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.
Hummmm....a city of over a million people, which hosted the Olympics....is NOT in your mind, first-tier?
Gimme a break.
Actually, the city of Atlanta is only 400,000 people. It's when you count the metropolitan areas surrounding it that it becomes quite large. But consider, that metropolitan area is "8,376 square miles (21,694 km2) – a land area comparable to that of Massachusetts." (Wiki). Its city density is 3,100 per square mile (Boston is, by example, 12,500).
Look, this is all subjective -- 1st tier, 2nd tier, 3rd tier. If you feel it's a 1st tier city, then, it's a first tier city. It's just not worth getting worked up over.
Actually, the city of Atlanta is only 400,000 people. It's when you count the metropolitan areas surrounding it that it becomes quite large. But consider, that metropolitan area is "8,376 square miles (21,694 km2) – a land area comparable to that of Massachusetts." (Wiki). It's city density is 3,100 per square mile (Boston is, by example, 12,500).
Look, this is all subjective -- 1st tier, 2nd tier, 3rd tier. If you feel it's a 1st tier city, then, it's a first tier city. It's just not worth getting worked up over.
Probably not.
BUT...you have to consider the metropolitan area surrounding Atlanta as part of Atlanta.
Otherwise, Los Angeles population radically decreases, since the population area encompasses all of Orange County, and parts of the surrounding Counties.
Similarly, NYC encompasses all five boroughs of New York...even through at one time Brooklyn was counted separately from Manhattan. I'm reasonably sure that Boston's population as measured by Census Area....does not stop at the actual city limit of Boston.
You can't have it both ways. Either EVERY city includes its metro area, or none do.
Just as an example, Hollywood is it's own city, and is completely surrounded by Los Angeles. It's entire population is counted as being part of Los Angeles, even though it is in fact it's own city.
No, it isn;t worth getting worked up over, but I am saying you can't apply a double-standard here.
For the record, the U.S. Census Bureau considers the Atlanta area to include the folloing in it's Metropolitan Statistical Area:
Atlanta, Alpharetta, Marietta, Roswell, and Sandy Springs
The low cost of living, particularly in the area of housing, has certainly contributed to the turn-around in Pittsburgh's fortunes. As we moved from a manufacturing economy to the information age, and young people started streaming OUT of Greater Pittsburgh, the city made a concerted effort to market its highly educated population (it's home to 68 colleges and universities, 38 of which are non-profit) and take advantage of its existing high profile in the area of medicine. That decision has paid off with a stabilized economy and a unemployment rate consistently lower than the national average.
Today, 1,600 technology firms (including Apple, Intel, Google) generate $10.8 billion for Pittsburgh's annual payroll. Healthcare, biomedical technology, robotics, and green technology also contribute to the economy.
A survey by Dice.com shows the average professional tech salary in the Silicon Valley to be $101,278 and in Boston $94,742. In Pittsburgh the average is only $76,207, but it's growing. And how does that money spend? In Pittsburgh, the median sales price for a residential property is $130,000. Compare that to Boston at $439,000 and San Francisco at $850,000. Good education, low crime, cheap housing, and solid cultural and sports offerings ... it's a good place to build a career.
Well, I don't know if your thesis is statistically true, but if you look at the Census Bureau's ACCRA that adjusts household income based on the cost of living, then places such as New York, Hawaii, California, and other states come out at rock bottom. A family in the South or the Midwest actually winds up having greater discretionary income than a family in the northeast by a fairly wide margin.
Thanks for this - I was kind of surprised to see San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara ranked at #2.
It ranks that high because Sillicon Valley jobs pay very well. In terms of COL for someone earning "average joe" pay this area is not likely to rank as high.
Your "opinion" is incredibly narrow-minded and utterly stupid.
The "Capital of Outer Mongolia" has a 270 billion dollar GDP and is home to the busiest airport in the world. It's also home to six Fortune 100 corporations and more Fortune 500 companies than every other city in the country except New York, Houston, and Dallas. So yeah, I think people might notice if Atlanta were nuked into oblivion and their travel plans were ruined, their packages were no longer delivered, they couldn't buy Coke at the store, and CNN, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, and The Weather Channel were gone from the TV.
Piggy-backing off of this post, I think people would notice if Dallas was nuked. After all, the city of Dallas itself is home to more than 1.2 million people and MANY Fortune 500 companies. When talking in terms of metro area, the area is home to over 6.1 million people, even more Fortune 500 companies, hosts the 3rd busiest airport in the world in terms of aircraft movements, and has a GDP in excess of $400 billion. There are MANY nations in the world that wish they had a GDP half as good as the DFW metro area.
Additionally, the area (much like the Atlanta metro area) is BOOMING. It is currently one of the hottest places in terms of growth with a significant portion of the job growth considered "high-paying jobs"
No, Boston population is growing at a decent rate as well as the state. Massachusetts population growth is the fastest of any state in New England, close to the national average.
if population is growing where are they fitting all those people? There is almost no new construction in and around Boston
I don't think population size alone can determine where a city falls on this list.
Our population for Boise proper is somewhere around 300k at this point. However, the population for the metro is over 500k (maybe over 600k). By your definitions, we should be a 2nd tier city.
However, everyone dismisses Boise as a "little town" because it still FEELS that way. Our crime rate is very low, housing prices are relatively low, cost of living is low (wages are low too, it isn't all good). We are still lacking any sort of decent public transportation options, as well, which would stop us, in my mind, from being a 2nd tier city.
So to me, despite our population, I would rate us as 3rd tier. And that is just fine. We have many big city amenities while keeping our small town feel.
To the person who said Boise is doomed: Have you ever been to Boise? It is an incredible place to live.
Finally, back to the OP, I think the answer to your question is YES. People have been moving to 2nd and 3rd tier cities for decades to keep a quality of life and cost of living they are accustomed to and can keep up with, and I expect that trend will continue in the future.
I don't think population size alone can determine where a city falls on this list.
Our population for Boise proper is somewhere around 300k at this point. However, the population for the metro is over 500k (maybe over 600k). By your definitions, we should be a 2nd tier city.
However, everyone dismisses Boise as a "little town" because it still FEELS that way. Our crime rate is very low, housing prices are relatively low, cost of living is low (wages are low too, it isn't all good). We are still lacking any sort of decent public transportation options, as well, which would stop us, in my mind, from being a 2nd tier city.
So to me, despite our population, I would rate us as 3rd tier. And that is just fine. We have many big city amenities while keeping our small town feel.
To the person who said Boise is doomed: Have you ever been to Boise? It is an incredible place to live.
Finally, back to the OP, I think the answer to your question is YES. People have been moving to 2nd and 3rd tier cities for decades to keep a quality of life and cost of living they are accustomed to and can keep up with, and I expect that trend will continue in the future.
If you are referring to my population figures as a metric for what is 1st, 2nd, or third tier...that is not meant as a hard and fast rule...obviously there are other considerations.
You mention Boise as not having decent public-transit alternatives. This, is my mind, would, I agree, demote you to a third-tier city.
I've never actually considered Idaho as a place to LIVE, really, just my own biases about cold and snow, I guess. I never wanted to be in Pennsylvania, as I now am....but I am getting out next year and I can't wait. Goodbye forever, snow!
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.
