Top 200 Most Influential USA Urban Areas (NOT City Proper) (downtown, raise, live)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by cpomp

I will add in defense of San Antonio, it is 1 of only 2 UNESCO World Heritage Cities in the United States (along with Philadelphia). A global honor.

A general criteria quote for World Heritage Sites and Cities... "... in order to be deemed a World Heritage site, the location must be of Outstanding Universal Value, demonstrating international significance; it must “transcend national boundaries and be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity”.

N.B.: The Organization of World Heritage Cities is a historic/cultural preservation organization with no formal ties at all to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), though UNESCO does recognize it as furthering its mission of implementing the 1972 World Heritage Convention. From the Mission section of OHWC's website:

While the Organization of World Heritage Cities does not appear along with ICCROM, ICOMOS and the IUCN among the partner organizations of UNESCO indicated in the World Heritage Convention, the General By-Laws of the OWHC stipulate that it is dedicated to the implementation of the 1972 Convention. This initiative by the OWHC was officially recognized by Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO at the time, at the opening of the Third International Symposium of World Heritage Cities held in Bergen in June 1995: “The World Heritage Convention relies heavily on the services provided by several important professional networks, in particular the IUCN, ICCROM and ICOMOS. The Secretariat [of the World Heritage Centre] and I deem the OWHC to be equally important.”

Thus, even though a city cannot join OWHC (and thus be designated a "World Heritage City") if it does not have within its borders at least one UNESCO World Heritage Site, to call such cities "UNESCO World Heritage Cities" is incorrect.

[g500]

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

Yeah, Charlotte recently passed St. Louis in gdp, but St. Louis is ahead on most other criteria, like the ones you mentioned plus other big ones like population, St. Louis is still way ahead. OP, how is your criteria weighted? How is St. Louis behind Charlotte in your opininion? Trying to get an idea since some of your list is a bit inconsistent. For example, Las Vegas is way too high and is hurting the credibility of your list.

Yes I agree. I have dropped Las Vegas from #20 to #26 on the list. You can see my updated, current list by clicking Blog Entries:1 above and to the right. I am working on the list daily. I would expect a final final final (: list within the next few weeks.

Edit: just to add, I had placed Las Vegas so high originally because of its brand name recognition (top 10, perhaps even top 5 in the USA). On all other metrics (except tourism), but including economy for some reason, it does not perform nearly as well. So I think #26 is a much more suitable ranking.

[g500]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

I noticed Pittsburgh is still ahead of Nashville in your list. I lived in Pittsburgh and researched Nashville to the point of wanting to move there if wife could handle a move. Nashville blows Pittsburgh away other than not having MLBaseball. Too much weight on historical role and not enough on now and future in my view.

Gonna have to disagree quite substantially here. Pittsburgh still has a larger urban area/MSA population, a larger economy, a much larger CBD/core and urban footprint, more impactful history (subjective area, I know), and far more legacy institutions (universities, NGO's, cultural institutions). Pittsburgh has more of a financial/banking profile than Nashville does. I will say, Nashville does have more tourism, serves as its state capital, and is the undisputed #1 within its state. They probably have similar brand name recognition overall.

I don't think they are worlds apart, but I feel quite strongly that Pittsburgh is above Nashville. As it stands, I currently have Pittsburgh #27 and Nashville #32. I say this without any biases. I struggled ranking (but ultimately do rank) much more suburban and "newer" cities like Austin and Las Vegas above Pittsburgh, but that is just how it goes. Pittsburgh was easily in the Top 10 most influential American cities/urban areas for a long period of time.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by g500

Yes I agree. I have dropped Las Vegas from #20 to #26 on the list. You can see my updated, current list by clicking Blog Entries:1 above and to the right. I am working on the list daily. I would expect a final final final (: list within the next few weeks.

Edit: just to add, I had placed Las Vegas so high originally because of its brand name recognition (top 10, perhaps even top 5 in the USA). On all other metrics (except tourism), but including economy for some reason, it does not perform nearly as well. So I think #26 is a much more suitable ranking.

That was what I meant when I called the city "a one-trick pony" several posts upthread.

So was Detroit, but its one trick was one of the most important sectors of the economy. (And if you want to count Motown. Detroit rock and Eminem, then it did have another trick up its sleeve.)

Gambling, I'm afraid, creates no wealth except for the owners of the casinos. (Remember, "the house always wins.") And it creates that wealth by removing it from the pockets of the patrons. Sure, they get excitement, but unless they hit the jackpot, they get nothing of lasting value in exchange for leaving all that coin behind. They don't even get the kind of memories they might get, say, visiting one of the nearby national parks. Reno, at least, has Lake Tahoe close by.

And I think that even your #26 ranking weighs brand identity too heavily. But it is defensible IMO.

[atadytic19]

I don't think Detroit is a one trick Pony. You don't get that large with one trick. Maybe one major trick but certainly not one trick. I think it has been getting knocked down because of damage to its main trick, but Detroit has other manufacturing and logistics sectors in addition to its main trick

[g500]

MSL can't rep you again. Yeah, #26 spot for Vegas still seems high. It ranks very poorly on economy, history, and cultural institutions. But specialization, entertainment, and brand name recognition are off the charts, top 10.

That's what makes this whole list so difficult. It's a constant battle of weighing all variables. It's honestly almost impossible. How to weight the criteria, how to rank different types of cities - old/urban, large/ far suburbs, how much orbit of influence does an urban area get, what impact does a city have on its region, how important is said region, on and on.

