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.
I'd also add Boston and Philadelphia --- not that they're not still important, but compared to in the country's early history, or even a century ago... not the same.
I think Boston is much more relevant today than it was in 1922 (when all the textile factories were shutting down and industry was focused on the car/steel factories in the Midwest). It’s relevance decreased steadily from like 1890 until vaguely 1960. But since the 80s to today, the city’s population growth has also been matched by growth in tech and the growth of the area’s universities.
I'd also add Boston ... but compared to in the country's early history, or even a century ago... not the same.
A Century ago, Boston's growth was slowing before ultimately declining for decades thereafter. Beginning in that era, we saw the birth of the tough, mafioso, blue collar Boston that we all still think about today. Boston didn't really participate in the roaring 20s, like many other cities at the time did. Jobs stayed flat or declined in the metro for 30+ years. That's when the Gustin Gang came to power, battling the mafia of the North End and surrounding areas. In the following decades, the city saw real urban blight, even in the heart of the city. The South End was war zone, by Boston standards.
Starting in the late 1960s, Boston was an early entrant into the world of technology innovation and manufacturing (largely, at first, in its suburbs). And the area has never really looked back.
The population in the city itself didn't really start seeing growth again until the 1990s. And since then, I think the city has gone through a bit of renaissance, becoming a global city, with one of the mightiest economies - largely due to technology, R&D, bio, and healthcare - in the world.
It seems to me your statement would apply better to some other legacy cities. In some ways, Boston has never been more important.
I definitely agree. Both Boston and San Francisco are more relevant today than they were just a few decades ago.
Yes they were relevant back then, but they were a noticeable step down from Chicago. That gap had largely disappeared.
The two had pulled away from Philadelphia; and this isn't talked about much on here, but Philadelphia has narrowed some of the gap.
From the poll choices I would say Jacksonville and San Antonio did to the competition in their respective states. Miami is on fire and the I4 corridor is turning into a beast so Jacksonville is pushed far back from the limelight.
Similarly. In Texas, for a while there SA and Austin were jostling for the second rung behind Houston and DFW. Austin has clearly won out. Although San Antonio is growing rapidly it still seems like it doesn't exist.
Charlotte, Nashville and San Jose should not be on the poll. All 3 are gaining influence
Columbus and OKC are still where they were at before.
Phoenix... it has always been an enigma. I'm not going to try to figure it out lest I hurt myself.
A Century ago, Boston's growth was slowing before ultimately declining for decades thereafter. Beginning in that era, we saw the birth of the tough, mafioso, blue collar Boston that we all still think about today. Boston didn't really participate in the roaring 20s, like many other cities at the time did. Jobs stayed flat or declined in the metro for 30+ years. That's when the Gustin Gang came to power, battling the mafia of the North End and surrounding areas. In the following decades, the city saw real urban blight, even in the heart of the city. The South End was war zone, by Boston standards.
Starting in the late 1960s, Boston was an early entrant into the world of technology innovation and manufacturing (largely, at first, in its suburbs). And the area has never really looked back.
The population in the city itself didn't really start seeing growth again until the 1990s. And since then, I think the city has gone through a bit of renaissance, becoming a global city, with one of the mightiest economies - largely due to technology, R&D, bio, and healthcare - in the world.
It seems to me your statement would apply better to some other legacy cities. In some ways, Boston has never been more important.
Yup. Rt 128. My Dad did a lot of computer/mainframe selling here back in the 70's/80's. EMC in Hopkinton, on and on. One of the original tech corridors in our country.
Jacksonville, leading the poll, is the definite choice of a city that comes to mind that is pretty fast-growing, large, yet it still has a very sort of diminished popularity and awareness amongst the general American population.
I pretty much disagree with every other choice on the poll. I think Phoenix is definitely becoming more relevant. With a metro of 5 million, it is attracting a good tech scene and does seem to have a good job sector diversity.
Yup. Rt 128. My Dad did a lot of computer/mainframe selling here back in the 70's/80's. EMC in Hopkinton, on and on. One of the original tech corridors in our country.
Interesting you say that. EMC, to this day, is considered the gold standard for go-to-market in technology. They essentially invented the way sales and marketing work with technology providers and customers. It's a monster legacy, and produced a lot of wealth and power along the 495/95 area, along with many other companies in that realm.
The city of Boston has a large sphere of influence in technology, as everyone knows... And it's poised to continue, market pending, as it is at the forefront of swimlanes like saas cybersecurity, data / analytics. It's also become the ipso facto robotics capital of the US, on top of all of the "other" R&D and proprietary technology that is created around those parts.
I do think we are years away from getting back to the pace that it's been on, as VC and seed funding is tightening up as we speak. We'll see less innovation coming from major markets like The Bay Area and Boston and NYC. That will hurt a city like Boston, that has a very small footprint of mega corporation. Enough to be able to tell? Who knows.
San Antonio, OKC or Jax. Why is San Jose a choice?
Most obviously because their very existence as an independent metro area is often called into question.
Population growth is humming right along, but is their airport gaining in stature against its peers?
Are they expanding their metro rail?
If corporations pulled out, how relevant would they be then?
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.
