U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2010, 12:47 AM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,968,210 times
Reputation: 4086

Advertisements

Your belittlement of Los Angeles bared no logic and reasoning either, especially when people view it as high up as they do. Maybe you don't share these sentiments with them, but it is what it is. It's alot more powerful then you think it is. But hey, it's home to Hollywood. I swear, LA gets surpassed, and all of a sudden it didn't deserve to be ranked as high as it once was.SMH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2010, 12:56 AM
 
301 posts, read 545,590 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
So are we changing what we're arguing about now? You said you had a problem where Los Angeles is ranked? Am I correct? Than what are we arguing about? Industries? Yes, congrats, Chicago is has a larger diversity in industries, good. But fact of the matter is, Los Angeles is more diverse, has a larger trade base, and is more well known throughout the world than Chicago. Once again, if LA is ranked where it is, than why are you even arguing? To add, these global cites ranking change every year, ok Chicago finally overtook LA, looking at global influence LA is still seen as the 2nd most recognized and respected city in America. I'll give Chicago credit, it's improved. I mean, we can't judge per capita by everything. The NYC metro is FAR larger than any other metro, so it naturally has the highest GDP. And once again, how is LA just a tourist trap when it is ranked the 7th global city n this planet, and for years ranked AHEAD of Chicago? And once again, how is LA just a tourist trap? You've not provided an answer for that. Does Chicago finally being ranked number 6 make LA a tourist trap? Technically, if NYC finally for the 1st time in 20yrs received the highest amount of tourist(which it did this year, CONGRATS!!!) wouldn't that make NYC a tourist trap? And most world city surveys rank Los Angeles higher than Chicago in in power and influence, so much for being a tourist trap. But, I'll give the Chi credit, I just don't see where you go off being as condescending towards LA, after finally overtaking LA. As if LA has never been ahead of Chicago. Once again, LA is seen as more influential, and more powerful than Chicago is(although, you can say certain political influences, have helped Chicago in worldwide recognition)
I am done taking your posts seriously I dont know why I have for the past page, it is obvious I am talking to some ill informed person here.

This was the first post I responded
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluSpark View Post
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has a hand in the rankings. I have a sinking feeling that this may have influenced Chicago's place on the list.

Chicago (#6) is a great city but it failed in its bid to host the Summer Olympics. Los Angeles (#7) has hosted the Summer Olympics TWO TIMES (1932 and 1984).

LA also outranks Chicago by GDP and Size.

This is just a list so it's not a big deal...but I am feeling a little cheated.
I responded say this way
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost of Blasphamany View Post
Lets see here... you have a city that has a good economy then you have LA. You have a city with some of the best infrastructure in the world then you have LA. You think Olympics should be a weighted result to place a city higher, I guess by your logic LA > NYC in importance. I also guess Chicago recently overtaking LA in global cities and these rankings and their current economic conditions have nothing to do with these rankings. You have cities smaller than both and smaller GDP then both ranking higher than both.
LAs peer cities arent NYC, CHI, Boston, Philly, DC, SF, Houston, ATL, Dallas all those cities place emphasis on their economy and progression. LAs real peers should be Miami, Vegas, Orlando tourist traps and failed economies.

People from LA try to make that uncivilized pit out to be world class, go and take care of your illegal immigration problem first then come back to talk. K sparky?
Quote:
So are we changing what we're arguing about now?
No we are not. I simply corrected a poster and few posts later you jumped in with brainless logic.

Quote:
You said you had a problem where Los Angeles is ranked? Am I correct?
No are you blind? BluSpark said he has problem where LA was ranked. I simply stated how LA is sub tier Chicago. Learn to read.

Quote:
Yes, congrats, Chicago is has a larger diversity in industries, good. But fact of the matter is, Los Angeles is more diverse, has a larger trade base, and is more well known throughout the world than Chicago.
Has more trade base? Are you really this uneducated about the obvious? Chicago is the transportation center of the continent, try that for a "trade base".

