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.
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.
I'd argue San Antonio over Ft. Worth as the third main city in Texas - it's a bigger city with more history and influence and is economically booming on the low. Ft. Worth and Austin are fourth and fifth in no particular order imo. Might put Austin a bit above Ft. Worth too.
My opinion updated to reflect '17 gdp and population figures:
Tier I
Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami
Unchanged, for perhaps forever. I tend to view Dallas by its MD, separate from its MSA. I think it's a split between it and Atlanta, and Atlanta can argue for #2 based off off its cultural resonance and uber large sphere of influence. But Dallas is a more economically productive city (higher gdp and per capita gdp, less impoverished) with about 900,000 fewer people (again, MD Dallas). And Dallas is the only one of the two I believe has a real shot at one day surpassing or matching even with Houston; neither Atlanta nor Miami ever will...
Miami is the weakest of the four, perhaps the most popular, but is far behind the other three in too many measurements that count. #1 could go to either of the other three, but I think Houston overall is still the most powerful city of the bunch...
Tier II
Charlotte, Austin, Tampa, Nashville, Orlando, San Antonio, Fort Worth
First major developments here. At this point, I think its inarguable that Austin has leapfrogged San Antonio within Texas. Austin has also begun to separate itself from every city besides Charlotte here, it's just playing the game on another level...
It probably isn't wise to separate Tampa and Orlando, but I think the margin between Nashville and Orlando is closer than Tampa and Orlando. Nashville has seen a tremendous surge this decade, and I'm not just talking numbers, I'm speaking of its evolution as a city. A Top 3 fastest rising city in the country...
Fort Worth is the forgotten city in DFW and is last place by virtue of that, but is a metropolis in it's own right and if reviewed on it's own merits, belongs in this group of cities...
Tier III
Raleigh, Richmond, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Louisville
Raleigh I think is now in the driver's seat, but both Raleigh and Richmond continue to separate themselves from the pack. The economic burst in these two cities is too strong, and their evolutions as cities is at an accelerated pace compared to the others. I think Jacksonville is right behind them, though...
At some point we have to admit that while New Oeleans will always have the brand and cache of a larger city, in reality it is watching its influence wane. Also, my current Tier IV, I used to consider the same tier as these Tier III cities, but there is a clear separation from the lower Tier III cities to Tier IV...
Tier IV
Birmingham, Norfolk, Memphis, Tulsa, Baton Rouge
Birmingham is rising fast. Not fast enough to put it in Tier III, slightly higher level cities there, but it's definitely separating from the pack here. I have always appreciated Birmingham; it's a unique place with a strong culture and surprisingly more to do than you'd think...
Memphis is slipping fast, conversely. I actually do believe that it and Norfolk are interchangeable, and as a standalone city, Memphis has a larger profile. Neither it nor Norfolk are in their prime, and both are second cities to their respective states. They have a fair amount of things in common that I've touched in over the years...
I do think weighed overall, the margins between Memphis and Tulsa/Baton Rouge is closer than the margins between Louisville/Jacksonville and Memphis. It wasn't always this way, and maybe that says more about Tulsa and Baton Rouge, but it definitely isn't a positive for Memphis...
Tier V
Charleston, Greenville, Knoxville, Columbia, Greensboro, Durham, Little Rock
Arguably the most competitive division to me...
South Carolina is Ohio on a smaller scale, three similarly sized cities in close competition with each other. Charleston is in the process of eventually reestablishing itself as #1 in SC, and I don't think it will be long before it does; it's going to pull away from Greenville and already us pulling away from Columbia...
Greensboro over Durham by virtue of it still being the larger of the two and the most significant impact of the two within NC....
............
There are other nice cities in the South, but none are really viable here, and all other cities would have to at minimum match Little Rock and Durham pound-for-pound...
I'd argue San Antonio over Ft. Worth as the third main city in Texas - it's a bigger city with more history and influence and is economically booming on the low. Ft. Worth and Austin are fourth and fifth in no particular order imo. Might put Austin a bit above Ft. Worth too.
I would give San Antonio more history, though I'd give it that over any other Texan city not along the Mexican border and I don't give much weight to history when deciding city tiers. For influence, San Antonio probably has a good range, but so does Fort Worth going out west; I'd say that even some distance past Abilene, Fort Worth has a notable cultural pull independent of, even if helped by, Dallas making it part of the nation's fourth most populous metropolitan area. For economically booming, isn't Fort Worth also economically booming, while starting off wealthier than San Antonio to begin with?
I'd argue San Antonio over Ft. Worth as the third main city in Texas - it's a bigger city with more history and influence and is economically booming on the low. Ft. Worth and Austin are fourth and fifth in no particular order imo. Might put Austin a bit above Ft. Worth too.
Austin has a larger economy, more diverse business, and more international influence than both SA or FW. Austin is clearly number three, SA four, and Ft. Worth 5 in TX. Ft. Worth wouldn't be half the city it is without Dallas, just as Dallas wouldn't be what it is without Ft. Worth.
Aside from being more centrally located in the US, how is Ft. Worth in a better location? The topography in and around Austin is much nicer than most areas in TX, including the DFW area.
