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.
Yes, you opened this thread in the Urban Planning section of the General Forum, however your thread is titled:
First, Second, and Third World Cities (in America)
Certainly you can understand how this thread is confusing, misleading, and misunderstood and you have had to back peddle and redefine what exactly (and you have a few criteria here, let's be transparent in that regard) you want from this thread.
As someone (many) have already pointed out, the designation of First, Second, and Third World typically references quality of life and/or economic viability...that's all folks!
Yes. A2DAC, would you consider communicating with Nei about changing this thread's title? Even though you say you're a bit tired of reading the term "tier" to refer to a city's level of urbanity, economic importance, whatever other criteria, "tier" is the accepted term. Five pages in, and someone is still taking third world to mean poverty, economic stagnation, etc. (first post on page five clearly refers to it this way).
There appears to be a lot of confusion here over the fact that you're using an established term in a way that differs from its accepted meaning. Maybe you could check whether Nei can let you get back in and edit your opening post so you change both the thread title and your wording in the post's text to "tier" whether you like the term or not. Or at least make up a term that won't be confused with an established term that has a different meaning than the one you intend here. And explain in the opening post what you mean by the term you make up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
Is it the title that is throwing people off?
If that's the case, fine; you think of this as "Tiers", but I still think "1st, 2nd, and 3rd World" adjectives still are useful.*
Here are my opinions to get some lists started (some of these places I've never been to):
1. A) New York City, Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C.
1. B) Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles
1. C) Portland, Houston, Dallas, Cleveland
2. A) St. Louis, Atlanta, Minneapolis
2. B) Indianapolis, Columbus, Milwaukee
2. C) Omaha, Las Vegas, Memphis
3. A) Jacksonville, Des Moines
3. B) West Lafayette, IN, Bloomington, IN, South Bend, IN, Muncie, IN
3. C) Muskogee, OK, Lake Zurich, IL, Arkadelphia, AR, Bargersville, IN
So, which cities are the most "city"?
Does anyone else have some thoughts?
I think you could also clear things up if you would list some criteria for what makes a place more or less "city" than another place. Judging by the examples you've used of places you rank as high on the "city" scale, even if they are small cities, you're placing a heavy emphasis on population and/or built density. If that's your main criterion, fine for the purposes of a thread you create for the discussion you wish to pursue, but I'd say there is a lot more to a city than density.
For example, the importance of Los Angeles as a transportation and economic center, along with LA's wide-ranging offerings in arts, culture, entertainment, etc., have to count for a lot in considering how LA compares to, for example, Cincinnati, even though LA's amenities are scattered across the landscape while Cincy's are more centralized. Of course I'm talking about two cities on very different levels if a variety of criteria are compared, but my point is that I personally would be inclined to do exactly that--compare a wide range of criteria, not just the built environment.
In any case, I'll suggest that it may help move this thread along if you offer some detail about the criteria you are looking for in determining how "city" a city is.
The thread title is causing confusion. Instead of first, second or third ranking maybe use something like Alpha, Beta, Gamma. Being a Gamma city is OK. Some cities would strive to be in the New Urbanism mold and maybe that is Gamma...perhaps folks walk or ride bikes. Maybe a city is working toward a transit oriented model....would they be an Alpha or Beta? Some places have huge legacy transit systems that don't provide satisfactory service and cost so much that they are a budget buster. That might be Alpha. Ranking implies that something is better or worse -- making a judgement. Not every city would strive to be an Alpha.
Alpha, Beta, and Gamma would cause confusion too. The OP is including every municipality in the U.S. that is incorporated as a city, even places that are very small towns in terms of population. Alpha, Beta, and Gamma are already accepted as terms used to refer to metropolises, not small towns. These terms also are used primarily to compare world cities, not only American cities.
Using these terms would run the risk of causing the same kind of confusion as first-, second-, and third-world. Since these are widely used terms that would be used differently here, people would likely become confused about which meaning applied in this thread.
I'm inclined to agree with ShampooBanana. If the OP is interested in a good discussion about this topic, it's time for a new thread, one where the OP is clear about terminology, and about criteria for comparing cities.
Yes, you opened this thread in the Urban Planning section of the General Forum, however your thread is titled:
First, Second, and Third World Cities (in America)
Certainly you can understand how this thread is confusing, misleading, and misunderstood and you have had to back peddle and redefine what exactly (and you have a few criteria here, let's be transparent in that regard) you want from this thread.
As someone (many) have already pointed out, the designation of First, Second, and Third World typically references quality of life and/or economic viability...that's all folks!
Best regards, sincerely
HomeIsWhere...
Well, hopefully we've all gotten over my appropriation of words. And hopefully people choose to answer my initial post, and not the title of the thread.
Yes. A2DAC, would you consider communicating with Nei about changing this thread's title? Even though you say you're a bit tired of reading the term "tier" to refer to a city's level of urbanity, economic importance, whatever other criteria, "tier" is the accepted term. Five pages in, and someone is still taking third world to mean poverty, economic stagnation, etc. (first post on page five clearly refers to it this way).
There appears to be a lot of confusion here over the fact that you're using an established term in a way that differs from its accepted meaning. Maybe you could check whether Nei can let you get back in and edit your opening post so you change both the thread title and your wording in the post's text to "tier" whether you like the term or not. Or at least make up a term that won't be confused with an established term that has a different meaning than the one you intend here. And explain in the opening post what you mean by the term you make up.
