Kearney 2022 global cities report (difference, raise, beach, building)
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.
Boston at #20 is about 3 spots down from SF and 8 spots down from DC. Neither Houston or Seattle (or DFW or ATL) are top 30 here and don't make the list. Seattle we often discuss as being a step (not even a tier)below Philly/ATL/MIA/HOU with Boston we usually have to say its being a slight step above PHI/ATL/HOU/MIA.
Boston also was ahead of SF in 2019 and 2017 in the Kearney Index.
the Question for me is whether Boston closer to DC/SF or SEA/HOU/ATL/DAL/PHI.
It's a bit of a tweener but trending upward I think..
Calm down, it's just one ranking.
Boston and Houston are 6 and 7 in my eyes so they are right next to each other.
NY
DC-Chicago- LA
SF
Boston - Houston- Philadelphia
Atlanta- DFW
Miami- Seattle
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,131 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Boston is also a major major wealth management player and has an active port, tech, good tourism, and media sectors as well. It also is a philanthropic capital for the US if not THE philanthropic capital.
The economy in Boston is driven by
life sciences
healthcare
technology
finance
education
tourism
commercial fishing and food processing
publishing and government
Calling it a niche economy doesn't jibe with what we see IRL- it's probably the most recession-proof major city there is. The reason it's a juggernaut rowing as fast as it does is well beyond 3 industries. It's just as much of a one-trick pony as San Francisco...which is Tech, Finance and Port.
Boston always ranks as a top city in the US for Finance careers
Yeah you misunderstood the whole point and took it left, as I was pointing out what makes Boston a more relevant place economically than others cities that don't specialize in anything. Boston has at least a couple sectors where it is the most well known US city for doing something well. I am by no means relegating Boston to having only 1/2 industries that the local economy is comprised of.
Boston is driven the most by the top 3 you mentioned, which is what I stated. The deepest parts of the economic growth are there. Tourism, publishing, government, finance aren't something Boston's #1 or #2 at nationally, but they do help buffer the local economy. It's a mature economy on all levels.
What I'm pointing out that you've seemed to have missed is that Boston has a "niche" to rely on, like SF, like DC, like Houston, like New York etc. Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, and some degree Atlanta (although I think it's economic diversity is more interesting), all just do a lot of things pretty well, rather than dominate single sectors of the American economy. So at the micro level, by comparison to the other major metros of similar size, their "niche" (or what they dominate in) isn't as abundantly clear. Heck this is a trait of even Chicago to extent, but they are pretty well known logistics hub along with Dallas, as well as for finance/media, plus the economy is still larger than everywhere outside of NYC/LA.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,131 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
now im not calm? lol
It wasn't even a ranking he just made a comment, i made another comment. Nothing happened.
I wouldn't put DC in a separate space from SF and LA. If anything Id be like DC-CHI-SF. Possibly DC-SF-BOS.
But If you group Boston with Houston that make sense too.
Id put Philyl down with ATL.
You weren't lol. From reading your earlier post, it seemed you felt the need to jump up and defend BOS, when there wasn't any needed as it was being complemented.
Hopefully my latest post cleared a bit of things up for you.
You weren't lol. From reading your earlier post, it seemed you felt the need to jump up and defend BOS, when there wasn't any needed as it was being complemented.
Hopefully my latest post cleared a bit of things up for you.
I was perfectly calm. You didn’t say anything crazy. I just said the economy isn’t really niche. I misread it but You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Your likening it to SF/DC right now but your initial post was talking about the stark global impact of SF/DC in relation to Boston. See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Cities like Boston, Houston, and Seattle have strong economies as cities with a niche or specialized industries they dominate in. That's what relevance is about. DC and SF, whether by MSA, or CSA are the federal capital of governance/political power, and the global center of technology. That alone keeps the two in constant conversation for top tiered American cities, and often included, or in front of Chicago in certain discussions, or by certain metrics. Regardless of any of those metro area GDP numbers.
Which I think is somewhat debatable given the global nature of Boston's influences on Biotech Higher Ed and it’s role as a player in other aforementioned industries. That’s why it’s on this list- because it has a global impact in ways similar to SF/DC. You grouped it with a bunch of cities not on this list You took what could be considered niches for DC and SF and made them Global and took the Bostons niche and paired it with a different group of cities that isn't on this list. Which i think implies its not as global. I could be wrong but that's how I read it.
This is not calm? “Boston is also a major major wealth management player and has an active port, tech, good tourism, and media sectors as well.”