Quote:
Chicago. Once again, if LA is ranked where it is, than why are you even arguing? To add, these global cites ranking change every year, ok Chicago finally overtook LA, looking at global influence LA is still seen as the 2nd most recognized and respected city in America. I'll give Chicago credit, it's improved. we cant judge per capita is everything
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "Okay I'll give credit to Chicago its improved" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Get a textbook or get online Chicago has always ranked above LA by GaWC and other rankings, almost always. So "finally overtook" really now? In Foreign Policy magazine but other rankings it has always been ahead of LA.
No per capita is important but not everything. Per capita is GDP and population result. But you have failed to tell me any economic point where LA is even competitive with Chicago. So basically this is a wash for Chicago to have the upper hand.

Quote:
The NYC metro is FAR larger than any other metro, so it naturally has the highest GDP. And once again, how is LA just a tourist trap when it is ranked the 7th global city n this planet, and for years ranked AHEAD of Chicago? And once again, how is LA just a tourist trap? You've not provided an answer for that.
Yes. You see reason now, NY is largest metro so its GDP is obviously largest, but for it to have high per capita it has done good job attracting creative class and high profile workforce. It spells how much richer NY is to LA.
No this is only 3rd year for Foreign Policy ranks. So LA ranked above Chicago for 2 years, but now Chicago ranks above LA and will continue to. LA has terrible economics which is why it is falling.

What part of it is not a tourist trap? I gave my personal experience where business in LA is a joke, one big corporate joke. They dont have means to keep any businesses there.
LAs economy is driven by tourism to, Anaheim outscores even LA as tourist destination. Theme parks, beaches, Hollywood studios, with countless other tourist areas are what make LA a tourists trap especially given how many of which are over priced and not worth the visit. Which makes it the "tourist trap". City of Chicago and NY also brings in more tourists then city of LA but more often than none it is not a tourist trap city as large portion of its economy does not rely on tourism as compared to LA.

Quote:
Technically, if NYC finally for the 1st time in 20yrs received the highest amount of tourist(which it did this year, CONGRATS!!!) wouldn't that make NYC a tourist trap?
No NY's economy does not rely on tourism as much as LA, Vegas, Orlando, Miami. So no it is not a "tourist trap".

Quote:
And most world city surveys rank Los Angeles higher than Chicago in in power and influence, so much for being a tourist trap. But, I'll give the Chi credit, I just don't see where you go off being as condescending towards LA, after finally overtaking LA. As if LA has never been ahead of Chicago.
What is wrong with you? I have shown you not just 1 but 7 different studies in which all of them put together Chicago is the more powerful world city. For all other rankings LA has never surpassed Chicago, look into the history of those and then come here and say "for finally overtaking LA". Foreign Policy is the only one where Chicago overtook LA, all others it has stayed above LA throighout its existence. So I dont know what youre talking about by saying "most world city surveys rank LA higher than Chicago" when I showed you 7 and that Chicago is ranked ahead. It has always been ahead of LA in all of those.

Quote:
Once again, LA is seen as more influential, and more powerful than Chicago is(although, you can say certain political influences, have helped Chicago in worldwide recognition)
Political influences? WTF are you talking about? Chicago has been dominating world scene before Obama you are a fool if you think that was the reason for Chicago higher than LA. LOL you are so ill knowledged it has made me laugh. How is LA more influential to the world outside of entertainment and sea port?
CME, Finance, Transportation, education, historically even Chicago has been more influentially to the world. Why dont you show me where LA is more influential to the world. Go on show me a link where it states LA is more influential than Chicago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Your belittlement of Los Angeles bared no logic and reasoning either, especially when people view it as high up as they do. Maybe you don't share these sentiments with them, but it is what it is. It's alot more powerful then you think it is. But hey, it's home to Hollywood. I swear, LA gets surpassed, and all of a sudden it didn't deserve to be ranked as high as it once was.SMH.
WTF how many times do people have to say this okay yes in Foreign Policy magazine Chicago overtook LA, but this is only 3rd year Foreign Policy has made lists. So Chicago has dominated the scene by this ranking for 33% of the time over LA and will continue to in future.
How many times do I have to tell you this, by ALL OTHER RANKINGS Chicago has ALWAYS stayed above LA, always. Not a day where LA outranked Chicago before in those other rankings. I belittle LA because it doesnt deserve praise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:08 AM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,968,210 times
Reputation: 4086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost of Blasphamany View Post
I am done taking your posts seriously I dont know why I have for the past page, it is obvious I am talking to some ill informed person here.

