U.S. City tiers of importance(Rand McNally)City Rating System. (quality, NYC)

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

How do you put Baltimore at #19 for “influential”? I’d put it in the “B” tier, not the “B+” tier.

Baltimore has had a lot more influence overtime than any of the B cities ever have. B+ is a solid justification for the B

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by masssachoicetts

Baltimore has had a lot more influence overtime than any of the B cities ever have. B+ is a solid justification for the B

In which case, I'd argue that Pittsburgh should move into the B+ tier with Baltimore. Don't forget that it's a historic center of finance (the Mellons) as well as a (former) center of steelmaking, and its role as a financial center really hasn't diminished (PNC Bank has supplanted the Mellons, whose bank merged with Bank of New York).

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by masssachoicetts

Baltimore has had a lot more influence overtime than any of the B cities ever have. B+ is a solid justification for the B

I’m talking about now. Baltimore is invisible other than having an NFL team and the worst MLB team.

[g500]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

How do you put Baltimore at #19 for “influential”? I’d put it in the “B” tier, not the “B+” tier.

Size, location, urban grid (Baltimore is so dense and walkable), history, port access, and it is the #1 city in its state.

I admit Baltimore at #19 and Pittsburgh at #28 is the absolute MAX spread allowable between these two. My list is supposed to be static and already reflects any other factors. I am definitely NOT saying Baltimore is almost A-, I cut the tier there for a reason.

I can definitely see Pittsburgh at #27 though.

Better question, GeoffD, who should be above Baltimore then? Tampa, Portland, Austin, Charlotte, St. Louis?

Btw, don't take my rebuttal here as snippy in any way, I genuinely love these discussions and comparisons and appreciate your opinion. Maybe I do have Baltimore too high. But who outrank s it? I could only see Portland and maybe Austin.

[g500]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

I’m talking about now. Baltimore is invisible other than having an NFL team and the worst MLB team.

I disagree here. Baltimore is always brought up in discussions about crime and policing. Like when people start ranting about politics they always being up Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis.

Baltimore is sort of the step child of the Northeast corridor. It does get overshadowed. But its proximity to the largest and most powerful does help it in ways.

I feel my ranking is justified. I feel Baltimore receives plenty of positive attention outside of sports. National Aquarium, Zoo, Edgar Allen Poe, USA National Anthem, major port during 1700's-1800's, Under Armor, the harbor. It has a major sized economy too. Lot of old money/stately mansions along the harbor.

You can't say Baltimore is invisible. In 2015 it was probably one of the most discussed cities for the year in the entire country after the Freddie Gray incident. The city was featured in the tv series The Wire.

Btw, I am NOT in any way opening the door to discussing politics here. I'm just saying Baltimore is still highly relevant. Nearby Annapolis MD is super posh, has the Naval Academy. Not sure but I think Annapolis is just outside Baltimore's orbit though.

I'm sticking with my original comment. I like my ranking and I could really only see Portland or Austin outranking Baltimore and that's if you more heavily weight future outlook and name recognition. Really I could see a case for Portland.

Anyway just my two cents. Baltimore is so urban too, look on Google satellite view, Baltimore is a massive pile of concrete. That has to count for something.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by g500

Size, location, urban grid (Baltimore is so dense and walkable), history, port access, and it is the #1 city in its state.

I admit Baltimore at #19 and Pittsburgh at #28 is the absolute MAX spread allowable between these two. My list is supposed to be static and already reflects any other factors. I am definitely NOT saying Baltimore is almost A-, I cut the tier there for a reason.

I can definitely see Pittsburgh at #27 though.

Better question, GeoffD, who should be above Baltimore then? Tampa, Portland, Austin, Charlotte, St. Louis?

Btw, don't take my rebuttal here as snippy in any way, I genuinely love these discussions and comparisons and appreciate your opinion. Maybe I do have Baltimore too high. But who outrank s it? I could only see Portland and maybe Austin.

I’d just slide it down to the middle of your “B” grouping. Maybe one above Pittsburgh since Johns Hopkins is a slightly better university than CMU. I think your rankings and grouping is really accurate other than Baltimore. I’d certainly put Austin, Charlotte, and St Louis above it for various reasons. Charlotte is now a banking center. St Louis is the regional powerhouse. Austin is now tech. I guess you could debate Charlotte since it lacks the top university but the presence of two enormous national banks counterbalances that to some degree.

[atadytic19]

Originally Posted by g500

See My Blog Entries:1 above and to the right for my Top 200 USA Urban Areas. I do research and update this list almost daily. I always appreciate ANY feedback by DM's or directly on my Blog for ways to improve my list.

Anyway here is my attempt at grouping/ranking the Top 50.