I can't pinpoint what in my previous comment wasnt calm. At any rate the top tier of American Cities is NY LA Chicago. That- IMO- doesn't include DC or SF.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 12-19-2022 at 11:18 AM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,131 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
I was perfectly calm . You didn’t say anything crazy. I just said the economy isn’t really niche. I misread it but You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.
This is not calm? “Boston is also a major major wealth management player and has an active port, tech, good tourism, and media sectors as well.”
No, you probably were calm, but even before atadytic19 replied to you, I thought your reply to mine was from a defensive stance, and just that the misunderstanding triggered your response, as if Boston's being called a one trick pony. Which wasn't the case. Having a niche that a city is most known for, or dominates the sector, does not mean that city can, or does not do many other things well, they two points are not mutually exclusive.
Again a mix up with wording can turn just a few comments or replies to them, and a whole thread off base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
I wouldn't put DC in a separate space from SF and LA. If anything Id be like DC-CHI-SF. Possibly DC-SF-BOS.
But If you group Boston with Houston that make sense too.
Id put Philyl down with ATL.
Regarding this, I look at things as a quartet of LA, Chicago, DC, and SF at this point, but with lettering caveats.
2a. LA, Chicago
2b. DC, San Francisco
LA impresses the most on size and raw numbers, and Chicago does to a degree also. But I think the relevance of both DC and SF, and the punch that they pack especially for their MSA size, and the fact that they both dominate a "niche" of supreme importance to the nation, make it hard to mention the other two without mentioning them. I again, don't only see GDP size as an end all be all to where cities should rank. I also have always said that I view NYC as a clear cut #1, and actually stands alone ahead of Los Angeles on it's own separated tier.
I think that Houston and Boston at this point could be chalked up to a tie at #6. With the understanding that they are not far removed from that prior grouping. With DFW immediately after those 2. Again, I'm clearly talking in generalities of importance, and not simply looking at macro GDP rankings.
Seattle also is continuing it's climb/creeping up to that Philly/Atlanta grouping.
Last edited by the resident09; 12-19-2022 at 11:50 AM..
In the end we are all guessing... I agree the 2030 census will paint a better picture. In 2022, Covid economic recovery is unsettled, the tech industry is hurting, increased COL in the South, slowing growth nearly everywhere, changing weather patterns, etc. A lot can and will change in 9 years...
I will note, growth and decline do not occur in vacuums. It's clear economic growth has slowed in many regions, even the booming Southern cities. Cities like Chicago and Philadelphia have advantages and disadvantages over Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc., and vice versa. It depends on how each region plays them over the next few years.
If that's the case, then why has IL and PA lost political power in the House while NC, TX, and FL gained power? In the 80s and 90s, that was true even though Northern states like MI, OH, and NY was steadily losing either population and political power, but now TX and FL are the second and third largest states in America.
Chicago will always be the hub of the Midwest, and that won't change despite IL's population being either stagnant or dropping due to Chicago's central location in the Midwest. Philadelphia will always have the universities and the hospitals to bail it out. Philadelphia won't be "The Workshop of the World" or the base of several banks that it used to be in the 20th Century.
If Philadelphia falls from the Top 10 cities or metro areas, so be it, but I don't see it really falling in population, but with different upcoming cities like Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, and Houston coming up, it's going to have to compete more with these new cities in the Sun Belt for corporations, revenue, and people, and it's going to be a lot harder as the 21st Century continues to pass by. It's not the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries where Philly was always in the Top 5 American cities or metro areas, so something needs to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp
To summarize my rambling, I still consider Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia in the same general tier of major cities even if they play musical chairs in population, GDP, influence, etc.
My question is where Boston, Seattle and Miami will fall in the coming years... Historically, Boston is a bit ahead and Seattle and Miami are a bit behind...
Boston will still be as relevant now as it was in the late 20th century. A lot of people in the 20th Century considered Boston a backwater because it didn't have heavy manufacturing during the 1930's and 1940's as cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago were rapidly booming. Nowadays, Boston has boomed while those Midwestern cities are either declining or stagnant.
Seattle will gradually progress, and Atlanta and Miami will continue to rise. Dallas and Houston have already become corporate centers and will still grow. It's really going to be how and where Americans migrate to that's going to dictate which states get more power and more relevance and it looks like TX and FL has been getting the most traction so far this century. Philadelphia can remain a 1M+ city, but other cities will catch up, at least in population as having 1M+ people isn't as prestigious as it used to be in the 20th century.
In the early 20th Century, NY was the number one state and PA was number two, then in 1970, CA took over that number one spot form NY and in 2000, TX became number two. In 2020, FL became the number three largest state. Like I said, Americans are going to dictate, by migration, which state is going to be the best, and with CA now experiencing a decline, it looks to be either TX or FL.
