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.
Great post Blue Earth! I hope to see more from you!!
I am interested to determine if this list stands when dividing GDP by population, so you get economic output per citizen! (my hypothesis is that Minneapolis may edge out Detroit for the #2 spot):
-One statistical problem is that you have 2009 GDP numbers, with 2010 population stats, but let's just do it anyway:
-Another problem is that the GDP numbers you gave are missing 3 0's. Those numbers are in hundreds of billions, not millions. I'll add 3 000's to the end of every number.
-(In defense of your solid argument for Cleveland, I will use their CSA numbers.)
Wow interesting! Minneapolis actually ranks #1, ahead of even Chicago!
I think that this ranking should factor into your equation.
It speaks to the relative strength of their overall economies, without regards to population.
But again, know that these numbers aren't exactly accurate, because I am taking 2010 population numbers and combining them with 2006-2009 GDP averages.
Great post Blue Earth! I hope to see more from you!!
I am interested to determine if this list stands when dividing GDP by population, so you get economic output per citizen! (my hypothesis is that Minneapolis may edge out Detroit for the #2 spot):
-One statistical problem is that you have 2009 GDP numbers, with 2010 population stats, but let's just do it anyway:
-Another problem is that the GDP numbers you gave are missing 3 0's. Those numbers are in hundreds of billions, not millions. I'll add 3 000's to the end of every number.
-(In defense of your solid argument for Cleveland, I will use their CSA numbers.)
Wow interesting! Minneapolis actually ranks #1, ahead of even Chicago!
I think that this ranking should factor into your equation.
It speaks to the relative strength of their overall economies, without regards to population.
But again, know that these numbers aren't exactly accurate, because I am taking 2010 population numbers and combining them with 2006-2009 GDP averages.
Still do not buy into the CSA for one but not all, should be all things equal, csa for all or msa for all. It's like giving Chicago a boost for adding Michigan City and Kankakee or Indy adding Columbus, Muncie and Kokomo.
The average gdp is exactly what I was referring to as it give an clearer indication peer wise the true economic vitality of each city. Large MSA wise, MSP is the strongest economy followed by Indy. I posted those numbers in a few places on here. Overall midwest, MSP and Indy are actually 3rd and 4th behind Des Moines and Madison whereas Des Moines is pretty far ahead of everyone else aGDP wise even though they do not have the large population. If you have ever been to Des Moines, it is very vibrant and active, they just lack the population.
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA (MSA) 61666
Madison, WI (MSA) 55612 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (MSA) 52974
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN (MSA) 50471 Cedar Rapids, IA (MSA) 48342 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI (MSA) 48256 Bloomington-Normal, IL (MSA) 48144 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 47973 Columbus, IN (MSA) 46050 Columbus, OH (MSA) 45963
Kansas City, MO-KS (MSA) 45542 Rochester, MN (MSA) 44309
Iowa City, IA (MSA) 43634
Green Bay, WI (MSA) 42476
Decatur, IL (MSA) 42363 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (MSA) 40829
Oshkosh-Neenah, WI (MSA) 40645
Peoria, IL (MSA) 40348
Springfield, IL (MSA) 40234
Evansville, IN-KY (MSA) 39977 St. Louis, MO-IL (MSA) 39631
Dubuque, IA (MSA) 39552
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL (MSA) 39188
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (MSA) 39132
Ames, IA (MSA) 39130 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (MSA) 38497
Elkhart-Goshen, IN (MSA) 38073
Fort Wayne, IN (MSA) 37613
Sheboygan, WI (MSA) 37001
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI (MSA) 36840
La Crosse, WI-MN (MSA) 36424
St. Cloud, MN (MSA) 36087
Wausau, WI (MSA) 35921
Lansing-East Lansing, MI (MSA) 35845
Dayton, OH (MSA) 35729
Lima, OH (MSA) 35171
Champaign-Urbana, IL (MSA) 35167
Columbia, MO (MSA) 35063
Lafayette, IN (MSA) 34790
Akron, OH (MSA) 34644
Jefferson City, MO (MSA) 34534
Toledo, OH (MSA) 34125
Sandusky, OH (MSA) 33184
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI (MSA) 33169
Kokomo, IN (MSA) 32597
Kalamazoo-Portage, MI (MSA) 31817
Battle Creek, MI (MSA) 31294
St. Joseph, MO-KS (MSA) 29932
Duluth, MN-WI (MSA) 29789
Bloomington, IN (MSA) 29725
Niles-Benton Harbor, MI (MSA) 29322
Rockford, IL (MSA) 29307
Holland-Grand Haven, MI (MSA) 28842
Terre Haute, IN (MSA) 28652
Racine, WI (MSA) 27960
Canton-Massillon, OH (MSA) 27875
Joplin, MO (MSA) 27818
Mansfield, OH (MSA) 27293
Janesville, WI (MSA) 27246
Michigan City-La Porte, IN (MSA) 27037
Danville, IL (MSA) 26854
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV (MSA) 26725
Muncie, IN (MSA) 25739
Jackson, MI (MSA) 25589
Kankakee-Bradley, IL (MSA) 24074
Flint, MI (MSA) 23642
Bay City, MI (MSA) 23441
Springfield, OH (MSA) 23336
Monroe, MI (MSA) 20387
There are definitely other factors that can be used to rank cities in addition to MSA population, CSA population, metro area GDP, and metro area Total Personal Income. As has been mentioned, per capita GDP, population increase/decrease, and factoring in cost of living when comparing Total Personal Income. My post was already very long, so I didn't want to include any other factors other than the four factors that I used. I think that MSA population, CSA population, metro area GDP, and metro area Total Personal Income are the most important factors, so that's why I used those four factors. But definitely, per capita GDP, population increase/decrease by metro area, and factoring in cost of living when comparing Total Personal Income can all be used to further distill the ranking.
