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.
Seattle has far more immigration than Detroit or Minneapolis, and a far higher foreign-born percentage. It gets more overseas tourists.
International airport passengers, 2019, main airport:
--Seattle: 5,727,899
--Detroit: 3,254,770
--Minneapolis: 3,230,699
New lawful permanent residents, 2021, metro areas:
--Seattle: 18,185
--Detroit: 9,209
--Minneapolis: 7,403
Foreign born percentage, 2021 ACS, metro areas:
--Seattle: 20% (802,257)
--Detroit: 10% (435,411)
--Minneapolis: 11% (399,809)
It's hard to break out local tourism stats, but Seattle has by far the most downtown hotel rooms, and is the only one with large tourist-dominated districts.
I agree that none of these are really "global" cities. My count would be more like 20 places. If it's 40 or 50 then maybe Seattle. If it's 100 then maybe a couple others.
I am still trying to figure this thread out. How do you define “global”? Is it just being huge or is it how and what you produce for the world?
Seattle is not huge (number 12 or 13 in metro population), but its output of technology and aviation equipment is huge. I would ask the OP to define this more clearly.
I am still trying to figure this thread out. How do you define “global”? Is it just being huge or is it how and what you produce for the world?
Seattle is not huge (number 12 or 13 in metro population), but it’s output of technology and aviation equipment is huge. I would ask the OP to define this more clearly.
I agree with this. I would say Seattle but I didn't vote because no criteria was given. I believe Seattle is the 15th largest metro.
Yes there are different calculations of metro areas. But the latest I have seen is over 4 million. If you include Olympia and Kitsap county it is even higher. But I don’t think they include that city as part of the metro. But if you add Olympia and areas west and north like Kitsap County then the area is well over 4.2 million. But I am a former media worker so I tend to look at audience reach. Seattle tv covers a population of 5 million.
I am still trying to figure this thread out. How do you define “global”? Is it just being huge or is it how and what you produce for the world?
Seattle is not huge (number 12 or 13 in metro population), but its output of technology and aviation equipment is huge. I would ask the OP to define this more clearly.
I like the fact that it was left ambiguous and left open for interpretation. IMO, more interesting discussion than a thread of recycled "these four cities AND ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE" type posts.
Amsterdam only has a 2.5 million metro population, and few would dispute its status as a global city.
In an overall historical context, Detroit by far of the choices, and I'm not sure I'd go along with the groupthink for Seattle in a contemporary context. As another poster astutely pointed out, most of our cities just aren't as prominent abroad as we want to think. Most of them likely appear redundant with the others to foreigners.
In a strictly contemporary context, I cast one of the four votes for Phoenix. Using a general criteria of a) not appearing to be like all the other cities, b)appropriate size and influence, and c)regional prominence.
The desert is a signficant draw for European and Asian tourists, and in this arena, I can see Phoenix eclipsing Las Vegas not as a tourist draw, but as a general city to relocate to and conduct business.
I am still trying to figure this thread out. How do you define “global”? Is it just being huge or is it how and what you produce for the world?
Seattle is not huge (number 12 or 13 in metro population), but its output of technology and aviation equipment is huge. I would ask the OP to define this more clearly.
I like the fact that it was left ambiguous and left open for interpretation. IMO, more interesting discussion than a thread of recycled "these four cities AND ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE" type posts.
Amsterdam only has a 2.5 million metro population, and few would dispute its status as a global city.
In an overall historical context, Detroit by far of the choices, and I'm not sure I'd go along with the groupthink for Seattle in a contemporary context. As another poster astutely pointed out, most of our cities just aren't as prominent abroad as we want to think. Most of them likely appear redundant with the others to foreigners.
In a strictly contemporary context, I cast one of the four votes for Phoenix. Using a general criteria of a) not appearing to be like all the other cities, b)appropriate size and influence, and c)regional prominence.
The desert is a signficant draw for European and Asian tourists, and in this arena, I can see Phoenix eclipsing Las Vegas not as a tourist draw, but as a general city to relocate to and conduct business.
the randstad is meer dan 8 miljoen and i think (outside tourism) the trio of cities that make it up all play a part, not unlike SF/oakland/SJ
anyway, seattle and detroit for me, definitely. cases could be made for MSP and SD
I think this is really about cities that can compete on many different levels. Seattle is such a place. The metro, which includes the large suburb of Bellevue (with its own impressive skyline) is impressive compared to Portland or Denver. The economy is huge with tech and aviation. I fully expect Seattle/Bellevue to be one of the top 10 most important metros for the next few decades.
Tie for Seattle (contemporary) and Detroit (legacy)
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.