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.
Thanks! It's a super subjective thing but fun to see where there's been recent movement and chat with others to determine the harder ones. It's pretty shaped by personal experiences as not many of us have spent lots of time in most of these cities.
To answer some of your questions:
The Seattle, Atlanta, Miami tier I think is the last tier that you could call 'national importance' vs regional, but I still feel like Boston and Philly are a tier above due to legacy transit/culture/museums/etc, and Dallas and Houston due to their population and synergy with the Texas Triangle. Atlanta I do see as next up into that tier, and I almost broke out Dal/Hou as their own tier in-between.
Baltimore, yeah you right, I bumped it to the Denver tier, but it's definitely just hanging on compared to a couple others in that tier (and might eventually get replaced by a Charlotte or Portland type).
The next couple tiers are tough and really depend on the criteria. Each have relative strength in certain areas. I did some shuffling and broke out another tier with some of your suggestions.
NYC
LA
SF, DC, CHI
BOS, PHI, DAL, HOU
MIA, SEA, ATL
DEN, PHO, MIN, DET, SAN, BAL
POR, TPA, ORL, CLT, PIT, STL, AUS
NASH, SAC, CLE, CIN, SATX, KC, LVA
SLC, IND, MKE, OKC, RVA, RNC, CBUS, NOLA
If Mia, Seattle and Atlanta tier is the list of nationally important cities then Detroit 100% needs to be in that tier. It is definitely a national and not just a regional city. None of the other cities you listed it with have key industries like Detroit, and the transnational border crossing are one of the most important in the country.
I feel like Pittsburgh and Cleveland should be in the same tier. Cleveland is not more important than Pittsburgh and vice-versa despite what the unabashed Cleveland "homers" on here like to proclaim. I live in Pittsburgh and love (like really love) Cleveland. With that being said despite having a smaller population Pittsburgh still punches slightly above its weight whereas Cleveland punches about where it should. Therefore they should be peer cities.
I feel like Pittsburgh and Cleveland should be in the same tier. Cleveland is not more important than Pittsburgh and vice-versa despite what the unabashed Cleveland "homers" on here like to proclaim. I live in Pittsburgh and love (like really love) Cleveland. With that being said despite having a smaller population Pittsburgh still punches slightly above its weight whereas Cleveland punches about where it should. Therefore they should be peer cities.
They may be peers but Pittsburgh is leading whatever tier they are in while Cleveland is near the rear. I also really enjoyed Cleveland, would go there again. Really interesting city. Pittsburgh is much more dynamic and easier on the eyes to boot, Pittsburgh has the presence of a larger city. Cleveland doesn't...
And again, for the sensitive Clevelanders, I really enjoyed Cleveland. But there's a gap between the two...
Pittsburgh tier of cities
Charlotte, Austin, Portland, Tampa, Orlando, St Louis, Las Vegas, Oakland
Pittsburgh is somewhere in this group, I'd slide it between Orlando and St Louis...
Cleveland tier of cities
Nashville, Cincinnati, San Antonio, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Sacramento, San Jose, Columbus, Fort Worth, Newark
Cleveland is somewhere in this group, I'd probably have it between Columbus and Fort Worth...
The interesting thing is: ISTR that Cleveland had more residents at its peak than Pittsburgh did at its peak, and both have lost about half of their peak populations.
Back then, I would have placed both on the same tier. But Pittsburgh has reinvented itself more than Cleveland has (sorry, Case Western Reserve University).
The interesting thing is: ISTR that Cleveland had more residents at its peak than Pittsburgh did at its peak, and both have lost about half of their peak populations.
Back then, I would have placed both on the same tier. But Pittsburgh has reinvented itself more than Cleveland has (sorry, Case Western Reserve University).
I spent about 4 days in both, in the same week, and while they feel comparable in size Pittsburgh is grander. It just has a more overbearing presence as a place, its a brighter city, and maybe this is all due to what you said about how it reinvented itself in a way Cleveland hasn't...
^
That's because this list is from over 15 years ago, so it doesn't factor in any growth that these cities have undertaken. If I compiled the top tiers today (blue indicates a city that's moved up, red a city that's dropped, and bold some revisions to the comment description):
*1 AAAAUnique rating for New York New York City
*1-AAAUnique rating for Los Angeles and Chicago (although if trends continue, Chicago could be demoted to 1-AA a decade from now)
*1-AA Major national business centers (secondary global business centers): Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. (13 cities)
*1-A Other national business centers: Austin, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland , Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, Portland, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Diego, and Tampa (18 cities)
*2-AA Major regional business centers: Albany, Albuquerque, Allentown, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Boise, (a two-category jump), Buffalo, Charleston, SC, Columbia, Des Moines, El Paso, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Hartford, Honolulu, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Lexington, Little Rock, Louisville, Madison, Memphis, New Haven, Norfolk, Omaha, Orlando, Providence, Raleigh, Richmond, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Spokane, Tucson, Tulsa, West Palm Beach, and Wichita (36 cities)
*2-BB Secondary major regional business centers Akron, Baltimore, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Worth, Oakland, St. Paul, St. Petersburg, San Jose, and Wilmington
Cities from 2-AA that have dropped to 2-A (Other regional business centers): Dayton, Jackson, MS, Peoria, Rochester NY, Shreveport, Springfield MA, Syracuse, Toledo, Youngstown
Cities from 3-AA (Major significant local business centers) that have moved up to 2-A (Other regional business centers): Asheville, NC, Huntsville, AL, Tyler, TX
Cities from 2-A that have dropped to 3-AA: Evansville, IN, Flint, MI, Huntington, WV, Rockford, IL, Saginaw, MI
It's hard to take this list seriously when it ranks San Jose below such illustrious economic powerhouses like Albany, Allentown, Harrisburg...seriously?