Most Influential USA Urban Areas
Tier A+++
1. New York City

Tier A++
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago

Tier A+
4. Washington, D.C.
5. San Francisco
6. Boston

Tier A
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Dallas
11. Miami
12. Seattle

Tier A-
13. Detroit
14. Phoenix
15. Minneapolis
16. Denver
17. San Diego
18. San Jose

Tier B+
19. Baltimore
20. Charlotte
21. St. Louis
22. Tampa
23. Portland
24. Austin

Tier B
25. Orlando
26. Las Vegas
27. Kansas City
28. Pittsburgh
29. Cleveland
30. Cincinnati
31. Columbus
32. Indianapolis
33. San Antonio
34. Nashville
35. Milwaukee
36. Sacramento
37. New Orleans

Tier B-
38. Raleigh
39. Salt Lake City
40. Riverside
41. Memphis
42. Jacksonville
43. Louisville
44. Norfolk
45. Oklahoma City
46. Providence
47. Richmond
48. Honolulu
49. Buffalo
50. Omaha

San Francisco is influential by itself, but I don't think it is as influential as the nation's capital without San Jose.

Boston is not as influential as the nation's capital.

Chicago is certainly not a tier above DC in influence.

New York is the only city as (or more) influential than the capital.
DC should be #2 in Tier A+++ or at the top if Tier A++.

Without San Jose imo San Francisco should be just a Tier A city. I know a lot of posters would want to see SF higher, but I don't think it's stature is that high without SJ. Without SJ, SF still packs a punch. It leads the A+ group in GDP, but the A group has GDPs not far behind. However, this is about influence and not just economics. And although I would say that SF is more influential that the tier A cities, what puts it in a Tier above them is the added push of silicon valley.

Apart from that, this is a pretty solid list.

[g500]

Originally Posted by atadytic19

San Francisco is influential by itself, but I don't think it is as influential as the nation's capital without San Jose.

Boston is not as influential as the nation's capital.

Chicago is certainly not a tier above DC in influence.

New York is the only city as (or more) influential than the capital.
DC should be #2 in Tier A+++ or at the top if Tier A++.

Without San Jose imo San Francisco should be just a Tier A city. I know a lot of posters would want to see SF higher, but I don't think it's stature is that high without SJ. Without SJ, SF still packs a punch. It leads the A+ group in GDP, but the A group has GDPs not far behind. However, this is about influence and not just economics. And although I would say that SF is more influential that the tier A cities, what puts it in a Tier above them is the added push of silicon valley.

Apart from that, this is a pretty solid list.

Hmmm. Well I guess the issue with SF and SJ is this. A lot of tech companies are located between them in places like Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountainview. So which bookend gets custody? My feeling was SF receives the bulk since it was the preeminent urban and financial hub of the entire West, historically speaking.

As far as DC. Yes you are correct it groups weird. Personally I'm not a big fan of these tiered structures because the beginning and ending cities always have arguments and issues. I much prefer a standard chronological list and let the reader decide where the markings lie. That being said, I can still appreciate the exercise and do not wish to detract from this thread. I think you can nicely tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Nashville, Milwaukee, New Orleans. Likewise you can also tier Louisville, Richmond, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Memphis. That works.

Problem is, cities function very differently from each other. How can I juxtapose Memphis and Riverside, CA together in a tier? Very few similarities between the two.

You can also have similar functions but different stature/scale. A good example might be Boston and Portland ME (New England ports). Or New Orleans and Savannah (Southern ports, Confederate-era urban centers), or even DFW Metroplex and OKC (Sunbelt Great Plains cities with a scale difference of 4-5x). That's probably a simple way of saying it, but functionally-speaking you could make these comparisons.

Thanks for the accolades, I've worked on this list for over a year, almost daily. It's certainly not perfect. Well I can say with certainty #1 through #1 is perfect NYC (lol).

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by g500

You can also have similar functions but different stature/scale. A good example might be Boston and Portland ME (New England ports).

I get your scale point where Portland is the major city for tiny Maine and Boston is the major city for non-Fairfield County New England but the port function is an insignificant part of their economies. It’s a poor comparison in general since Boston is a tech, biotech, education, and medical powerhouse globally in addition to being the regional (and insignificant compared to NYC) regional finance center. Portland has flyover country economics. Health care. Public sector. No large university. Other than being on salt water, it’s not a good comparison to Boston. Without tourism, Portland would look like any small flyover city.

[g500]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

I get your scale point where Portland is the major city for tiny Maine and Boston is the major city for non-Fairfield County New England but the port function is an insignificant part of their economies. It’s a poor comparison in general since Boston is a tech, biotech, education, and medical powerhouse globally in addition to being the regional (and insignificant compared to NYC) regional finance center. Portland has flyover country economics. Health care. Public sector. No large university. Other than being on salt water, it’s not a good comparison to Boston. Without tourism, Portland would look like any small flyover city.

Geoff, true. I just meant in terms of wealth, built environment, prestige. Portland does look like a mini Boston when it comes to geography, layout. But yes you are correct, structurally New Haven is a much better example of a small-scale Boston (different tiers).