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.
While GDP per capita is certainly to be taken into account, it is far from being everything, as Milwaukee likely also has a higher GDP per capita than Los Angeles, or around the same.
Edit: Indianapolis and Cleveland GDP are around the same, however that does ignore that Akron is very much a part of Greater Cleveland. But again, a lot of this is subjective, and ultimately, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and Cleveland are all somewhat similar cities, with nice qualities to living or visiting each.
While GDP per capita is certainly to be taken into account, it is far from being everything, as Milwaukee likely also has a higher GDP per capita than Los Angeles, or around the same.
Edit: Indianapolis and Cleveland GDP are around the same, however that does ignore that Akron is very much a part of Greater Cleveland. But again, a lot of this is subjective, and ultimately, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and Cleveland are all similar cities, with nice qualities to being there.
That's why I submitted per capita. (It punches above its weight, compared to Cleveland). Milwaukee's metro is much smaller than Cleveland's, yet it's GDP per capita is more. Do I need to explain what that means?
True, but STL's MSA is also 8.5K sq. mi., which is larger even than Cleveland's would be if merged with Akron's (which by all means it should). And when that is done, I believe Cleveland's GDP is closer to 170B, but I'm not sure.
St Louis still has a higher population within the urban area.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Rochester are NOT Midwestern areas. They are Inland or Interior Northeastern areas and people know this.
In terms of the actual Midwestern areas, I'd say that St. Louis or Cleveland are next, with Milwaukee after those 2. Then, Indianapolis or Columbus after that.
It's tough to describe or say which, because how exactly is the cosmopolitan/global/international being measured? Because of that, I'm not certain what information I would need to answer. Diversity statistics however can be more objective, if someone were to find those for city, MSA, CSA, etc., but then that only tells you so much also because if it's a smaller metro area, percentages mean something, and, I think another important thing to note is that there are SO many characteristics influencing diversity than just race. That's why just saying "a city isn't diverse" because it's mostly white is so inaccurate. The flaw in that is that many in the Hispanic population (those not from Mexico, esp.) are also Caucasian (my wife included), and so it makes it even more difficult to gauge.
Or the White population may still have strong ethnic characteristics like you see in Northeastern and some Midwestern cities/areas. So, ethnicity is something that has to be considered as well.
That's why I submitted per capita. (It punches above its weight, compared to Cleveland). Milwaukee's metro is much smaller than Cleveland's, yet it's GDP per capita is more. Do I need to explain what that means?
That's certainly good. Although you must admit that the difference between 56K per and 55K per is pretty negligible. This is the problem with City vs. City is it gets everyone (myself included) all competitive/obsessive.
But while I understand that GDP Per Capita can be good to reflect QOL of an area (for example, I think GDP Per Capita combined with Cost of Living can tell a lot about how happy people will be in an area/ability to make it for the avg. person, and Milwaukee and Cleveland both do well here), but I don't see how GDP Per Capita can say that much about things such as being cosmopolitan/diverse. If anything, real GDP is a better indicator for that. JMO. And no you don't lol.
Good point about ethnic characteristics which certainly do sway things. In addition, there's just so much to diversity. Age, income, lifestyle, etc. etc.
True, but PHX's UA is larger than SF's, and I think most would agree that SF is still a bigger area, by just about any measurement/just the feel of it. And that Miami, while large, is it really 4th largest UA in America? I've been there, and it feels big city, but not as big as some other places that are ranked lower than that, so I would be interested in knowing if there's a uniform way UA's are tabulated.
Regardless, I do agree, STL and CLE are quite similar.
Buffalo, Rochester, and Louisville are not midwestern.
Pittsburgh is also questionable
Pittsburgh isn't Midwestern either.
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.