This was the first post I responded


I responded say this way


No we are not. I simply corrected a poster and few posts later you jumped in with brainless logic.

No are you blind? BluSpark said he has problem where LA was ranked. I simply stated how LA is sub tier Chicago. Learn to read.

Has more trade base? Are you really this uneducated about the obvious? Chicago is the transportation center of the continent, try that for a "trade base".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "Okay I'll give credit to Chicago its improved" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Get a textbook or get online Chicago has always ranked above LA by GaWC and other rankings, almost always. So "finally overtook" really now? In Foreign Policy magazine but other rankings it has always been ahead of LA.
No per capita is important but not everything. Per capita is GDP and population result. But you have failed to tell me any economic point where LA is even competitive with Chicago. So basically this is a wash for Chicago to have the upper hand.

Yes. You see reason now, NY is largest metro so its GDP is obviously largest, but for it to have high per capita it has done good job attracting creative class and high profile workforce. It spells how much richer NY is to LA.
No this is only 3rd year for Foreign Policy ranks. So LA ranked above Chicago for 2 years, but now Chicago ranks above LA and will continue to. LA has terrible economics which is why it is falling.

What part of it is not a tourist trap? I gave my personal experience where business in LA is a joke, one big corporate joke. They dont have means to keep any businesses there.
LAs economy is driven by tourism to, Anaheim outscores even LA as tourist destination. Theme parks, beaches, Hollywood studios, with countless other tourist areas are what make LA a tourists trap especially given how many of which are over priced and not worth the visit. Which makes it the "tourist trap". City of Chicago and NY also brings in more tourists then city of LA but more often than none it is not a tourist trap city as large portion of its economy does not rely on tourism as compared to LA.

No NY's economy does not rely on tourism as much as LA, Vegas, Orlando, Miami. So no it is not a "tourist trap".

What is wrong with you? I have shown you not just 1 but 7 different studies in which all of them put together Chicago is the more powerful world city. For all other rankings LA has never surpassed Chicago, look into the history of those and then come here and say "for finally overtaking LA". Foreign Policy is the only one where Chicago overtook LA, all others it has stayed above LA throighout its existence. So I dont know what youre talking about by saying "most world city surveys rank LA higher than Chicago" when I showed you 7 and that Chicago is ranked ahead. It has always been ahead of LA in all of those.

Political influences? WTF are you talking about? Chicago has been dominating world scene before Obama you are a fool if you think that was the reason for Chicago higher than LA. LOL you are so ill knowledged it has made me laugh. How is LA more influential to the world outside of entertainment and sea port?
CME, Finance, Transportation, education, historically even Chicago has been more influentially to the world. Why dont you show me where LA is more influential to the world. Go on show me a link where it states LA is more influential than Chicago.



WTF how many times do people have to say this okay yes in Foreign Policy magazine Chicago overtook LA, but this is only 3rd year Foreign Policy has made lists. So Chicago has dominated the scene by this ranking for 33% of the time over LA and will continue to in future.
How many times do I have to tell you this, by ALL OTHER RANKINGS Chicago has ALWAYS stayed above LA, always. Not a day where LA outranked Chicago before in those other rankings. I belittle LA because it doesnt deserve praise.
Here is is, it is from the same publication. They based it upon economic activity, political power, knowledge and influence and quality of life:Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LA ranked 5th in the world, Chicago ranked 11th. Once again, it is YOU, who does not think it deserves praise, but MANY publications, and researchers think otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:11 AM
 
301 posts, read 545,590 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Here is is, it is from the same publication. They based it upon economic activity, political power, knowledge and influence and quality of life:Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LA ranked 5th in the world, Chicago ranked 11th.
Nice and that is the type of argument I like to see from you Polo. I would not be out bashing you if you made more intellectual posts like that. But thats with Wealth, and entertainment appeal all brought in. LA does out do Chicago on cultural appeal. I will give you that much for sure.
But those same rankings Global Cities have placed Chicago in higher tier of Alpha. LA Alpha - and Chicago Alpha based off of the other criterias brought forth too.

