The more important city: Washington, DC VS Los Angeles (raise, parks, California)

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, that's why I like GAWCs 2004 ranking.

It relegates Political clout to its rightful place, as a category by itself.

Well, two issues with that: one, is that it is a global ranking, whereas we're talking here about which city is more important to the U.S.--so it's answering a different question. But secondly, and more importantly, what is meant by "politics"? How can you assign a level of value to a city that, for instance, plays host to a significant number of regulatory agencies that, with a single declaration, and indelibly alter the operational landscape for huge swaths of our nation's economy?

I just don't think that you can--I don't think such things are quantifiable. Or, if they are, I've never seen anyone do them. DC as a city is an economic powerhouse in its own right, but DC as an institution wields power that is greater than that. There's nothing commensurate to it in LA, Chicago, New York or other cities. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's more or less important than those cities, only that the difference isn't necessarily measurable.

One final thought about that list: I think the world of San Francisco, but it's no Paris, and any list which places the two cities on equal footing is suspect IMHO.

[john_starks]

where's the "tie" option?

they both control the media in their own way

DC will always be in the news and LA will always be on ET

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Chasva69

^ 2004 was awhile ago. L.A. is in serious decline from what I've read recently. Job losses, outward migratation of the middle class, severe budget problems, low student achievement in the schools. Then of course you have the smog, traffic congestion (which is very bad in DC as well), high taxes and all of that. It is a behemouth in size which accounts for its economic clout on that survey, but I note that it didn't come out tops in any category, unlike D.C. which was tops in political/social.

See he's at least proving what he says with a source. I was doing that when i was arguing in the first few pages of this thread too, I got tired of it with common street logic coming out of all the others with no proof.

It shows cultural and global interactions. Los Angeles is not on a decline in that.

[BigCityDreamer]

The thing about DC is that it has benefitted tremendously from a very fortuitious set of circumstances in recent history. After the allied victory in WWII, the U.S. became a dominant player on the world stage. But it was challenged for decades by the vast power and reach of the Soviet Union. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. became the unchallenged superpower in the whole world. Basically, that meant that the U.S. capital city began to assume a role that was so enormous in scope and influence that the likes of which have arguably not been seen in history.

[Caymon83]

It seems like the 2 side keep talking past each other.

The LA side keeps bringing up GWAC and the other lists.
While the DC side points to it's role as the nation's capital.

IMO, These are 2 different things.

GWAC and the others don't account for national govt institutions.

GWAC measures "advanced producer services" with some sublists for things like social and political influence (ie. NGOs and Embassies).

But, there is no attempt to count govt bodies, such as finance ministries, central banks, foreign ministries, tax bodies, bank regulators, etc.

For example, the Fed in DC is the most important financial institution in the world and yet it doesn’t show up in any of the GWAC rankings. Same with the FDIC, CIA, HHS, etc.

If the State Department where to become an "architectural firm" and the Treasury Department where to become an "accounting firm" DC's ranking would rise.

Maybe this is justified? But, these lists largely sidestep the issue of how to account for gov. Which is what the DC side is basing its claim on.

[Caymon83]

Sorry my post was long, so I broke it up:

Perhaps there can be some consensus between the 2 sides:

1) DC (the city), minus the federal government, is basically a "beta" city, like Bos or Atl and below the "supercities" LA, CHI, NYC.
An MSA of 5-8 million vs. 15-20mil. GWAC basically illustrates that.

2) However, if you are debating DC (the capital) vs. LA. It becomes a whole different animal. Then it becomes Obama vs. Spielberg. GWAC and the others city lists become irrelevant.
I think pretty much everyone would agree on the first and at least the majority (based on the poll) would also agree on the 2nd.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Caymon83

Sorry my post was long, so I broke it up:

Perhaps there can be some consensus between the 2 sides:

1) DC (the city), minus the federal government, is basically a "beta" city, like Bos or Atl and below the "supercities" LA, CHI, NYC.
An MSA of 5-8 million vs. 15-20mil. GWAC basically illustrates that.

2) However, if you are debating DC (the capital) vs. LA. It becomes a whole different animal. Then it becomes Obama vs. Spielberg. GWAC and the others city lists become irrelevant.
I think pretty much everyone would agree on the first and at least the majority (based on the poll) would also agree on the 2nd.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

You're absolutely right, because I do agree with the first one. And you're right, most who voted opposite of Washington DC wouldn't agree with the second one, in which I don't.

But that was a nice post regardless.

[Chasva69]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

The thing about DC is that it has benefitted tremendously from a very fortuitious set of circumstances in recent history. After the allied victory in WWII, the U.S. became a dominant player on the world stage. But it was challenged for decades by the vast power and reach of the Soviet Union. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. became the unchallenged superpower in the whole world. Basically, that meant that the U.S. capital city began to assume a role that was so enormous in scope and influence that the likes of which have arguably not been seen in history.

umm... roger that. So D.C. is more important than L.A.?

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by Chasva69

umm... roger that. So D.C. is more important than L.A.?

For now, I'll still go with the overall global city rankings. That's until it's possible to measure more accurately the comparative importance of DC vs. LA on such a global scale. Plus, it's the only way for me to be objective because I happen to be a long-time native of the DC area. :-)

[Chasva69]

Originally Posted by Caymon83

Sorry my post was long, so I broke it up:

Perhaps there can be some consensus between the 2 sides:

1) DC (the city), minus the federal government, is basically a "beta" city, like Bos or Atl and below the "supercities" LA, CHI, NYC.
An MSA of 5-8 million vs. 15-20mil. GWAC basically illustrates that.

2) However, if you are debating DC (the capital) vs. LA. It becomes a whole different animal. Then it becomes Obama vs. Spielberg. GWAC and the others city lists become irrelevant.
I think pretty much everyone would agree on the first and at least the majority (based on the poll) would also agree on the 2nd.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

But it is somewhat difficult to consider D.C. "minus the federal government" because it was created as a federal enclave by the founding fathers to be the home of the government. If you look at the 23d Amendment to the Constitution, it is referred to as "the District constitutiing the seat of government of the United States." The city kinda filled in around that later on. Interestingly D.C. citizens do not have voting rights in Congress so that indicates how different it is from other cities. So I look at the poll thru the lense of #2.