, including GrayBar, Monsanto, Wells Fargo (always thought that was HQ'd in Charlotte for some reason) and Express Scripts, along with a large Boeing facility, so while it may actually have a Fortune 1000 edge over Greater Cleveland, I think the lack of having a CMU/Pitt/UPMC or CWR/CC powerhouse "eds"/"meds" duo really hurts it internationally. Washington University just can't compare. Half the world's inhabitants live in Asia, and most of them are well-educated and seem to be more inclined to work in medicine, science, or education rather than finance, so I can't see as many international residents knowing about St. Louis as would know about Cleveland or Pittsburgh.
I'm really sorry, but Washington University exceeds in academic prowess over any university in Cleveland or Pittsburgh, it's just an empirical fact. Wash U also has a VERY high percentage of students from overseas, although I can't say for sure how that would compare to Carnegie Mellon or Case Western. My guess is that Wash. U. has a higher share of Asians than both of those schools. While the Cleveland Clinic undoubtedly sits at the top of the list for healthcare quality, BJC/Wash. U Med Center in St. Louis and parallel institutions in Pittsburgh are consistently ranked among the top in the country as well. As for Fortune 500 companies-- according to the most recent data I could find, greater Pittsburgh has 6 on the list, Cleveland has 7 and St. Louis has 9. Whether or not you can name them off the top of your head is irrelevant.
All in all, these three cities are VERY comparable, and all have certain strengths and weaknesses in certain areas.
This perception is based solely on stereotypes and headlines, not reality. The only reason Pittsburgh has less pronounced racial strife is because it has a much, much lower black population than St. Louis and Cleveland. STL and Cleveland are absolutely interchangeable and neither is better or worse than the other when it comes to segregation or racial politics. It's like splitting hairs, they are cut from the same cloth socially and demographically.
I'm really sorry, but Washington University exceeds in academic prowess over any university in Cleveland or Pittsburgh, it's just an empirical fact. Wash U also has a VERY high percentage of students from overseas, although I can't say for sure how that would compare to Carnegie Mellon or Case Western. My guess is that Wash. U. has a higher share of Asians than both of those schools. While the Cleveland Clinic undoubtedly sits at the top of the list for healthcare quality, BJC/Wash. U Med Center in St. Louis and parallel institutions in Pittsburgh are consistently ranked among the top in the country as well. As for Fortune 500 companies-- according to the most recent data I could find, greater Pittsburgh has 6 on the list, Cleveland has 7 and St. Louis has 9. Whether or not you can name them off the top of your head is irrelevant.
All in all, these three cities are VERY comparable, and all have certain strengths and weaknesses in certain areas.
Carnegie Mellon and Wash U are peer institutions and Pitt probably tips the scale towards Pittsburgh, but none of this is relevant because Pittsburgh is not a Midwestern city.
Carnegie Mellon and Wash U are peer institutions and Pitt probably tips the scale towards Pittsburgh, but none of this is relevant because Pittsburgh is not a Midwestern city.
Wash U is a much better school than Carnegie Mellon. In addition, SLU and Webster are very good academic institutions as is UMSL, so no I don't agree that Pitt tips the scale toward Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh isn't a Midwest city. Or, is it, Pittsburgh posters? If not, it shouldn't really be a part of this discussion, unless Pittsburgh posters agree that it's in the Midwest.
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.