I must give you props for that though Polo, very good work, and keep it like that instead of your other way of posting and I and others will take you more seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:22 AM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,968,210 times
Reputation: 4086
How is LA a corporate joke? I mean, I know it's not on the same level as NYC, but is it really that much of a joke compared to other cities.: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Beverly Hills), National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (Santa Monica), Hilton Hotels (Beverly Hills), DIC Entertainment (Burbank), The Walt Disney Company (Fortune 500 – Burbank), Warner Bros. (Burbank), Countrywide Financial (Fortune 500 – Calabasas), THQ (Calabasas), Belkin (Compton), Sony Pictures Entertainment (parent of Columbia Pictures, located in Culver City), DirecTV (El Segundo), Mattel (Fortune 500 – El Segundo), Unocal Corporation (Fortune 500 – El Segundo), DreamWorks (Glendale), Sea Launch (Long Beach), ICANN (Marina del Rey), Cunard Line (Santa Clarita), Princess Cruises (Santa Clarita), Activision (Santa Monica), and RAND (Santa Monica). It's the 3rd largest economic center in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:28 AM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,968,210 times
Reputation: 4086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost of Blasphamany View Post
Nice and that is the type of argument I like to see from you Polo. I would not be out bashing you if you made more intellectual posts like that. But thats with Wealth, and entertainment appeal all brought in. LA does out do Chicago on cultural appeal. I will give you that much for sure.
But those same rankings Global Cities have placed Chicago in higher tier of Alpha. LA Alpha - and Chicago Alpha based off of the other criterias brought forth too.

I must give you props for that though Polo, very good work, and keep it like that instead of your other way of posting and I and others will take you more seriously.
Yaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!! I'm ECSTATIC!!! I tamed the beast!!!(Just joking). All I was initially saying is, Is Los Angeles REALLY, REALLY as much of a joke of a city as you think it is? I mean, yes it has illegal immigration problems, YES it has pollution problems. But in terms of power and influence, Why is it so far fetched to think of it as the SECOND most powerful and influential city in the US, behind NYC, when it has the 2nd most diverse population, the 2nd highest population, the 2nd highest metro population, the 2nd highest GDP, and it's the 2nd most recognizable in the US? It really is the second city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:38 AM
 