Since I was a kid I have been hearing that Miami and Atlanta are going to outgrow Houston and DFW and then the results come in and the latter 2 puts more distance between the first 2.
2000-2020 population growth:
Houston 2945k
DFW 2416K
Atlanta 1977k
NYC 1817k
Phoenix 1594K
DC 1462K
Miami 1131k
Austin 1034k
Charlotte 1161k
Seattle 975K
San Antonio 966k
Denver 806k
Tampa 780K
Philadelphia 558k
Boston 550k
Chicago 520k
Yes Miami is on the upswing, but it is one of the more expensive major metros, Houston is the cheapest major metros. Atlanta is still affordable but it is pricey compared to Houston.
I keep saying it over and over, I wouldn't make bets on short-term trends, look at the long road. Houston is making huge investments in its economy and its economy is already in good shape. I keep hearing that the US is due for an economic slump. If that is true Miami and Atlanta (Dallas too) will be hit harder than Houston. I'm not sure why, but it always seems to do best when the rest of the US is hurting.
I think it is because a lot of its economy is based on international trade and a weak US dollar results in higher numbers for Houston.
I believe that Miami will be similar to the Se as to how NYC is to the NE, Chicago is to the Midwest, and the Bay Area and LA is to the West Coast. You'll see your common parts outside of South Beach and Downtown Miami where working class residents will live in. I also believe that Miami's future is bright now just because it's in FL, or because of Latin Americans, but it's setting itself for success by building up it's infrastructure.
The Brightline and TriRail are expanding in South FL and Miami dade Transit has plans to expand the Metrorail to Hard Rock Station. Atlanta will continue to grow but the question is what does Atlanta have in comparison to Brightline and TriRail in GA? I believe that growth in South FL, as well as a lot of smart growth, is going to set Miami apart for not just Atlanta, but much of the South.
No, you probably weren't, but even before atadytic19 replied to you, I thought your reply to mine was from a defensive stance, and just that the misunderstanding triggered your response, as if Boston's being called a one trick pony. Which wasn't the case. Having a niche that a city is most known for, or dominates the sector, does not mean that city can, or does not do many other things well, they two points are not mutually exclusive.
Again a mix up with wording can turn just a few comments or replies to them, and a whole thread off base.
Regarding this, I look at things as a quartet of LA, Chicago, DC, and SF at this point, but with lettering caveats.
2a. LA, Chicago
2b. DC, San Francisco
LA impresses the most on size and raw numbers, and Chicago does to a degree also. But I think the relevance of both DC and SF, and the punch that they pack especially for their MSA size, and the fact that they both dominate a "niche" of supreme importance to the nation, make it hard to mention the other two without mentioning them. I again, don't only see GDP size as an end all be all to where cities should rank. I also have always said that I view NYC as a clear cut #1, and actually stand alone ahead of Los Angeles on it's own separated tier.
I think that Houston and Boston at this point could be chalked up to a tie at #6. With the understanding that they are not far removed from that prior grouping. With DFW immediately after those 2. Again, I'm clearly talking in generalities of importance, and not simple looking at macro GDP rankings.
Seattle also is continuing it's climb/creeping up to that Philly/Atlanta grouping.
Idk what I was typing her but I meant I wouldn’t put DC with LA, wouldn’t separate it from San Francisco.
I don’t see DC on a plane with aLa, or Chicago really. But because it’s the nations capital if you grouped it with the Chicago I’d get it. But yea certainly seems closer to BOS than LA from where I sit if we were doing tiers. So your 2a 2b makes sense
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,131 posts, read 7,581,348 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Idk what I was typing her but I meant I wouldn’t put DC with LA, wouldn’t separate it from San Francisco.
I don’t see DC on a plane with aLa, or Chicago really. But because it’s the nations capital if you grouped it with the Chicago I’d get it. But yea certainly seems closer to BOS than LA from where I sit if we were doing tiers. So your 2a 2b makes sense
Mostly agree with you, and it probably just depends on what's the factors we are comparing etc. If it's anything on pure size, amenities on a volume basis etc., then LA's only rival in the whole nation is NYC.
If we're taking the discussion to other factors like importance, (i'll go here again) the "niche" that the city dominates in, etc. Then idk how far ahead, or if I'd put LA ahead of the rest of that tier.
Also if we're just going by the Kearney list, DC is closer to both LA and Chicago globally, than Boston is to DC.
Last edited by the resident09; 12-19-2022 at 12:11 PM..
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.