I think you could also clear things up if you would list some criteria for what makes a place more or less "city" than another place. Judging by the examples you've used of places you rank as high on the "city" scale, even if they are small cities, you're placing a heavy emphasis on population and/or built density. If that's your main criterion, fine for the purposes of a thread you create for the discussion you wish to pursue, but I'd say there is a lot more to a city than density.
For example, the importance of Los Angeles as a transportation and economic center, along with LA's wide-ranging offerings in arts, culture, entertainment, etc., have to count for a lot in considering how LA compares to, for example, Cincinnati, even though LA's amenities are scattered across the landscape while Cincy's are more centralized. Of course I'm talking about two cities on very different levels if a variety of criteria are compared, but my point is that I personally would be inclined to do exactly that--compare a wide range of criteria, not just the built environment.
In any case, I'll suggest that it may help move this thread along if you offer some detail about the criteria you are looking for in determining how "city" a city is.
Thanks for your thoughts.
For the bold part, this is what I'm getting at, essentially.
I'm not looking for numbers and stats to rule the day. Even though it seems, and partly is, a list of cities by population size, that isn't totally correct. Many people on this sub-forum (and other sub-forums as well) like to say that the things that are "city" (like rail transportation) only come with density and population. So it wouldn't surprise me if a majority of First World cities in America had higher populations than cities that are Second World.
But on the flip side, there are places that don't have the population numbers, but dominate other cities of larger populations in terms of being a "city". I'm more interested in those cities. Where are the places that fly under the radar because of size or location, or whatever, that actually out perform other larger places at being a "city".
That's why I told nei (to paraphrase) to not downplay Cambridge, MA and lump it into Boston. Even with a relatively small population, Cambridge still has features (of urbanity) that many cities 10x its size don't have.
Take this into consideration as an example (hypothetical) only:
You are an American. You are traveling to the state of Americana to stay a few days in the biggest city of Constitution City. Taking all of the other cities in America into consideration, how would Constitution City rank in terms of "urbanity"?
Does Constitution City have:
- A robust and comprehensive transportation network?
- A layout of roads, sidewalks, etc. that enables or even promotes multiple modes of transportation?
- A zoning plan that encourages multiple (or redundant) uses of a 'unit' of land?
- An aesthetic that screams "This is urban. This is a city"?
Does Constitution City have:
- A transportation system that works?
- A layout of roads, sidewalks, etc. that promotes and encourages people to favor one mode of transportation over another?
- A zoning plan that could encourage, but not demand, multiple (or redundant) uses of a 'unit' of land?
- An aesthetic that says, "This is urban. This is a city"?
Does Constitution City have:
- A transportation system that is barely adequate, if even existent?
- A layout of roads, sidewalks, etc. that demands one form of transportation be solely used?
- A zoning plane that discourages multiple (or redundant) uses of a 'unit' of land?
- An aesthetic that says, "This is a city by legal definition only"?
Those four things would be something for me to think about when ranking how "urban" or how "planned" a city is. Other people can have different preferences or different ideas as to what makes a city the most "city". But those four things are a jumping off point for anyone hung up on the noun "World" in this thread's title.
Alpha, Beta, and Gamma would cause confusion too. The OP is including every municipality in the U.S. that is incorporated as a city, even places that are very small towns in terms of population. Alpha, Beta, and Gamma are already accepted as terms used to refer to metropolises, not small towns. These terms also are used primarily to compare world cities, not only American cities.
Using these terms would run the risk of causing the same kind of confusion as first-, second-, and third-world. Since these are widely used terms that would be used differently here, people would likely become confused about which meaning applied in this thread.
I'm inclined to agree with ShampooBanana. If the OP is interested in a good discussion about this topic, it's time for a new thread, one where the OP is clear about terminology, and about criteria for comparing cities.
I would start a new thread, but many things like it have been created in the city v.s. city sub-forum ad nauseum. And even if I did start a new thread, I highly doubt I would get what I'm asking for in this thread.
Pretend I did start a new thread based on 3 tiers, with an A, B, and C sub ranking for each tier. I'm pretty sure that would devolve into a "population" game, or a "density" game, or an amenity "game, etc... and that's not really suited for this sub-forum.
I posted this here (Urban Planning) instead of the "General US" or "City v.s. City" forum because I didn't want it to turn into a D----------- measuring contest of pure numbers.
Nuanced Numbers? Okay.
Applied Numbers? Sure.
A discussion predicated by raw numbers? NO.
If this based on built environment, from my experience, places like Ithaca NY, Oswego NY and East Lansing MI may be surprises in the 1st World due to walkability and public transportation. Oswego is very interesting due to the fact that it has late night taxi service that is pretty cheap due to the presence of SUNY-Oswego. It also has public transportation that connects to Syracuse and the Regional Transportation Center there. Centro Oswego
I'm not certain I buy into the idea of tiers because they could be constructed using different criteria. Tiers imply that there is some sort of graduated scale with values placed on less or more of something. You might choose transportation while someone else might choose education, health care or public safety. You might place NYC and Washington DC on the same tier based on one measure or another but they don't seem to be similar to me in reality. Cities or urban planners may not place the same value on the criteria.
Most places are captives of their geography or environment. New Orleans, Juneau, Key West or San Francisco could be extreme examples of that. Maybe Cambridge is a captive of its proximity to Boston. Those places reflect the things that they place a high value on and come up with different solutions or at least different approaches to their existence as an urban entity. Perhaps you could look at how well they meet their own recognized goals based on numbers or some other measure but I don't think that a tiered comparison works.
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.