301 posts, read 545,590 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Yaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!! I'm ECSTATIC!!! I tamed the beast!!!(Just joking). All I was initially saying is, Is Los Angeles REALLY, REALLY as much of a joke of a city as you think it is? I mean, yes it has illegal immigration problems, YES it has pollution problems. But in terms of power and influence, Why is it so far fetched to think of it as the SECOND most powerful and influential city in the US, behind NYC, when it has the 2nd most diverse population, the 2nd highest population, the 2nd highest metro population, the 2nd highest GDP, and it's the 2nd most recognizable in the US? It really is the second city.
Yes and you certainly do deserve credit for that. I thought earlier I was debating with 15 year old child. i respect those and only show respect to those who can debate on intellectual levels. Yes its true it is the 2nd most diverse and most recognizable US city. I cannot deny that. Hollywood really helps give it that boosting image.
GDP is only high because it has the 2nd largest population, in reality though the components of GDP lag behind that of Chicago's. I think argument for the second city can be made both ways though. Chicago is economically the 2nd city of US in many many regards by power and influence. But LA is culturally the 2nd city of US. I hope general consensus you and I agree with that. To say either is less than the other is blatant lie I presume. I admit to having slant views of LA as it should be the 2nd city of US but for Chicago to hang with LA and out do it in many regards shows a lot of weakness on LA. It is not a city I am fond of, but after reading this thread debate will not stop if I keep going this way. LA and Chicago tied for 2nd for things both out do others in, NY number one. Chicago for a reason ranks above LA overall though, something we cannot deny, we have to respect it and give it credit for being 2nd most powerful city economically but LA is culturally 2nd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
How is LA a corporate joke? I mean, I know it's not on the same level as NYC, but is it really that much of a joke compared to other cities.: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Beverly Hills), National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (Santa Monica), Hilton Hotels (Beverly Hills), DIC Entertainment (Burbank), The Walt Disney Company (Fortune 500 – Burbank), Warner Bros. (Burbank), Countrywide Financial (Fortune 500 – Calabasas), THQ (Calabasas), Belkin (Compton), Sony Pictures Entertainment (parent of Columbia Pictures, located in Culver City), DirecTV (El Segundo), Mattel (Fortune 500 – El Segundo), Unocal Corporation (Fortune 500 – El Segundo), DreamWorks (Glendale), Sea Launch (Long Beach), ICANN (Marina del Rey), Cunard Line (Santa Clarita), Princess Cruises (Santa Clarita), Activision (Santa Monica), and RAND (Santa Monica). It's the 3rd largest economic center in the world.
See that works both ways. Chicago has more Fortune 500 companies than LA. One could argue recognizable brands like McDonalds and others too. You know what I am saying right? It can go toe to toe for both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:38 AM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,968,210 times
Reputation: 4086
And By the way, I'm used to the insults, it's those poor, poor, cities that cannot defend themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:42 AM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,968,210 times
Reputation: 4086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost of Blasphamany View Post
Yes and you certainly do deserve credit for that. I thought earlier I was debating with 15 year old child. i respect those and only show respect to those who can debate on intellectual levels. Yes its true it is the 2nd most diverse and most recognizable US city. I cannot deny that. Hollywood really helps give it that boosting image.
GDP is only high because it has the 2nd largest population, in reality though the components of GDP lag behind that of Chicago's. I think argument for the second city can be made both ways though. Chicago is economically the 2nd city of US in many many regards by power and influence. But LA is culturally the 2nd city of US. I hope general consensus you and I agree with that. To say either is less than the other is blatant lie I presume. I admit to having slant views of LA as it should be the 2nd city of US but for Chicago to hang with LA and out do it in many regards shows a lot of weakness on LA. It is not a city I am fond of, but after reading this thread debate will not stop if I keep going this way. LA and Chicago tied for 2nd for things both out do others in, NY number one. Chicago for a reason ranks above LA overall though, something we cannot deny, we have to respect it and give it credit for being 2nd most powerful city economically but LA is culturally 2nd.



See that works both ways. Chicago has more Fortune 500 companies than LA. One could argue recognizable brands like McDonalds and others too. You know what I am saying right? It can go toe to toe for both.
Fair enough, fair enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,152 posts, read 961,876 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
Ill say the same thing I said in the other thread.

The issue to me is not whether Houston and Atlanta are more globally important than Dallas or Philly. That is a non issue to me.

What is an issue to me is that cities like Chongqing, Dublin, and Dhaka are on there. I have been to all three and done work in all three (never fly Biman Bangladeshi airlines by the way) and I can say comfortably that none of the above are as important as Dallas or Philly globally and economically.
Honestly, I do not know where to begin with this post because everything from start to finish is incorrect information.

First, there is an issue with Dublin being more important than Dallas? I would love to see a source claiming Dallas is more important than Dublin. This source does not exist. However, I could find another source on top of the current source listing Dublin above Dallas.

GAWC 2008 - Dublin is an Alpha-, Dallas is only a beta.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html

Second, where someone has traveled doesn't change the importance of a city. The importance of any city in the world can be researched through having basic internet access to find expert written sources discussing the importance of cities throughout the world.

Last edited by Gateway Region; 07-05-2011 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top