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.
We agree on premise, which is why I view Fort Worth and Dallas separately here. However, without Fort Worth, here is a realistic snapshot of the Dallas MD:
By most significant measures, Dallas is a far more productive city than Miami, with a smaller population. Miami is the city pulling in the rear of The Big 4, by a pretty obvious margin...
I'd also disagree that Fort Worth has a case for the top of Tier 4. Charlotte has pretty much solidified that position, but even if that's debatable to some, Fort Worth has to contend with Austin before even considering it's out of state competition. Fort Worth is definitely in Tier 2. It isn't at the top, though...
Miami has less than three million residents if the idea is that a city having its own metropolitan division means the city deserves a separate mention. And while Dallas has a smaller population than Atlanta, it has a larger economy, so the ranking would be Houston, followed by Atlanta and/or Dallas, depending on whether sheer economic or population size is more important, followed by Miami, if it would still fit in this tier.
Also, Fort Worth is in a better location then Austin, has a larger population, and has a larger economy, it is indisputably the third main city in Texas if it is counted separate from Dallas. Austin does has higher incomes, but, at that point, Fort Worth has higher incomes than Charlotte despite being less populous and having a smaller economy.
My point is that Ft Worth inclusion elevates Dallas' profile, as do all second and third cities do for the main/dominant city in a multicore metro.
I don't disagree with that, but it doesn't prop Dallas that much. Near unanimous that Houston is greater than Dallas, Dallas is clearly ahead of Miami, and there's a toss up with Dallas and Atlanta...
Miami has less than three million residents if the idea is that a city having its own metropolitan division means the city deserves a separate mention. And while Dallas has a smaller population than Atlanta, it has a larger economy, so the ranking would be Houston, followed by Atlanta and/or Dallas, depending on whether sheer economic or population size is more important, followed by Miami, if it would still fit in this tier.
How come it is that when Miami gets subdivided it's just its own county with just over 500 square miles of actual developed land while other multi-core MSA's subdivisions get several counties of sprawl?
Now, I know my question is part rhetorical, because there's nowhere for Miami to go but up, however it's certainly not an exercise in comparing apples to apples.
Clearly Miami doesn't have the economic power of other tier one Southern metros, but it's easily the most densely populated, and it only gets more so over time.
If there's going to be a sub tier 1A, it would have to include Charlotte and Austin, in that order followed by the next cities. Charlotte is just too much of an economic engine in the region to have it behind Nashville or NOLA. It has the 21st largest GAP in the nation, compared to Nashville(38), NOLA(41), but Austin's is 37th, so you could put it behind these 2 cities for other reasons.
Putting Nashville/NOLA over Charlotte would be like putting Miami over Houston. Also San Antonio should be much higher, it has the 36th largest GAP, ahead of Nashville, NOLA, Austin, etc.
Of course, if this wasn't in any order, then never mind my comments, except about including Charlotte in tier 1-A.
El Paso is not a southern city. It's South West. More like Albuquerque and Tucson than it is too Little Rock and Nashville.
Agree. What's so Southern about El Paso? Other than its location in the far Western tip of Texas. I don't see it Southern at all. Maybe some streets are named after Confederate soldiers. Heck, it doesn't even have a Texas flavor to it. Lots of Texans don't view El Paso as quintessentially Texan.
Austin - 2.1 million
Charlotte - 2.5 million
Nashville - 1.9 million
Orlando - 2.5 million
San Antonio - 2.4 million
Tampa/St. Pete - 3 million
Raleigh/Durham - 1.3 million
Virginia Beach - 1.7 million
Not even close. Raleigh and Virginia Beach are SIGNFICANTLY smaller metros compared to the other metros listed on this list. Its apples to oranges..
Not to mention, the caliber of amenities, infrastructure, culture, etc. offered by the other cities listed in this category blows Raleigh/Virginia Beach out of the park! They are simply not in the same league..
Austin - 2.1 million
Charlotte - 2.5 million
Nashville - 1.9 million
Orlando - 2.5 million
San Antonio - 2.4 million
Tampa/St. Pete - 3 million
Raleigh/Durham - 1.3 million
Virginia Beach - 1.7 million
Not even close. Raleigh and Virginia Beach are SIGNFICANTLY smaller metros compared to the other metros listed on this list. Its apples to oranges..
Not to mention, the caliber of amenities, infrastructure, culture, etc. offered by the other cities listed in this category blows Raleigh/Virginia Beach out of the park! They are simply not in the same league..
I was with you until you posted this...
Raleigh and Virginia Beach are not in the same tier as those other cities, but your population argument is off an not the primary reason why...
