The WP is deconstructing the "algorithm" that led to the short list:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...TX0?li=BBnbfcN
I'm thinking they're overvaluing the first criterion and undervaluing the third. It shows up in the cities they think qualify but got left out.
If anything, business climate and quality of life issues outweigh the raw numbers they put so much weight on. Once a modern city exceeds the minimum critical mass for a metro area added growth is as much a minus as a plus, which is one of the points the critics of the contest raise: for many of the contenders, taking on the promised 50,000 employees (plus the feeder businesses that might follow) will stress the local infrastructure and might end up costing more than the added jobs are worth once the incentives are factored in.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
(There's other criteria in play.)
Toronto and Philly might still sneak in.