I'd argue San Antonio over Ft. Worth as the third main city in Texas - it's a bigger city with more history and influence and is economically booming on the low. Ft. Worth and Austin are fourth and fifth in no particular order imo. Might put Austin a bit above Ft. Worth too.
Without Dallas and the rest of the Metroplex, I agree.
WITH Dallas and the rest of the Metroplex... questionable.
Austin has a larger economy, more diverse business, and more international influence than both SA or FW. Austin is clearly number three, SA four, and Ft. Worth 5 in TX. Ft. Worth wouldn't be half the city it is without Dallas, just as Dallas wouldn't be what it is without Ft. Worth.
Aside from being more centrally located in the US, how is Ft. Worth in a better location? The topography in and around Austin is much nicer than most areas in TX, including the DFW area.
Austin has no international influence. Maybe it being the political center of the state could 0ush it over, but it isn't clear who is number three in Texas after Houston and Dallas. Austin wouldn't be half the city either if it wasn't for its history of being the capital and having all the government jobs as well as main UT campus, both the result of it being the capital.
Lastly, being centrally located is much more important than being nice looking.
I would give San Antonio more history, though I'd give it that over any other Texan city not along the Mexican border and I don't give much weight to history when deciding city tiers. For influence, San Antonio probably has a good range, but so does Fort Worth going out west; I'd say that even some distance past Abilene, Fort Worth has a notable cultural pull independent of, even if helped by, Dallas making it part of the nation's fourth most populous metropolitan area. For economically booming, isn't Fort Worth also economically booming, while starting off wealthier than San Antonio to begin with?
Fort Worth is doing well right now for sure, but I think San Antonio was only behind Austin and a couple of other cities in 2017 GDP growth. Most of Texas in general is booming right now. San Antonio is still the second largest city in the state, no?
Fort Worth definitely deserves consideration and I don't think there's much of a gap between it, Austin, and San Antonio any way you slice it, they just all have different strengths. Austin is the most economically and politically important, San Antonio the most historically and culturally, with Fort Worth able to make a strong argument here as well. Still give San Antonio a slight edge overall though.
Austin has no international influence. Maybe it being the political center of the state could 0ush it over, but it isn't clear who is number three in Texas after Houston and Dallas. Austin wouldn't be half the city either if it wasn't for its history of being the capital and having all the government jobs as well as main UT campus, both the result of it being the capital.
Lastly, being centrally located is much more important than being nice looking.
I guess, according to you, ACL and SXSW have no international influence, in addition to the state government, IT presence, (Apple, Dell, Oracle, Samsung, IBM, EA, Google, Facebook, Amazon, ect., all have offices/campuses/manufacturing facilities/ or HQ's here), and one of the largest universities in the country? Must just be a regional thing then. Nevermind the fact that there are three international destinations from ABIA to Europe, and a 4th during SXSW, even though ABIA is a non-hub airport.
If Fort Worth were a standalone metropolitan area, it would be comparable to OKC, Birmingham, El Paso, and Jacksonville.
Also, using your logic, geographically, I guess Kansas City is the best city in the country and San Diego and Boston are in horrible locations, given the fact that they aren't centrally located. I would rather have the steep rolling hills with hiking and bike trails, lakes, rivers, and rather moderate weather, (even though there is an increased flood threat), that Austin has to offer, vs the flat rolling plains, lakes, extreme hot and cold swings, severe weather, annual ice storms, and tornado threats, that the Forth Worth area is exposed to. The only positive to being centrally located in the US, is the appeal to manufacturing and transportation hubs, which has no effect on the quality of life.
1) Yes, I think ACL and SXSW are mostly national events and less so internationall events. The Texas state government also has very little, if any, influence on the rest of the planet. Maybe the school.
2) I can only find three European destinations on Wikipedia, London, London, and Frankfurt as seasonal. Meanwhile, DFW, which actually is physically located in the Fort Worth metropolitan area partly, has flights to Frankfurt, London, Madrid, Paris, and Reykjavik, with seasonal to Amsterdam, Munich, Rome, and Paris; not including hub AA, European destinations would just be Frankfurt, London, Paris, and Reykjavik.
3) Wouldn't it be nice if we all had magic crystal balls to answer what if's. If Dallas never existed or boomed, it is very likely that Fort Worth would have boomed in its place, with the railways and highways converging there instead. If you mean otherwise, Fort Worth's own metropolitan division without Dallas has almosttwo and a half million people, so much larger than any of those you mentioned. Once again, I wonder how large Austin would be if it weren't for the rest of the entire state, including Dallas and Fort Worth, supporting the government.
4) Actually, according to my logic, Kansas City would have a better location than Austin, despite it possibly being less "pretty." You can have what you want, bot everyone prefers the same thing you do. More so than that, your personal aesthetic preferences does not have anything to do with how important a metro is. Also, for most people, how pretty a place is doesn't actually impact quality of life as much as ease of transportation does. Your analogy would have worked if you sticked to location and if Austin had an actual port like San Diego and Boston.
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.
