Tiers of US cities

[Twin Cities]

Actually the Detroit had 5 in the Fortune 100

Dow

Delphi

Kmart

Ford

General Motors

Like I said earlier,  Ford & General motors are so significantly larger than the combined total of the Fortune 1000 in Minneapolis, it easily bests the Twin Cities in this area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't include Kmart because everyone knows it's no longer based in Troy. Also, isn't Dow Chemical based in Midland, MI, which isn't even in the Detroit metro.

[monsoon]

...... but who really cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you did make 10 posts on this subject in the last 1.5 hours.

But you are correct this a thread on opinions, and we all know that opinions are worth. Still it is good to hear them.

[monsoon]

I didn't include Kmart because everyone knows it's no longer based in Troy.  Also, isn't Dow Chemical based in Midland, MI, which isn't even in the Detroit metro.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am going by the Fortune 500 listing which is the source cited.

[Twin Cities]

Charlotte has 4 Fortune 100 companies also.  Same as Minneapolis. 

Charlotte has 7 Fortune 500 companies.  For comparison, San Francisco only has 6.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL!! Now you're saying Charlotte should be in the same ranks as Minneapolis and even San Francisco. Charlotte has a long way to go before it can be thrown in with the likes of San Francisco.

[Twin Cities]

I am going by the Fortune 500 listing which is the source cited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dow Chemicals is based out of Midland.

CEO: William S. Stavropoulos

Address: 2030 Dow Center

Midland, MI 48674

Phone: 989-636-1000

Website: http://www.dow.com

[Twin Cities]

Well you did make 10 posts on this subject in the last 1.5 hours.   

But you are correct this a thread on opinions, and we all know that opinions are worth.  Still it is good to hear them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it kinda sucks having to defend yourself. I shouldn't have to, espeicially when some troll is accusing me of smocking crack and when another brings up a mall.

[SmellyCat]

LOL!!  Now you're saying Charlotte should be in the same ranks as Minneapolis and even San Francisco.  Charlotte has a long way to go before it can be thrown in with the likes of San Francisco.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point is that you can tier cities many different ways. There is no right answer or method. If you were ranking world cities, would you include Mexico City and Sao Paolo as Tier 1 and Paris as Tier 2 just because of the huge population disparity? Or why would Chicago and LA even be in the same Tier as NYC when NYC is twice as big and has four times as many Fortune 500 companies?

It's all very subjective and therein lies the intrinsic argumentative nature of this topic!!!

[monsoon]

Well, it kinda sucks having to defend yourself.  I shouldn't have to, espeicially when some troll is accusing me of smocking crack and when another brings up a mall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You indeed correct about having to defend your opinion.

[Twin Cities]

^ BTW, what were you looking at as a source for the Dow Chemical company?

[mjcatl2]

There are several ways to look at cities, but let's face it, the top cities are the most cosmopolitan and well rounded. They have plenty of arts and other cultural activities, colleges and universities, amenities (dining, sports, other social) and yes are business centers as well.

I haven't been through this long thread much, but clearly NYC, LA, SF, DC, Boston, Philly and Chicago are well beyond other American cities.

Of course you have sunbelt cities that have exploded in population, but the cities haven't quite grown up yet. Atlanta is the business center of the South and a metro of 4.5 million, but arts are not a priority. In fact an important intangible of cities is character. Much smaller Savannah has plenty, Atlanta has little. Atlanta is Dallas is Houston is Phoenix.

Hot cities with most in 'burb content with their Cheesecake Factories and token overpriced city neighborhood du jour.

Dallas-Ft Worth has over 5 million now, but we never, have the city-like atmosphere of Boston or Philly. Mostly because they grew up so fast that they are millions living is cul du sacs, not neighborhoods.

I don't mean this to bash these cities, but it is the reality.

[benjamin]

Sorry monsoon, but i just dont think Atlanta is on the same level as Charlotte or Sacramento. Not even close. In terms of banking, Charlotte may be high, but in everything else Atlanta is on a higher level than all these cities. I think it goes with your tier 2 cities. Atlanta is huge buisness wise, and on top of that is continuosly booming in that area as well. Check out the 50 hottest cities list on one of these boards. Atlanta has 12 fortune 500 companies. In terms of recognition, Atlanta is definetly nationally known and Atlanta definetly has world focus. Anyone here agree?

