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.
NYC is not only the most important city in USA, but it's the most important city in the WORLD. With Londom being the only other city with us.
Your definition of "influence" is contemporary and that's why people laugh at L.A because the "facts" you guys bring to the table have no substance.
It's mostly L.A natives/people who want to live there/people who just love that place (which there's nothing wrong with that) who believes L.A has an influence on everything and dominates anything. Ha your post made my day.
Its a GREAT American city, but when you say in the world?! HA It's not even on Par with Chicago.
LOL agreed on all fronts. You should see one point he made, or all his posts they are so unrealistic. He made one about LA being mass producer of porno flicks and how that is important industry here in this thread. How that is respectable (of LA) is beyond me.
Thats same point I make NY doesnt look to anyone as competition aside London and smaller scale Tokyo. Thats it, no LA on radar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur
Another export from Los Angeles to the world is pornography; one of the largest industries in America!
In population..probably not. But in overall economic power and importance, definitely. People are fleeing California while Texas is one of the fastest growing states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
I see it happening on economy, but LA has so many people right now, and the Inland Empire is so close. I don't think Houston population wise is gonna catch up anytime soon
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Scholar
Economically wise Yes, not population wise!
Fleeing is probably too strong of a word. There are many people leaving, but there are still many more staying put. Meanwhile, there are still quite a few people coming in. Its growth in population isn't nearly as dramatic as before, but its still a lot of people being added.
Is Los Angeles gross product actually lower on a per capita basis than Houston's right now? I somehow doubt that. LA is taking a lot of punches with several major corporations having left in the last two decades, but taken as a whole, LA is still an economic powerhouse that dwarfs Houston (a function of its much larger population, of course, but still significant). Houston's much higher growth doesn't necessarily mean a much stronger economic presence than LA and it will still take quite a while of either the intensifying or sustaining of current growth patterns for Houston to really beat Los Angeles economically. Meanwhile, there are other factors such as cultural influence, mass media, education & research, name recognition, etc. that Los Angeles has heads and shoulders above Houston at this point (and probably for at least the near future).
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuddedLeather
This really made me LOL.
NYC is not only the most important city in USA, but it's the most important city in the WORLD. With Londom being the only other city with us.
Your definition of "influence" is contemporary and that's why people laugh at L.A because the "facts" you guys bring to the table have no substance.
It's mostly L.A natives/people who want to live there/people who just love that place (which there's nothing wrong with that) who believes L.A has an influence on everything and dominates anything. Ha your post made my day.
Its a GREAT American city, but when you say in the world?! HA It's not even on Par with Chicago.
NYC being the most important city in the world is a bit misleading (and along the lines of what he said about LA)--the fact is there are so many prominent cities now that no single city has that much more influence over the world than other prominent cities. This holds true for the world as it does for within just the US.
Also, I'm not sure why LA isn't on par with Chicago overall. Less fortune 500 headquarters, of course, but that's not the only significant measure.
NYC being the most important city in the world is a bit misleading (and along the lines of what he said about LA)--the fact is there are so many prominent cities now that no single city has that much more influence over the world than other prominent cities. This holds true for the world as it does for within just the US.
Also, I'm not sure why LA isn't on par with Chicago overall. Less fortune 500 headquarters, of course, but that's not the only significant measure.
Show me some evidence that NYC as anything but the #1 most important city in the world...
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,041,021 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Is Los Angeles gross product actually lower on a per capita basis than Houston's right now? I somehow doubt that. LA is taking a lot of punches with several major corporations having left in the last two decades, but taken as a whole, LA is still an economic powerhouse that dwarfs Houston (a function of its much larger population, of course, but still significant). Houston's much higher growth doesn't necessarily mean a much stronger economic presence than LA and it will still take quite a while of either the intensifying or sustaining of current growth patterns for Houston to really beat Los Angeles economically. Meanwhile, there are other factors such as cultural influence, mass media, education & research, name recognition, etc. that Los Angeles has heads and shoulders above Houston at this point (and probably for at least the near future).
By CSA yes, its per capita is higher than Los Angeles's actually, but so is Chicago, Boston, & Washington DC (Being higher per capita than Los Angeles). The problem is Los Angeles has a good GDP by MSA, but Riverside adding in another 4-5 million people contributes a tiny amount (relative GDP to massive population added ratio) to the CSA GDP. That hurts Los Angeles by quite a bit.
Los Angeles CSA: 866 Billion
Houston CSA: 403 Billion
Los Angeles CSA: 17 Million people
Houston CSA: 6 Million people
GDP isn't the main factor and theres just so many metrics involved in it. I agree with what you said, give Houston a decade or two and let its economy morph into a more solid base. Its still pretty liquidated since its expanding rapidly. It needs to cool off and stabilize to normal rates. So I say we should give it a while before saying officially, since Los Angeles has been a longer established economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Also, I'm not sure why LA isn't on par with Chicago overall. Less fortune 500 headquarters, of course, but that's not the only significant measure.
I would say they are side by side. Chicago ranks just a tad bit higher, but they are pretty even in importance. Both exponentially less then New York City though.
And to TOMFORD. I'm going to respond to your post later tomorrow or something.
NYC being the most important city in the world is a bit misleading (and along the lines of what he said about LA)--the fact is there are so many prominent cities now that no single city has that much more influence over the world than other prominent cities. This holds true for the world as it does for within just the US.
Also, I'm not sure why LA isn't on par with Chicago overall. Less fortune 500 headquarters, of course, but that's not the only significant measure.
Misleading or fact?
Let me google that for you (http://tinyurl.com/35xjbvs - broken link)
And if you don't feel like searching through the list. . . .
ALPHA WORLD CITIES (A++)
London, New York
ALPHA WORLD CITIES (A+)
Paris, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai
ALPHA WORLD CITIES (A)
Milan, Mumbai, Madrid, Moscow, Toronto, Kuala Lumpur, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Seoul
ALPHA WORLD CITIES (A)
Warsaw, Jakarta, Sao Paulo, Zurich, Mexico City, Dublin, Amsterdam, Bangkok, Taipei, Rome, Istanbul, Lisbon, Chicago, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Vienna, Budapest, Athens, Prague, Caracas, Auckland, Santiago
Let me google that for you (http://tinyurl.com/35xjbvs - broken link)
I stand by my statement.
Yes, and there are other rankings that show roughly the same (but not exactly--try reading their methodologies; I'm pretty sure the same source, using a different methodology, had LA ranked in the same tier as Chicago in a previous year while there are also other global city rankings that have LA above are equal to Chicago). It doesn't change what I said though: there are so many prominent cities right now that there is no single city that truly dominates over all others. There is no unipolarity. There is no world primate city. There are cities that are more prominent than others, but there is no real "most important city" that eclipses all others.
ha ha, you sound full of ca ca, giving lame corrections on here. if your city is all that, why are YOU on here? lol, you are so full of crap it is funny. no wonder no one reps you.
Because it was 1:00am and I was in my room. I've been out enjoying myself all day today
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.
