I disagree as well. I am flabbergasted that anyone would rank San Diego among the ranks of other cities in Tier 5. Seems this post was in frustration. I do agree with a post that said SD's biggest problem is that it doesn't have a strong identity... without a unique identity it is lumped in with the rest of SoCal and LA.

I would say most people would find that list way off and not just putting San Diego at the bottom either. This is not how the rest of the country views San Diego. Nor do most people view San Diego in the same light as the OC "living in the shadows of LA". I have to regard views such as this as being overly negative and highly unfair to the city.

That said, you did say it was only your opinion and if that's how you feel I respect your right to it.


Without getting into complete details on that list I will say from the beginning with "tier 1" you're in trouble because you'll find no one in New York thinking LA is remotely close to their standards as a city. To New Yorkers they are the center of the universe and everyone else is a very distant second. Having lived in both cities I would have to agree that LA is miles below New York as a city.

I'll also add that I've found that people that live in or around San Diego tend to be far more critical of the city than those outside of it.

I have a lot of friends from around the country that would love to be "stuck" in our poor "second class" city. A few of them are from New York too. Lol.


It's just my opinion too but I find there's a bit to much "boo hoo, poor us" attitude from the locals here at times. Try to have some perspective on things.
It's a great city in many ways that much of the country would kill to live in.

From your list, it's not that hard to make an argument for San Diego to be a 'Tier 5' city. Especially when you compare the assets and importance other cities above it have in comparison. It's also not that hard to move San Diego up a class so to speak.

It really depends on what you consider to be characteristics of an 'international metropolitan' city.

The biggest challenge San Diego faces is that it's 3rd chair in CA behind LA and San Fran. There is always going to be some amount of benefit from being the biggest city in the state or even the second biggest. A perfect example of the downside of this is the light rail plan. It makes zero sense to make any other line but LA to San Diego the first line of consideration but yet LA to San Diego is way down the list.

If California were cut in half, I think San Diego would explode in a good way.

My list is below and I really think it's 3 groups. In the 3rd group, I think there is only 3 cities that have the potential to jump up a class in the next 20 years. Those are Seattle, Denver and Charlotte.

Nothing wrong with being a 3rd tier unless you're trying to pretend like your not.


Tier 1
NYC
LA

Tier 2
Chicago
Washington DC
San Francisco
Boston
Dallas
Philly
Atlanta
Houston
Miami

Tier 3
Seattle
Detroit
Phoenix
Minneapolis
Cleveland
Denver
Charlotte
San Diego
St. Louis
Tampa
Kansas City
Pittsburgh
Portland
San Antonio
Orlando
Jacksonville
Nashville
Sacramento

Obviously it's subjective, but looking at these cities for what they are I feel like SD has more in common with the Portlands or Nashvilles than it does with Denver or Minneapolis. Those cities have major international airports, vibrant cultural/arts opportunities, multi-pro sports franchises, etc. San Diego may have been the emerging economic locale 20 years ago, but it has since missed the boat.

Regarding how the average American views San Diego, according to my informal research they view it as a charming beach community with a great zoo .

--------

For what it's worth, the Globalization and World Rankings Research Institute has San Diego lumped in with Seattle, Detroit, etc in the "Beta -" category, but this is a very broad view and even the pro-San Diegans on this board see the distinction between San Diego and these cities. Gamma+ is more appropriate.

http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/...-gamma-cities/

" how the average American views San Diego, according to my informal research they view it as a charming beach community with a great zoo . "



Ok, so that's an old cliché not just a part of your informal research.

Its used as a "go to" comment when someone wishes to put smack down on the city. It's not a nation wide perception, it's not true now and probably hasn't been since before the 1960's as the city has grown up. There are many better or equal " beach communities" in California than us and no one travels to San Diego just to see its zoo unless they are a zoo freak.

It reminds me of all the cliché remarks I heard while living in San Francisco about you must be gay because you live in a gay city like that was the beginning and end of what San Francisco was. Lol.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html

San Diego is ranked Beta - (same as Seattle, Abu Dhabi, and Shenzhen) in a 2012 study by GaWC, which ranks cities by their "effects on global affairs through socio-economic means."

Having been to San Diego many times, Portland, Seattle, Nashville and Denver recently, SD most definitely ranks with all of them, but slightly below Seattle. I would put San Diego as a solid tier 3 city

Just because it's cliché doesn't mean it's not what people think. Living in Dallas part time, I know it's a lot more than horses and cowboys, but that doesn't keep people from having that perception.

What do you think people think about San Diego?

Look at the 2015 version of their study.

From my Northwest perspective, I'd put San Diego higher than some of you. It has a great reputation for lifestyle. Obviously the Navy. Biotech is big. The Zoo. Conventions. But like Phoenix and Tampa, it's not known for its business or commerce role aside from biotech.

As for GAWC, the most overused study on SSP...do they still only measure local offices of global firms in four sectors (advertising, accountancy...?) and then attempt to extrapolate "influence" based on that?