My guess is that even if these additional factors are included, the ranking will be pretty much the same. The top three will still be Chicago, Detroit, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Even with Minneapolis-St. Paul having such a high per capita GDP, it still falls behind Detroit metro in its dominance and influence, because Detroit metro is so much larger. This ranking is about the most dominant and influential metro areas in the Midwest, based on population and economic factors. I think that people can get too fixated on per capita numbers and population increase/decrease, to the point where they miss the big picture. The big picture is total population and total GDP. Yes, total GDP is population dependent. It should be population dependent. When you are looking at the most dominant cities, the larger population areas with the higher total GDP are going to be the most dominant.
Per capita GDP is a good indicator of what cities' economies are the most vibrant, and it tells you to look for those cities to maybe move up in dominance over the next few decades as those cities add more population.
If I did this ranking 10 or 20 years from now, #4 through #9 will probably be different.
May or may not change, but would be more complete. Unfortunately, people don't really think of global dominance when choosing a place to live. If that were the case we'd all live in New York. Americans look toward areas that are viable, strong job markets and then their personal reasons which of course isn't part of your equation.
Absolutley a great post. This really should end all the best of midwest threads. I really agree with all your rankings, it's really interesting all the research that went into this, awesome job.
Wow, I can't even imagine going to half the trouble that you did for this thread. It's amazing. From a lifelong resident of the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes Region, thank you, thank you, thank you.
I find it especially refreshing that your carefully researched data shows the Detroit Metro to still be the powerhouse that it is. All too often, the national media gives the impression that Detroit is nothing more than a skeleton of a once great city, and that there is nothing in that region but ghetto and despair. Of course, the reality is that the Detroit Metro is still a vibrant, well populated, and in some areas very, very wealthy and influentual part of the country. If people could see some of the mansions that populate places like the Grosse Pointes, Bloomfield Hills, Plymouth, Grosse Ile, and Ann Arbor, just to name a few, they would be blown away. Metro Detroit is anything but dead or dying. The city of Detroit has its problems, but to lump everyone in that region into one sorely misrepresented group is erroneous and riduculous.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,874,502 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDominicana
I agree. Ohio however seems like a mixed bag though as in it doesn't feel truly Midwestern inside the state as a whole. The state is dominated by several cities with different histories and foundations. Cleveland (particularly east side) has some areas that are Northeastern in character (town squares, Tudors, hilly valleys, etc) while Toledo despite being 2 or so hours away doesn't have significant presence of any of those traits at all (pretty flat, quite rural, etc). In Cincinnati you have a slight Southern Appalachian influence and hills and density that's almost non-existent up in Cleveland.
I think Ohio is very Midwestern....almost quentessential actually. Cleveland is as dense as Cincy, too.
Cleveland should really be regarded by its CSA population, as it looks/feels like a much bigger city than 2 million people. It feel much more on par with St. Louis than Columbus. I consider them mostly equal.
Excellent analysis, Blue Earth! Your objective findings and analysis is pretty much spot on. Wouldn't disagree with you if I could (and I can't)!
Minneapolis/St. Paul is one of the few cities on that list that has seen consistent growth in both people and economy. It truly bucks the trend of major midwest cities.
I think Ohio is very Midwestern....almost quentessential actually. Cleveland is as dense as Cincy, too.
Cleveland should really be regarded by its CSA population, as it looks/feels like a much bigger city than 2 million people. It feel much more on par with St. Louis than Columbus. I consider them mostly equal.
Excellent analysis, Blue Earth! Your objective findings and analysis is pretty much spot on. Wouldn't disagree with you if I could (and I can't)!
Awesome!!!!!!
That's the equivalent of having a 100 yard dash and giving one of the runners a 10 second head start. If Cleveland is CSA then all cities are CSA. If all of the other cities are MSA then Cleveland by default is MSA making all things fair. Blue was doing strictly by the numbers. It doesn't take into account historical importance or perception thereof. It doesn't matter how "big" it feels or how small it feels or what it should be on par with. All that is personal conjecture which he was trying to avoid.
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.