[bobliocatt]

I probably had a list when this thread first began, but I'll try again. Here it goes.

Tier 1 -

NYC

Tier 2 -

Los Angeles

Chicago (Distant 3rd)

Tier 3 -

Washington DC (leads the pack)

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas

Detroit

Boston

San Francisco

Houston

Atlanta

Tier 4 -

Who cares?

[monsoon]

^  BTW, what were you looking at as a source for the Dow Chemical company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Opps I messed up on that one. I incorrectly placed it in Detroit.

[monsoon]

Sorry monsoon, but i just dont think Atlanta is on the same level as Charlotte or Sacramento. Not even close. In terms of banking, Charlotte may be high, but in everything else Atlanta is on a higher level than all these cities. I think it goes with your tier 2 cities. Atlanta is huge buisness wise, and on top of that is continuosly booming in that area as well. Check out the 50 hottest cities list on one of these boards. Atlanta has 12 fortune 500 companies. In terms of recognition, Atlanta is definetly nationally known and Atlanta definetly has world focus. Anyone here agree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No argument about the comparisons to Charlotte. But that doesn't mean Atlanta is a tier 2 city either. Try comparing it to Chicago or one of the other cities in the list. Atlanta doesn't even have 5M in its metro which was my cutoff.

[benjamin]

No argument about the comparisons to Charlotte.  But that doesn't mean Atlanta is a tier 2 city either.  Try comparing it to Chicago or one of the other cities in the list.  Atlanta doesn't even have 5M in its metro which was my cutoff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can see what your saying, but I think that it blends in a lot more with the tier 2 cities than the tier 3 cities. Its like having to put tomato in the fruit group. It cant technically be a vegetable but everyone knows it is. Putting it with the fruits just doesn;t look right.

[LeTaureau]

OK, I'm convinced to take a stab at this:

Tier 1 (world renowned, premier destination)

NYC (stands alone)

Tier 2 (world renowned)

LA

Chicago

Tier 3 (in order of importance)(Known to most in world, big regionals)

Washington DC

San Francisco

Boston

Philadelphia

Miami

Tier 4 (big regionals)

Houston

Atlanta

Dallas

Detroit

Seattle

Baltimore

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

San Diego

Tier 5

blah blah blah

I based most of my rankings on intrinsic qualities such as culture, image, familiarity and position in the global economy. When using Metro region populations, F 500 companies, its too easy to blur the lines.

[Twin Cities]

I based most of my rankings on intrinsic qualities such as culture, image, familiarity and position in the global economy.  When using Metro region populations, F 500 companies, its too easy to blur the lines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I took into consideration F 500 companies, private companies, cultural and educational facilities, immigration, GMP, international airport statistics and in my opinion, came up with a descent list. I may have messed up on Detroit's placement, but overall, I think it's fairly accurate.

[benjamin]

I took into consideration F 500 companies, private companies, cultural and educational facilities, immigration, GMP, international airport statistics and in my opinion, came up with a descent list.  I may have messed up on Detroit's placement, but overall, I think it's fairly accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well i doubt fortune 500 counted much in your ranking considering some of your tier 3 cities have much more f500 companies than your tier 2 cities.

[monsoon]

well i doubt fortune 500 counted much in your ranking considering some of your tier 3 cities have much more f500 companies than your tier 2 cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You really need to put a sock in the Atlanta boosterism and stop criticizing forumers who don't put Atlanta in tier 2. Make your own list and say why you did.

Why can't some people grow up.

[PghUSA]

On the Atlanta thing I can see how some put it on tier 3 when taken alone but it does have another dynamic (to which some don't agree) of regionalism. I know thats a whole other debate. Something to be said though of the Denvers and Chicagos and Atlantas and Miamis of the world in that they seem to be the big brothers of the Salt Lakes, Milwaukees, Birminghams, Tampas etc. It's where the government offices are located (U.S. District courts, Fed Reserve branches, VA Hospitals etc.) and where the major biz deals for the region get done (more companies have "regional" offices in those first cities I've mentioned). True the old hub and spoke regionalism because of cheaper airfare, more upward mobility, the internet etc. etc. isn't what it used to be, but thats why I would put an Atlantas, Denvers and Miamis, in a higher tier. Interested in the other opinions on this.

