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.
i would say the criteria for a tier system would have to include economic, political, infrastructural, cultural, population, and innovation considerations, among others.
Tier 1= NY Perfect Score
Tier 2= LA and Chicago- 160's
Tier 3= SF, DC, Boston- 150's
Tier 4= Houston and ATL- 140's
Tier 5= Philly, Miami and DFW- 120's
Tier 6= Seattle, Denver, Detroit, ST Louis, Minneapolis, San Diego
Agreed with Tiers 1, 2 and 3.
I'd change Tier 4 and 5 a little.
Tier 4= Philly, Miami, Seattle
Tier 5= Houston, Dallas, Atlanta
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
You people have way too many "tiers" in the top 10-11 metros. There are not seven different tiers amongst them, it's either 2 or 3 max. Personally I see two within the top 10 but I could understand the 3 tier set up.
Depending on criteria my breakdown is:
Tier 1:
NY
LA
Chi
SF
DC
Tier 2:
Philadelphia
Boston
Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Miami
A more divided 3 tier breakdown should be:
Tier 1:
NY
LA
Chi
Tier 2:
DC
SF
Tier 3:
Houston
Dallas
Philadelphia
Boston
Atlanta
Miami
Chicago... oh Chicago. I think most Americans and the world for the fact view it as America's "second largest city." It certainly has a great, large, manhattan-esk like central business district. It has Global Presence and is basically the center of the midwest... where as LA is more the Center of the west coast, not the Bay Area. Idk, that's a tough one.
What is larger in Chicago Ill the Central City or the Metro Area , certainly not The GDP which LA ownsChicago in that matter and Measurement. LOL ..ROTF...
By the way LA is the center of SoCal , and San Francisco is the center of NorCal
You people have way too many "tiers" in the top 10-11 metros. There are not seven different tiers amongst them, it's either 2 or 3 max. Personally I see two within the top 10 but I could understand the 3 tier set up.
Depending on criteria my breakdown is:
Tier 1:
NY
LA
Chi
SF
DC
Tier 2:
Philadelphia
Boston
Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Miami
A more divided 3 tier breakdown should be:
Tier 1:
NY
LA
Chi
Tier 2:
DC
SF
Tier 3:
Houston
Dallas
Philadelphia
Boston
Atlanta
Miami
I agree with this 100%. I think NYC, LA, and Chi are in a bracket all of their own. I think DC and SF are in the bullpen, waiting to come out into the big leagues, which will probably be a few more years. Then everyone else is down below that.
If we are talking metro areas there is little difference in terms of service/amenities/shopping for the metro areas in the 4-6million people range. You can argue things like nightlife/transportation/ and health of the core. But if you're talking overall I would rank almost all of them in the same tier really. I'd call them tier 2. Below that i'd start the 2-4million with some exceptions as tier 3, and 1-2 million as tier 4 and so on. What could vary is how important they are regionally ect. Split hairs if you want to. You could end up with like 50 tiers haha, I like to keep it simple. It's not perfect but here's the idea.
Tier 1
New York
LA
Chicago
DC (Because of its growing wealth and international influence as the capital)
In no particular order
Tier 2
Bay Area
Boston
Detroit
Atlanta
Philly
Miami
Dallas
Houston
Seattle
Twin Cities
Phoenix
Tier 3
St Louis
San Diego
Cleveland
Cinci
Pittsburgh
Indy
Tampa
San Antonio
Salt Lake
Portland
Charlotte
ect.....
What is larger in Chicago Ill the Central City or the Metro Area , certainly not The GDP which LA ownsChicago in that matter and Measurement. LOL ..ROTF...
By the way LA is the center of SoCal , and San Francisco is the center of NorCal
It's obvious you have never been to Chicago. Chicago just FEELS like a larger city than Los Angeles. The downtown area is massive, and only surpassed by NYC. LA has a puny downtown (I know it is a polycentric city), but this still leads to LA feeling like a smaller city overall, even if on paper, it's population and GDP are larger.
It's obvious you have never been to Chicago. Chicago just FEELS like a larger city than Los Angeles. The downtown area is massive, and only surpassed by NYC. LA has a puny downtown (I know it is a polycentric city), but this still leads to LA feeling like a smaller city overall, even if on paper, it's population and GDP are larger.
Sure its smaller than the downtown of a large monocentric city, but 'puny'? Really?
Even if you only count DTLA as the area within the "box" created by the 110, the 10, the 101, and the LA river (ignoring the spillover northward to Chinatown, southward to USC, and westward to City West and Westlake), DTLA is still 5 square miles, most of it extremely dense. It certainly doesn't feel puny when you're in the middle of it.
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.