This is a bit harsh. And I wouldn't say it's cliche because we are an excellent beach community and we have a "world class" zoo. To the general public, San Diego's branding is good weather and beautiful landscapes with tourist attractions. Watch any con-vis commercials promoting the city - it's beaches, pandas, Shamu and maybe the gaslamp. So, it's not cliche, it's our brand.

Agreed. And we don't have a major business or commerce role in either a national or global context, so that makes complete sense.

From a business perspective it's rep is being a biotech giant along with communications. I think both those industries here are well known outside our city.

Having one of the largest navy fleets in it also gives it a rep as a navy town.

Honestly most people I know want to visit the craft beer scene here or play at Torrey pines or hit the gaslamp on a weekend or watch the ponies at Del Mar or hit one of the many casinos or want to know how to get comic con tickets.

My point being there is a ton of stuff to do in the city for visitors.

Yeah we have great weather but so do a lot of other places in California that are less visited than San Diego. We also have a zoo as mentioned along with sea world, legoland,etc... For families too.

Being on Forbes and others lists regularly now as being a top 5 richest city has also given us that kind of rep.


So what are we known for to other cities? A lot of things well beyond good weather and a zoo. People outside of San Diego are always telling me how lucky I am to live here in such great weather with so many things to do.
I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about how lucky I am to be able to go to sea world or the zoo whenever I want. Lol

That's what I see and think.

A lot of those cities that you grouped San Diego in with or worse yet are listed above are worse for job opportunities and are boring towns to live in.

Oh yeah, their weather sucks too. :haha:


Just sayin'

I think the conversation above shows that defining a city by its "tier" is very subjective, depending on what people look at. If people are interested in weather and beaches we will rank higher than if people are interested in culture or global influence. A lot of this is our location within California and proximity to Los Angeles. Denver and Minneapolis are region hubs - Denver is the only major metro not just in Colorado, but in the Rocky Mountain region. Minneapolis is the same for the upper Midwest. San Diego really only serves San Diego County (maybe some of imperial county as well.). When people say "Southern California" they are more often than not talking about LA. I think San Diego is in a strange category, however. It's a city that ranks low but has certain assets that would make it seem like it should be higher - we have a natural harbor, we are on the Pacific Rim, we are adjacent to a major international border. But we are definitely low in terms of our network with the outside world. The insufficient airport, and the lack of a booming cultural base. We only have one consulate - Mexico - and no major governmental agencies beyond local with the exception of the West U.S. regional HQ for the military. The military is also a paradox - one would think this would raise our status since the military is a nation entity that has strong ties internationally, but the problem is it seems to hinder other sectors. We see this with the refusal to touch Miramar. Another problem is the military is very transient. People are sent here from other places and they don't really consider SD home. Many end up leaving and those who stay become part of our retired military population who seem very NIMBY-ish. The one thing I'll say to end on a more positive note is that we may not be a top-tier city, but we ARE continually improving. Our industries are diversifying beyond just the military, it seems like arts and culture is trying to blossom here, I still think it's exciting to live in a city that has its best days ahead of it instead of some of these other cities that tend to thrive on their history and not much else. Who wants to move to Philly, for example? Isn't it losing more people than it gains? Anyone who wants a top tier market in that region would just go to Boston or NYC. And look at SF. Is it really still what made it famous? Artists and counter culture people can't afford to move there anymore. It's becoming a whitewashed fortress for millionaires, I don't see the vibrant, diverse, carefree historical reputation existing there anymore.

2016 SD news
 

So for some 2016 news to start we have this:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/dec/28...xpects-record/


http://www.kusi.com/story/30854876/w...vention-center



This news should help a little at keeping the expansion talks moving forward. Not that they ever really stalled.

Also this was posted a few days ago about the CC possible expansion land.


http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...363687931.html



So one of the issues if you remember (although not really a legal one) was the continued walling off of the bay.

So it looks like that if they don't build the expansion there the land will still be used to build another high rise hotel anyway.

I saw this before, it makes Corey Biggs' maneuver seem completely counterproductive of what he claimed. A contiguous convention center expansion with a large public park on the roof opens the bay up to locals far more than a high rise hotel. The UT also reports today that his intitiative will be on the November ballot, not the June one. I hope the plan for a contiguous expansion can get off the ground before November and make his intitiative moot.

One thing I will say to add to the discussion about San Diego is having Tijuana so close adds an element of mystery and allure for the well seasoned traveler or those who like to explore. Culture and art are booming in Tijuana and its core is very dense. I was surprised when walking its Centro/Zona Norte that it has block after block of retail and fairly vibrant streets. Then you have a red light district so it is a fascinating place that is so easy to access but not always easy to return from :( Obviously no other US city has something like this sitting just 15 miles from its downtown area.

Regarding Briggs it is so obvious that he is working for JMI and John Moores to push his agenda of an annex and 1600 room hotel. The contiguous expansion will open up access to the bay not wall it off. His argument makes 0 logical sense. The land in question is a parking lot/loading dock wow that is such a big benefit to the public. Why the Union Trib doesn't call this like it is and say he is clearly working for Moores is beyond me.

I just counted (can see) 9 tower cranes in DT. from Coronado! Good to see so much progress occurring in DT.

I think it's Ballpark Village that has 3 cranes up? I thought it was 15th/Island phase II.