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 guess I'll be the standout and keep Phoenix at #14, Minneapolis at #15. Anyway it's just my opinion and it's entirely based on size (Phoenix is 33% larger but definitely underperforms significantly)
The fact that you rank on size alone is beyond ridiculous. There is proof that the Minneapolis outranks Phoenix in a number of ways and you just choose to ignore it. I'll go with those facts as they outweigh an opinion. That said, I'm done with this discussion since you can't post anything worthwhile backing why Phoenix ranks so high.
The discussion should actually be around which MSA is #15 - Phoenix or Denver?
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC
5. SF
6. Boston
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Dallas
11. Miami
12. Seattle
13. Detroit
14. Minneapolis
I don't think Baltimore was ever a top 5 city--possibly top 10, but even that was questionable..
St. Louis slid out of contention years ago. Hard to believe that it once had TWO baseball teams, but alas, that was 70 years ago. Cleveland was once top 10, but now it might not make the top 20..
By city population, Baltimore was:
Top 2 for 30 years (1830-1860)
Top 3 for 60 years (1800-1860)
Top 5 for 80 years (1790-1870)
Top 10 for 200 years (1790-1990) -- during which it was top 7 in all but 3 censuses.
There are only 2 cities that have stayed in the top 10 for more consecutive censuses than Baltimore -- NYC and Philadelphia.
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 976,158 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by YIMBY
The fact that you rank on size alone is beyond ridiculous. There is proof that the Minneapolis outranks Phoenix in a number of ways and you just choose to ignore it. I'll go with those facts as they outweigh an opinion. That said, I'm done with this discussion since you can't post anything worthwhile backing why Phoenix ranks so high.
The discussion should actually be around which MSA is #15 - Phoenix or Denver?
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC
5. SF
6. Boston
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Dallas
11. Miami
12. Seattle
13. Detroit
14. Minneapolis
15. Phoenix / Denver
Size does matter, and Phoenix is 33% larger by population. Phoenix-Mesa is currently the 10th largest metro in the US. That last sentence to me is important. Beyond that I don't think I can give you any arguments.
MSP performs extraordinarily well on its corporate presence (Target, Best Buy, 3M, UNH, General Mills, many other prominent Fortune 500 companies). I do not have any horses in this so-called race, I am just a city nerd who enjoys rankings. I suppose I could see it either way. Maybe MSP is in fact #14. I guess I could concede. It's just weird to see that Phoenix is so massive and yet underperforms in the ranking.
By city population, Baltimore was:
Top 2 for 30 years (1830-1860)
Top 3 for 60 years (1800-1860)
Top 5 for 80 years (1790-1870)
Top 10 for 200 years (1790-1990) -- during which it was top 7 in all but 3 censuses.
There are only 2 cities that have stayed in the top 10 for more consecutive censuses than Baltimore -- NYC and Philadelphia.
Even after the population fall, Baltimore technically ranks something like 12-13th adjusting for administrative borders.
Using Chicago as a "measuring stick" Baltimore still has something like 1.13 million people in 228 sq. mile (4/10 the size of Chicago). The only cities that exceed that population in that area are NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, Miami, DC, Philly, Boston, Seattle, Houston & MSP.
By city population, Baltimore was:
Top 2 for 30 years (1830-1860)
Top 3 for 60 years (1800-1860)
Top 5 for 80 years (1790-1870)
Top 10 for 200 years (1790-1990) -- during which it was top 7 in all but 3 censuses.
There are only 2 cities that have stayed in the top 10 for more consecutive censuses than Baltimore -- NYC and Philadelphia.
Population is not the only basis upon which to judge if a city is "top 10" or not. I can even remember Amtrak travel schedules for the Northeast that would mention Boston/NYC/Philly/DC is lage bold print, but placed Baltimore in a much smaller font. And to say that Baltimore has "issues" would be the understatement of the year...
Baltimore's impact, such that it is, is mainly felt through proximity to its neighbor, Washington, DC.
Population is not the only basis upon which to judge if a city is "top 10" or not. I can even remember Amtrak travel schedules for the Northeast that would mention Boston/NYC/Philly/DC is lage bold print, but placed Baltimore in a much smaller font. And to say that Baltimore has "issues" would be the understatement of the year...
Baltimore's impact, such that it is, is mainly felt through proximity to its neighbor, Washington, DC.
The statement I was replying to was one where you cast doubt on whether Baltimore was ever a top 5, or even top 10, city. I would agree that population is not the only basis, but surely it's pertinent, isn't it? For example, the three most important cities in the country today are generally considered to be NYC, LA and Chicago, which are ranked 1, 2 and 3 by population. Hardly a coincidence. Are you saying that even during the 60 year period when Baltimore was one of the 3 largest cities in the country it is "questionable" whether it was a top 10 city?
The statement I was replying to was one where you cast doubt on whether Baltimore was ever a top 5, or even top 10, city. I would agree that population is not the only basis, but surely it's pertinent, isn't it? For example, the three most important cities in the country today are generally considered to be NYC, LA and Chicago, which are ranked 1, 2 and 3 by population. Hardly a coincidence. Are you saying that even during the 60 year period when Baltimore was one of the 3 largest cities in the country it is "questionable" whether it was a top 10 city?
Precisely. I'd say up to about 1940 or 1950, city popation correlated pretty closely with overall importance.
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.