All cities are so different, built environment, functionality. I am really starting to doubt that this exercise can be performed in any objective manner. I can jumble the list endlessly and still be uncertain.

But! For some reason I enjoy this exercise a lot so I'll keep messing with it. I'm always game for city influence discussions.

[Bobdreamz]

To the OP I honestly don't know how you separate W. Palm Beach from the rest of the Miami metro.
It is a seamless continuous Urban area and the Census considers it as one metro as well.
What is your reason for the separation?

[g500]

Originally Posted by Bobdreamz

To the OP I honestly don't know how you separate W. Palm Beach from the rest of the Miami metro.
It is a seamless continuous Urban area and the Census considers it as one metro as well.
What is your reason for the separation?

WPB is WAY too far (73.6 miles walking) from the core of Miami to be included in the same urban area IMO, even with continuous development. So, I basically decided that the Palm Beach County line was the appropriate place to separate it. While it's identity may be largely tied to Miami, the distance is too great. Allowing WPB to be combined with Miami would open a giant can of worms. Basically Riverside/San Bernardino, Bridgeport, Trenton NJ, Tacoma, Denton, The Woodlands, Temecula, McKinney, Mission Viejo, Antioch, Victorville, Lancaster CA, Santa Clarita, and a whole host of others would be eliminated from the list. I'll use an example in my homestate - should Lancaster PA be combined with Philadelphia (66 miles)? I think not.

WPB does not get a special pass despite the density and development. Or, if it does, then everyone gets a pass which basically means we are debating an MSA/really more of a CSA-version of urban area. The Census Bureau even acknowledged that Boston - DC was one continuous urban area. But It would be meaningless to show it that way. So they chopped it up into meaningful pieces.

WPB belongs somewhere between #40 and #80, probably. It does well on economy and personal wealth (lots of retirees), but WPB is essentially unknown as it is own urban area, due to its development and built environment as basically a gigantic suburb. As I stated in a prior thread, I have the MOST difficulty ranking these giant suburban-type urban areas. Many times they carry significant wealth, but not nearly as much real identity (overshadowed by nearby core urban area). It is like comparing apples and oranges.

I've been trying to use walking distance as my guide. If you can't walk core-to-core in roughly 36 miles/58 km (12 hours, sun-up to sun-down) then, I don't think you can argue that you are in the same urban area. That distance is the maximum allowable, reserved for the largest urban areas. Smaller urban areas have less gravitational pull. I think the furthest assumption I allowed for ANY two cores was Stamford CT to NYC which is 41 miles, and I had given many good reasons why I allowed that, including that you would reach super urban the Bronx in less distance (25 miles).

Anyway we are left with subjectivity. How to separate urban areas (some may certainly disagree with my opinion)? How to rank functionally different urban areas? (suburban vs. urban/legacy vs. multi-nodal)

Edit:spelling, grammer, added a few parts.

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by atadytic19

I don't think Detroit is a one trick Pony. You don't get that large with one trick. Maybe one major trick but certainly not one trick. I think it has been getting knocked down because of damage to its main trick, but Detroit has other manufacturing and logistics sectors in addition to its main trick

It also has banking, and a decent tech sector related to the proliferating technology in automobiles. Also to be fair Detroit is the automotive brain trust these days. It's much more R&D, STEM and corporate positions for all major OEMs and major tier 1/2 suppliers. Even foreign brands have big tech centers in the area due to the labor pool. It's still globally relevant because of this. There's a reason DTW is one of the largest gateways to Asia east of the Mississippi, or maybe the largest I can't remember.

People especially on here still think of it as a majority manufacturing center when most of those jobs started leaving in the 1970s. Detroit's been slowly weathering that transition for the last 50 years really. There's a reason it's metro population is more stable than some of it's rustbelt peers.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by mjlo

It also has banking, and a decent tech sector related to the proliferating technology in automobiles. Also to be fair Detroit is the automotive brain trust these days. It's much more R&D, STEM and corporate positions for all major OEMs and major tier 1/2 suppliers. Even foreign brands have big tech centers in the area due to the labor pool. It's still globally relevant because of this. There's a reason DTW is one of the largest gateways to Asia east of the Mississippi, or maybe the largest I can't remember.

People especially on here still think of it as a majority manufacturing center when most of those jobs started leaving in the 1970s. Detroit's been slowly weathering that transition for the last 50 years really. There's a reason it's metro population is more stable than some of it's rustbelt peers.

I wasn't thinking of manufacturing anyway when I said Detroit had one trick. And I also said it was a big one. You can get large by going deep in one field; look at San Jose.

What this tells me is that yes, automobiles aren't all there is to Detroit, but the city remains "the motor city" (or, if you're an R&B fan, "Motown") in many important respects. If I read those boldfaced phrases right, the rest of the automotive ecosystem has filled in the holes left by the departure of (some of) the assembly plants. (I believe they still make cars and trucks in Detroit, too, just not as many of them as they once did.)

I'd say my bigger mistake was not in using the term "one trick" but in referring to that trick in the past tense.

Edited to add: But your point about metro Detroit's population is one I hadn't considered. The city has suffered, but apparently the suburbs haven't. And I can compare it to a city in the Keystone State that was the epicenter of one industry, then that industry left: Pittsburgh. The city has found a new foundation based on robotics, related technologies and healthcare, but nothing has filled the vacuum left by steel's demise in the counties that surround Allegheny. Thus Pittsburgh is one of only a handful of large US metros that is losing population at the metropolitan level — and the city's slide hasn't bottomed out yet either.