Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, this is kind of a tricky one. I think the difference is that DC's power is really more an manifestation of the nation as whole, rather than the city itself. As America's power in the world fades, DC's power also fades. If the capital moved then DC's power would collapse over night.
Obviously, NYC gains enormously from being part of the US. NYC is the world's main financial/media "capital" because it's the US's financial/media capital.
But on the whole, New York's power is less dependent on the aggrregate power of the US. Its more like London, the UK's influence has waned over the past 60 years, but London has managed to reinvent itelf as one the world's 2 or 3 major global financial and cultural capitals.
I think it all goes back to the point that DC is unique and really has no basis for comparison.
What if all the foreign governments and teachers' unions stopped giving their money to Wall Street hedge funds to invest?
Or what if federal dollars stopped going towards developments in aerospace technology?
I can't think of one American city that is not dependent on the aggregate power of the United States. True, tax dollars go into Washington, which pays the bills for civil service employees, but tax dollars from South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Colorado go into California, and pay employees at federal contractors such as Northrup and Lockheed Martin in California. Everyone's power depends on somebody else. Even a dictator's power depends upon the consent of his subjects.
You could argue that DC is the most "important" place in the United States based on the fact that it's the seat of power. However, take that one factor away and DC is not really bringing much to the table. DC is politics and government, take those out of of the equation and its nothing, really. So in that context, DC is more important to the country and world. Economically Dc feeds off the government, and military and defense establishments which are a huge money maker. The Bay Area is the financial hub of the west coast, tech capital but also features defense contractors, oil and gas companies, ect so I would say it wins that battle. Lifestyle and entertainment is up subjective so its up to the individual. Culture, hands down the Bay Area.
bay area the financial hub of the west coast; LA is. By a matterfact if it were not for Las vegas and LA than the west coast would just be like any other coast. The two that puts a shine on the west coast is LA and Las Vegas
Oh well, because I hate my job, I suppose I'll vote and post something anyway.
Importance - DC, because of the govt
Prestige - San Fran because of culture, uniqueness, etc.
Economy - Tie (I believe these are pretty close, but San Fran has more of what I do)
Lifestyle - San Fran
Entertainment - Tie
I'm going with SF here because I think that SF has a unique environment that DC does not have. DC has a lot more than politics, but politics certainly has it's signature written throughout the area. I like SF's unique culture and vibrancy, as well as its natural setting.
I don't want to get into the "most important" thing again. We just did that with DC v. L.A, and as I recall DC won in the poll.
But let me say certain types of people will be drawn to DC, and certain other types to SF.
If you're interested in politics, or get a job with the federal government, you will likely spend time in DC. For folks with those interests, DC is the place.
I'm going with SF here because I think that SF has a unique environment that DC does not have. DC has a lot more than politics, but politics certainly has it's signature written throughout the area. I like SF's unique culture and vibrancy, as well as its natural setting.
Can't really argue with this. I'd like to think the Mrs. and I will end up in SF someday, we both really love the city.
bay area the financial hub of the west coast; LA is. By a matterfact if it were not for Las vegas and LA than the west coast would just be like any other coast. The two that puts a shine on the west coast is LA and Las Vegas
I think you're not very intelligent if you believe that there's nothing of importance in DC other than the government. If you think that, you obviously know nothing about the city and haven't been to DC in the past few years. There are A LOT of great things about the city. It has some of the best neighborhoods in the city, much better nightlife than SF in my opinion, has great parks, some of the most urban suburbs in the country, top tier colleges and more culture than most cities. There are people here from all over the world.
SF has the better weather, scenery, and safety, but is nowhere near as unique or culturally vibrant as DC.
Most unique Cities IMO:
Detroit
DC
Chicago
Philly
New Orleans
Baltimore
St. Louis
Miami
Atlanta
Oakland
NYC
Houston
Dallas
LA
SanFran
Elaborate , in detail, why SF is not culturally vibrant and what Dc offers culturally over SF? My guess? Nothing. On a city -city basis or a metro basis SF crushes Dc on culture.
Diversity
Music
Dining
Festivals and events
Local bar and club scene
Museums
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not