[benjamin]

You really need to put a sock in the Atlanta boosterism and stop criticizing forumers who don't put Atlanta in tier 2.  Make your own list and say why you did.

Why can't some people grow up.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find that interesting coming from you. Only because you seem to boost Charlotte and put down everyone else's cities more than anyone else. You are of course entitled to your own opinion though. I'm fine with people not putting Atlanta in tier 2, but if it seems to not fit right, I will question why this is. I'm not lying when I say although I talk about Atlanta hella more than any other city, this is only because I live here and im interested in the city where I live. I do not think Atlanta is some great city and its definetly over-rated. However, in some cases it is underated and that is when I feel i need to question it.

[Twin Cities]

well i doubt fortune 500 counted much in your ranking considering some of your tier 3 cities have much more f500 companies than your tier 2 cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of the tier 3 cities have more F 500 companies than Chicago. Some do have more F 500 companies than Los Angeles, but they aren't at the same level of importance as Los Angeles is so, that's why they're tier 3. Hell, the Minneapolis area has more F 500 than most of the tier 3 cities and I think it has just as many as the Los Angeles area, but I placed it where it belongs - tier 4.

[Twin Cities]

I'm fine with people not putting Atlanta in tier 2, but if it seems to not fit right, I will question why this is. I'm not lying when I say although I talk about Atlanta hella more than any other city, this is only because I live here and im interested in the city where I live. I do not think Atlanta is some great city and its definetly over-rated. However, in some cases it is underated and that is when I feel i need to question it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What sets Atlanta apart from the other tier 3 cities? Think of how Chicago and Los Angeles influence the rest of the country. Do you honestly think Atlanta has reached that level of importance? I don't want to argue about this. I'm just curious as to why you think Atlanta deserves to be placed above other tier 3 cities.

[PghUSA]

Not too sure about the history of this thread, but seems like its getting kinda hot with a vs. mentality.

Not to put any more fuel on the fire here, I really do like these conversations on what makes a city what it is, is it more "hub status" or F500s or the arts, culture, recreation? To put it politely I'm no big fan of Atlanta but I do think some things are being overlooked on it. It is the HQ and "hub" for the "regional bell" system, BellSouth hubs all of its IT and technology links through Atlanta, so technologically Atlanta is probably 2nd only to the triangle region in the south. The Federal Reserve bank has its southern hub in Atlanta, it looks after the rest of the south (including Miami) on the CPI and other economic issues, ensuring the value of the money in your bank account.

Airlines that fly in the south tend to hub (not 100% by any means) in Atlanta in that way its the regions Dallas or Chicago or LA. Atlanta is the only metroplex in the south save Dallas/FW and Miami/Ft. Lauderdale (and in a way those are unfair comparisons because both those metros have two downtowns and two International Airports etc.) anyway its the only metroplex in the south to have teams in all four major sports, and has had a presence in three of them for nearly 40 years now (as well as the old Atlanta Flames NHL franchise in the 70s and 80s). There is a reason the combined NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB looked at Atlanta as their sports "gateway" to the south in the 1960s as they looked at Dallas, Denver, SF/LA and Seattle in their respective regions.

I do feel that Denver and Atlanta are the weaker among "regional hubs" when compared to Dallas, Chicago, LA, SF and maybe even Seattle. Only stating that I could understand ones reasoning when including Atlanta in the higher or lower tiers. To me technology (Bellsouth), finance (Fed), and sports tends to be measuring sticks, I do think that if you look at other areas Atlanta could be lower on the list. Interested in hearing what reasons you feel are best when considering tiers and how cities place with your measurements

[benjamin]

Well actually Twin Cities, I wasn;t refering to your list when i made the comment about atlanta. I was refering to monsoon's. sorry for the confusion. Anyways regardless of how Atlanta compares to cities like SF Seattle, New York, the important part to me is how it is viewed nationally. The only reason why I say it is sometimes underated is because of comments like that of PGHUSA saying that Atlanta was lower when compared to Seattle? How? Atlanta has a bigger metro, more buisness, and more booming buisness. I think that if you were to take a poll of the entire nation on how cities should be listed in order of importance, recognition and all that other good stuff it would be something like this....

New York City

LA

Chicago

Washington DC

Philadelphia

San Francisco

Boston

Dallas

Houston

Detroit

Miami

Atlanta

Seattle

Minn/St paul

Phoenix

Denver

Thoughts?