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.
Baring the metro's that have monopolized national/global industries (NYC, DC, SF, LA, Chicago, Houston) The most "important" metro's will probably be the ones with the largest GDP, as GDP is indicative to relevance. It's a direct reflection of how much money a region generates.
Out of the remaining major metro's ones with major ports like Boston, Seattle, Baltimore, Miami, etc... have more real world global relevance than than land locked counterparts because their soul entry/exit points for goods/trade. The more land locked metros like Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Philly, Dallas etc.. are more influential and relevant to the their immediate surroundings in national trade rather than on a global scale.
So it's very porous flow of importance that constantly shifts
Baring the metro's that have monopolized national/global industries (NYC, DC, SF, LA, Chicago, Houston) The most important metro's will be the one with the largest GDP, as GDP indicative to relevance as it's a direct reflection of how much money a region generates.
Out of the remaining ones metro's ones with major ports like Boston, Seattle, Baltimore, Miami.. have substantially more real world global relevance than than land locked metros because they control the flow of goods/trade. The more land locked metros like Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Philly, Dallas are more influential and relevant to the their immediate surrounding regions rather than on a global scale.
So it's very porous flow of importance that constantly shifts
I wouldn't understate the significance of land borders between our 1st and 2nd largest trading partners. Far more economic value and trade flows through Detroit and San Diego's land crossing than sea ports or airports. Landlocked Arizona facilitates more trade than most coastal states.
I wouldn't understate the significance of land borders between our 1st and 2nd largest trading partners. Far more economic value and trade flows through Detroit and San Diego's land crossing than sea ports or airports. Landlocked Arizona facilitates more trade than most coastal states.
I by no means am underestimating the importance of places like Detroit & San Diego as they provide essential physical trade/border routes with Canada & Mexico but those are no longer our top trading partners nor are Detroit & San Diego the only entry points from which goods travel to and from the US/Mexico/Canada.
The EU (if counted as one) and China have long replaced them as top trade partners and for good or bad, that requires a shipping.. lots of it.
The 10 largest US ports alone generated $1.2 trillion dollars in trade value in 2018. Thats more than the entire trade value of Mexico & Canada combined.
Baring the metro's that have monopolized national/global industries (NYC, DC, SF, LA, Chicago, Houston) The most "important" metro's will probably be the ones with the largest GDP, as GDP is indicative to relevance. It's a direct reflection of how much money a region generates.
Out of the remaining major metro's ones with major ports like Boston, Seattle, Baltimore, Miami, etc... have more real world global relevance than than land locked counterparts because their soul entry/exit points for goods/trade. The more land locked metros like Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Philly, Dallas etc.. are more influential and relevant to the their immediate surroundings in national trade rather than on a global scale.
So it's very porous flow of importance that constantly shifts
I consider this those to be the top in importance due to that reason (Boston and Houston fight for 6/7)
Also are y'all all including fort Worth when ranking Dallas over Houston? Cause I have a hard time seeing the 2 together over Houston but separately there's no way.
The Port of LA/Long Beach alone generated some $400 Billion dollars in trade value last year
Yeah, but not that many jobs. All automated and containerized.
Landlocked metros - Austin, DFW, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Orlando are all among the fastest growing because they have the land to offer reasonably priced housing while being large enough to offer decent job opportunities.
Yeah, but not that many jobs. All automated and containerized.
Landlocked metros - Austin, DFW, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Orlando are all among the fastest growing because they have the land to offer reasonably priced housing while being large enough to offer decent job opportunities.
Yes, the Ship Channel. Fine. DFW, Orlando, Atlanta, Austin, Nashville, Phoenix, Vegas, Charlotte, Nashville, all growing fast, all landlocked. Baltimore and Newark/Elizabeth have major ports, and are hardly hotbeds of growth.
Yeah, but not that many jobs. All automated and containerized.
Landlocked metros - Austin, DFW, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Orlando are all among the fastest growing because they have the land to offer reasonably priced housing while being large enough to offer decent job opportunities.
The Port of Los Angeles supports employment for 517,000 people throughout LA County and 1.6 million worldwide
Those are all great socio-economic reason for growth and to move there... but economically there not going to take national/global precedent over cities that are essential to the countries global trade and as direct result it's own health & stability.
Oh btw... Houston is not land locked and has third largest port in the nation by trade value after LA & NYC
I consider this those to be the top in importance due to that reason (Boston and Houston fight for 6/7)
Also are y'all all including fort Worth when ranking Dallas over Houston? Cause I have a hard time seeing the 2 together over Houston but separately there's no way.
Lastly, imo Charlotte is definitely in tier 2
Yeah I'd count the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex as one. Despite it having a larger GDP, Houston strong hold on world energy puts it above imho
I agree with Charlotte. Very larger regional pull, very limited global pull relative to other metros.
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.