San Jose is the 10th biggest city in the country and home to Silicon Valley and some of the most expensive real estate in the country to boot. Why does it have such an inexplicably low ranking? I've lived in or near both San Jose and Albany for multiple years, and putting Albany above San Jose is laughable.
It's hard to take this list seriously when it ranks San Jose below such illustrious economic powerhouses like Albany, Allentown, Harrisburg...seriously?
San Jose is the 10th biggest city in the country and home to Silicon Valley and some of the most expensive real estate in the country to boot. Why does it have such an inexplicably low ranking? I've lived in or near both San Jose and Albany for multiple years, and putting Albany above San Jose is laughable.
Look at every other city in category 2-BB.
All of them save Wilmington, Del., are larger than Albany and Allentown, and all of them are larger than Harrisburg.
However, all of them are also located close to — and with the exceptions of Baltimore and San Jose, in the same metropolitan area as — a larger and more important or older and more established center of business and financial activity.
San Jose and Baltimore may be metropolitan centers in their own right, but both of them sit in the shadow of larger nearby ones, namely, San Francisco/Oakland (note that Oakland is also in this category) and Washington.
Of those cities, the only one that has what I would call a noteworthy financial sector is Wilmington, thanks mainly to the liberal usury laws that made it along with Sioux Falls, SD, a center for bank credit-card operations. The banks themselves, however, are all headquartered elsewhere. Silicon Valley may be awash in money (and tech VC angel funders), but the banks (including the Federal Reserve Bank for the entire Pacific coast) are up the peninsula in SF.
That's why San Jose is a secondary regional rather than a primary regional or national business center. Those three smaller metros are at least the dominant business centers of their particular regions (yes, that includes Allentown despite its proximity to Philadelphia, thanks in part to geography; however, the lines between the Delaware and Lehigh valleys are blurring). And in the case of both Albany and Harrisburg, they are the capitals of their respective states, which elevates them above the status they would otherwise have. (St. Paul doesn't benefit from this because Minneapolis is right next door; they are the co-core cities of their metro. But again, the banks [and the Fed]are in Minneapolis rather than St. Paul.)
San Jose and Baltimore may be metropolitan centers in their own right, but both of them sit in the shadow of larger nearby ones, namely, San Francisco/Oakland (note that Oakland is also in this category) and Washington.
By that logic Philly should be a 2BB city to NYC
I can’t speak on SF/Oaklands relation with SJ but Baltimore & DC (and their metros) functional more or less entirely independent of each other and have since the inception of the MSA designation. They are functionally, culturally and economically different regions and should be treated as such.
I can’t speak on SF/Oaklands relation with SJ but Baltimore & DC (and their metros) functional more or less entirely independent of each other and have since the inception of the MSA designation. They are functionally, culturally and economically different regions and should be treated as such.
I don't disagree with your characterization of Baltimore vis-a-vis DC. Until the Federal government exploded in size after World War II, moreover, the economic importance of the two cities was reversed from what it is now.
The reason Philadelphia doesn't fall into a "2-BB" bucket is because it and New York have been rivals more than big/little brothers or core/satellite for most of their existence, and even though New York began to eclipse Philadelphia around 1800, the city remained an epicenter of several activities and fields and still remains one now.* On that score, I would say that the person who objected to San Jose's placement in this category does have a point, given its status as a tech epicenter, but I suspect Rand McNally does give more weight to finance and government than many of us might, especially given where it put those smaller capital cities of large states.
*And in contrast, I'm not sure what I can call Baltimore an epicenter of now other than shipping. It certainly had a bigger heavy industrial presence than Philadelphia, whose claim to fame in the industrial era was its dazzling array of small manufacturing enterprises, but industry has been depreciated in this country (and wrongly so, one could argue). It's that heavy-industrial character, btw, that IMO makes Baltimore a very poor fit as a "Southern" city (and by extension Maryland not all that "Southern" a state).
Edited to add: Physical distance may also come into play here. All of those cities in category 2-BB are 50 miles or less away from the other nearby large city. Absent traffic, you could drive between all of the pairs within an hour. By contrast, Philadelphia and New York are about twice that distance apart; they meet simply because their hinterlands have grown so large.
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.