First of all, let's figure out why you decided 1.7 million had to be your cut off for "not in the same league", while Nashville at 1.9 makes the league apparently, but is 200k short of the nearest city and over a million smaller than the largest city in your group. The logic doesn't apply...
Second of all, when taken by CSA's, which would be the strongest argument to make your point, they break down as follows:
Orlando 3.284
Tampa 3.091 (doesn't have CSA)
Charlotte 2.684
San Antonio 2.474 (doesn't have CSA) Raleigh-Durham 2.199
Austin 2.116 (doesn't have CSA)
Nashville 2.027 Virginia Beach 1.829
As a metropolis, Raleigh-Durham fits, especially since you said Raleigh-Durham, and not just Raleigh. Virginia Beach might not, but then again, you'd also have to question your inclusion of RDU, Austin, and Nashville, which are all significantly smaller than the four largest...
That's if I was making your weird argument...I'm not...
CSAs are the absolute worst metric. Raleigh and Virginia Beach aren't in the same group as the other cities. From a realistic and honest perspective, Virginia Beach is best characterized as the Southside of Hampton Roads, which has a population of 1.195 million. Raleigh, at 1.335, is also far smaller than the next closest city (Nashville), and they fit squarely within the following tier by that measure, GDP, and when you look at other intangibles (big city offerings). As regions, they fit their CSA figures (as well as the official Virginia Beach MSA figure), but for the clearest representation on how they stack up as cities, you have to separate them from their larger metropolises...
By the way, I know you weren't using CSA to support your point, but you equated the wrong population to Raleigh-Durham. And your exclusion if Virginia Beach lacked logic if Nashville is included. CSA would be the best way to support your stance, but it wasn't needed and still would be invaluable to the point. Raleigh and Virginia Beach aren't in that tier...
Raleigh and Virginia Beach are not in the same tier as those other cities, but your population argument is off an not the primary reason why...
First of all, let's figure out why you decided 1.7 million had to be your cut off for "not in the same league", while Nashville at 1.9 makes the league apparently, but is 200k short of the nearest city and over a million smaller than the largest city in your group. The logic doesn't apply...
Second of all, when taken by CSA's, which would be the strongest argument to make your point, they break down as follows:
Orlando 3.284
Tampa 3.091 (doesn't have CSA)
Charlotte 2.684
San Antonio 2.474 (doesn't have CSA) Raleigh-Durham 2.199
Austin 2.116 (doesn't have CSA)
Nashville 2.027 Virginia Beach 1.829
As a metropolis, Raleigh-Durham fits, especially since you said Raleigh-Durham, and not just Raleigh. Virginia Beach might not, but then again, you'd also have to question your inclusion of RDU, Austin, and Nashville, which are all significantly smaller than the four largest...
That's if I was making your weird argument...I'm not...
CSAs are the absolute worst metric. Raleigh and Virginia Beach aren't in the same group as the other cities. From a realistic and honest perspective, Virginia Beach is best characterized as the Southside of Hampton Roads, which has a population of 1.195 million. Raleigh, at 1.335, is also far smaller than the next closest city (Nashville), and they fit squarely within the following tier by that measure, GDP, and when you look at other intangibles (big city offerings). As regions, they fit their CSA figures (as well as the official Virginia Beach MSA figure), but for the clearest representation on how they stack up as cities, you have to separate them from their larger metropolises...
By the way, I know you weren't using CSA to support your point, but you equated the wrong population to Raleigh-Durham. And your exclusion if Virginia Beach lacked logic if Nashville is included. CSA would be the best way to support your stance, but it wasn't needed and still would be invaluable to the point. Raleigh and Virginia Beach aren't in that tier...
I think that it's important to point out how absolutely tiny the land area of Raleigh's MSA is (without Durham's or the CSA) when compared to others like Nashville. Sure Raleigh's MSA alone has only 1.335 million, most of which is in Wake County alone, but it's also occupying 1/3 the land area of Nashville's MSA. Additionally, when Raleigh's and Durham's MSAs are added together, they are still smaller in land area than Nashville's by several thousand, yet together they yield an almost identical population to the Nashville. Even further, the Raleigh-Durham CSA with 2.2 million still has less land area than just the Nashville MSA. In this case, context of data matters.
I've been following urban area growth yearly through a source that I previously linked. In those annual reports, Raleigh's UA alone (no Durham) passed Nashville's earlier this decade. In the latest report, the source has determined that the UAs of Raleigh and Durham have connected enough to report them as one: further putting distance on the UA of Nashville. It's just a matter of time before the two Triangle MSAs are reunited as they once were prior to 2003.
While Raleigh lacks the brand identity of some of these other cities to be "included", it doesn't lack the population. Plus, it's growing a much faster rate than most places in the South.
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.
