U.S. City tiers of importance(Rand McNally)City Rating System. (best, comparison)

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

I was referring to San Jose and Akron being on the same level. Was it that hard to figure out?

And the Warriors play in Oakland.

Yea, I was surprised/embarrassed by how many people missed your point...

Anyway!

The list seems relatively accurate, but I think they should have broken it down into more levels. The gap between San Francisco and Cleveland is way too large for them to be considered on the same level.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

Ranally city rating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

city rating descriptionExamples (* indicates a complete listing)1-

*1 AAAAUnique rating for New York New York City

*1-AAAUnique rating for Chicago and Los AngelesChicago, Los Angeles

*1-AA Major national business centers Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (13 cities)

*1-A Other national business centersBaltimore, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, and Seattle (14 cities)

*2-AA Major regional business centersAlbany, Albuquerque, Allentown, Austin, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Buffalo, Charlotte, Columbia, Dayton, Des Moines, El Paso, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Hartford, Honolulu, Jackson, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Las Vegas, Lexington, Little Rock, Louisville, Madison, Memphis, Nashville, New Haven, Norfolk, Omaha, Orlando, Peoria, Providence, Raleigh, Richmond, Rochester, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Shreveport, Spokane, Springfield, MA, Syracuse, Tampa, Toledo, Tucson, Tulsa, West Palm Beach, Wichita, and Youngstown (48 cities)

*2-BBSecondary major regional business centersAkron, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Worth, Oakland, St. Paul, St. Petersburg, San Jose, Wilmington

hmmm....Pittsburg, St. Louis, and Minneapolis on the same level as SF, BOS, HOU, DAL, ATL, PHIL, ad DET???

Based off the criteria they used to come up with this list; I disagree with that and I'd expect to see SF a tier higher.

[MacGruber]

Originally Posted by grindin

I don't understand how Cleveland ranks above Seattle, but whatever...

Maybe you should read about how the rankings are compiled and what they mean.... but whatever...

\\The Ranally city rating system is a tool developed by Rand McNally & Co. to classify U.S. cities based on their economic function. The system is designed to reflect an underlying hierarchy whereby consumers and businesses go to a city of a certain size for a certain function; some functions are widely available and others are only available in the largest cities.
The system was developed for Rand McNally by geographer Richard L. Forstall and released in 1964. The city rankings are updated periodically in the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, an annual two-volume set, which is available in many libraries. Among the criteria for categorization are retail sales, newspaper circulation, and the presence of universities and hospitals and corporate headquarters. The size of the city's tributary area is critical to determining whether it will be rated a 2, 3, or 4. As of 2006, there are 1492 cities rated.




And I didn't know city-data was full of Econ Graduates lmao

[Caymon83]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

Ranally city rating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

city rating descriptionExamples (* indicates a complete listing)1-

*1 AAAAUnique rating for New York New York City

*1-AAAUnique rating for Chicago and Los AngelesChicago, Los Angeles

*1-AA Major national business centers Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (13 cities)

*1-A Other national business centersBaltimore, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, and Seattle (14 cities)

*2-AA Major regional business centersAlbany, Albuquerque, Allentown, Austin, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Buffalo, Charlotte, Columbia, Dayton, Des Moines, El Paso, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Hartford, Honolulu, Jackson, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Las Vegas, Lexington, Little Rock, Louisville, Madison, Memphis, Nashville, New Haven, Norfolk, Omaha, Orlando, Peoria, Providence, Raleigh, Richmond, Rochester, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Shreveport, Spokane, Springfield, MA, Syracuse, Tampa, Toledo, Tucson, Tulsa, West Palm Beach, Wichita, and Youngstown (48 cities)

*2-BBSecondary major regional business centersAkron, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Worth, Oakland, St. Paul, St. Petersburg, San Jose, Wilmington

Overall, it looks like a pretty good list for business centers. But, maybe a little dated. I would probably move CLE, STL, and PGH down to A.
Then I would move SEA and probably PHX up to AA.

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

hmmm....Pittsburg, St. Louis, and Minneapolis on the same level as SF, BOS, HOU, DAL, ATL, PHIL, ad DET???

Based off the criteria they used to come up with this list; I disagree with that and I'd expect to see SF a tier higher.

Just going off the criteria, Minneapolis definitely belongs with those cities. The Minneapolis area is home to more fortune 500 companies than the Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Detroit, Pittsburgh and St. Louis areas and has several large, private companies including the country's largest. The Minneapolis Star Tribune also has a larger circulation than the Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

It's very odd that they would rank St. Paul below cities like Des Moines, Orlando, Omaha, Knoxville, Little Rock etc..

Anyway, back to the jluke's post. If I were to rank the cities you mentioned into tiers, I would rank them as follows:

Tier 3
San Francisco
Boston
Houston
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Dallas

Tier 4
Minneapolis
Detroit
Pittsburgh

Tier 5
St. Louis

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

And the Warriors play in Oakland.

Wilt Chamberlain played for the "San Francisco Warriors" before they moved across the Bay to Oakland and became "Golden State Warriors". Wilt Chamberlain played for the San Francisco Warriors 1959-1965.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Wilt Chamberlain played for the "San Francisco Warriors" before they moved across the Bay to Oakland and became "Golden State Warriors". Wilt Chamberlain played for the San Francisco Warriors 1959-1965.

Actually the Warriors didnt didnt move from Philadelphia to SF until 1962, he played for the Philadelphia Warriors prior to that. He returned to his hometown Philly to play for the Sixers from 65 to 68 before becoming a globetrotter

On the hoops front Kobe and Wilt are both from Philly

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Actually the Warriors didnt didnt move from Philadelphia to SF until 1962, he played for the Philadelphia Warriors prior to that. He returned to his hometown Philly to play for the Sixers from 65 to 68 before becoming a globetrotter

On the hoops front Kobe and Wilt are both from Philly

True, but he did play for the Warriors in San Francisco at least 3 years. 1962-1965.

[st. louie louie]

Rand McNally has a staff of people, all kinds of information available, computers, calculators, pencils and whatever else is needed to rank these cities based on certain criteria. And here on CD some people will argue that Rand McNally is wrong. They base their opinion on...their opinion. Do I even assume that people have read the books put out by Rand McNally?

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

True, but he did play for the Warriors in San Francisco at least 3 years. 1962-1965.

Yes but Wilt is WAY WAY more associated with Philly than SF

Unlike Kobe from Philly who is more associated with LA now