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.
This is one of the worst lists that have been posted on here lol...
You're gonna have to explain how Raleigh-Durham belongs in Tier 2 and Richmond in Tier 4. There is also the glaring omission of Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Baton Rouge, Oklahoma City, Huntsville, and Charleston...
I don't get your logic behind Tiers 3-5. How is Richmond in Tier 4 and how is Columbia in Tier 5? Are Winston-Salem and Greensboro being considered separately or as a CSA?
If you're considering the CSAs of Greenville (which would include Spartanburg) and Greensboro/Winston-Salem, then both would be in Tier 3. If only considering the MSAs of Greenville, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem, then they belong in Tier 4 along with Columbia, Charleston, and Baton Rouge. (and maybe Chattanooga but I'm a bit iffy on that). Richmond belongs in Tier 3 regardless.
I don't get your logic behind Tiers 3-5. How is Richmond in Tier 4 and how is Columbia in Tier 5? Are Winston-Salem and Greensboro being considered separately or as a CSA?
If you're considering the CSAs of Greenville (which would include Spartanburg) and Greensboro/Winston-Salem, then both would be in Tier 3. If only considering the MSAs of Greenville, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem, then they belong in Tier 4 along with Columbia, Charleston, and Baton Rouge. (and maybe Chattanooga but I'm a bit iffy on that). Richmond belongs in Tier 3 regardless.
To answer your question about Winston-Salem and Greensboro, they're being considered as a CSA.
Yeah. I understand how you feel in that regard that the progressive cities should be labeled as the more diverse metros of which most of the current metros labeled as progressive are not very diverse.
I also understand how it's easy to generalize the homogenic racial makeup to believe these cities are catered to elite whites and while there is definitely truth in that, most people moving to these metros are established middle/ upper middle class married couples. Most single college students cannot afford to live in these metros unless they land a good gig in one of them or they are attending university. Most of the Elites do not have a need to relocate to these second tier metros. For Austin, Portland, even Seattle specifically they are being forced out of California seeking a similar lifestyle and these metros specifically obtain their catchy title because they offer this with affordability (relative to the locations they're leaving from.) The disparity of diversity is also seen in the lack of their diverse economies where as Atlanta, Houston and DFW have way more to offer for anyone outside of IT. Houston and Atlanta specifically, medical, logistics, fintech (Atlanta), arts / cultural professions, ect.
Most of the progressive metros are typically labeled by certain political factors by their democratic -borderline socialistic- methods of governing. They seem to cater neither to rich nor poor as they approve of allowing the homeless to camp right infront of your property regardless of which wealth class you are. Their taxation has no bias of which is hurting the middle class because they make too much money to benefit from the ordinances they enforce but not enough money to support the high CoL ontop of taxes. Their governing methods of enforcing the middle class and elite to cater to the unwealthy (regardless of which race) is what seems to be the drive of what gives them the progressive outlook.
How effective this is? Look at San Francisco and you tell me. In a way though I do see the idea and point behind it because other metros just shove away and hide their problems while these progressive ones expose them to Plainview and are a bit more modest about it.
In terms of races. Austin, Portland probably doesnt offer what it takes to keep a diverse culture entertained to begin with. It just was never what they were built around. They were built as second tier IT hubs for young couples. I dont think they are as 'hostile' to diversity as some make it out to be but it's just, not exactly the place you go for it.
Basically explaining this because the modern progressive movement has nothing to do with diversity and more to do with politics. It is basically a movement of how certain individuals believe Americans should be taxed or liberties and laws should be passed in effort to serve minorities Not saying I agree with it, it just is what it is.
I think there’s some delusion about how many tiers there are and how significantly the cities in them differ.
There are three.
1) Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston
2) New Orleans, Raleigh, Charlotte, Richmond, Norfolk, Nashville, Memphis, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Birmingham, Louisville, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso...
3) Greenville, Charleston (both), Savannah, Knoxville, Asheville, Wilmington, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Augusta, Lexington...
I think there’s some delusion about how many tiers there are and how significantly the cities in them differ.
There are three.
1) Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston
2) New Orleans, Raleigh, Charlotte, Richmond, Norfolk, Nashville, Memphis, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Birmingham, Louisville, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso...
3) Greenville, Charleston (both), Savannah, Knoxville, Asheville, Wilmington, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Augusta, Lexington...
Large, medium and small. That’s all folks.
Uh uh.
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.