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.
It's the only quantifiable thing. So yes, I do place a great deal of importance on it. It cuts through a lot of the noise IMO.
Disagree, GDP is poised for inflation for any metro with large share in their largest industry, its nearly common sense. Even with NYC look at the difference from personal income to GDP, $400 billion is the difference in inflation from financial services, Houston $100 billion inflation, and SF $100 billion inflation. Dont get my intentions wrong, SF packs a punch and every place overstates GDP but its more common in areas with large drop offs in economic diversity (NYC, SV, Houston)
I can concede that Chicagoland, SF, and DC are all very close but Chicagoland is the second most prominent financial market in the western hemisphere and along with SF plays second to NYC in every corporate headquarter tale. IMO it comes down to size which is where DC and SF drop off from LA and Chicago, but for the sake of this thread I propose we can all agree on #2 in the country to be a hazy spot between all these competitive cities
My point has nothing to do with LA. I believe LA to be a clear #2 BTW.
All I'm saying is why does DC or Chicago get a free pass when claimed at #2 or #3, while we in the SF Bay get attacked? When clearly, we are in the mix when you look at blind #s.
Another perspective not tied to address of filed Financials and actual income generated to the area
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY
The Total Personal Income List 2009:
01. New York City: 998,776,802
02. Los Angeles: 551,271
03. Chicago: 418,929
04. Washington DC: 309,080
05. Philadelphia: 271,943
06. San Francisco-Oakland: 257,761
07. Houston: 255,635
08. Dallas-Fort Worth: 254,769
09. Boston: 246,471
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale: 229,380
11. Atlanta: 199,747
12. Seattle: 166,902
13. Detroit: 165,311
14. Phoenix: 149,611
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 149,594
16. San Diego: 139,345
17. Baltimore: 129,061
18. Riverside-San Bernardino: 124,004
19. Denver: 117,350
20. St. Louis: 114,127
21. San Jose: 101,926
22. Tampa: 101,045
23. Pittsburgh: 99,418
24. Portland: 86,822
25. Sacramento: 85,596
26. Cincinnati: 82,897
27. Cleveland: 82,288
28. Kansas City: 81,915
29. San Antonio: 71,489
30. Orlando: 71,458
31. Las Vegas: 71,275
32. Columbus: 68,907
33. Indianapolis: 66,850
34. Virginia Beach: 66,434
35. Providence: 65,291
36. Charlotte: 65,234
37. Milwaukee: 65,031
38. Austin: 60,568
39. Nashville: 60,548
40. Hartford: 59,402
41. Jacksonville: 51,533
42. Richmond: 51,065
43. Memphis: 48,094
44. New Orleans: 47,419
45. Louisville: 47,208
46. Oklahoma City: 46,525
47. Birmingham: 43,511
48. Raleigh-Cary: 42,611
49. Buffalo: 42,155
50. Salt Lake City: 41,805
51. Honolulu: 41,282
52. Rochester: 40,586
Another perspective not tied to address of filed Financials and actual income generated to the area
This list seperates SF and San Jose, two critical nodes of the Bay Area. You have to combine them along with important Bay Area counties like Napa and Marin, you will see the Bay Area shoulder to shoulder with DC and Chicago.
Once again, your wrong. Beautiful as those scenes may be and as familiar as they may appear, quite frankly its still not as distinct as San Francisco's unmistakable residential architecture.
Sorry.
I'm afraid that's only in your mind.
Quote:
But I give San Francisco the edge because its architectures is just so different from other US Cities whereas Paris' is not too different from other European cities as far as layout and even the designs have a similar look to them-even if they are still different.
Please show me cities around Europe that look like Paris. It has some of the most unique--and best--architecture in the world. I was originally scoffing at your claim of San Francisco being comparable to Paris...now you're saying it's architecturally better?! San Francisco may not even be a Top 5 architecture city in the United States...let alone better than Paris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Just saying...for all the dismissals of San Francisco-here were are, comparing San Francisco with Paris as far as so usually easy to decide as recognizability, and YET, both sides have incredibly valid points.
That speaks volumes about SF.
Have you been reading the posts of everyone not located in the Bay Area on this site? There is no San Francisco/Paris argument to anyone but you and Nineties Flava...two homers agreeing with one another doesn't make a "valid" argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Beautful but I prefer my old neighborhood, Camps Bay in Cape Town, South Africa.
And for all their flashy cars, the Bay Area is richer than Monaco too.
Come on now. Monte Carlo is arguably the richest area of the world. It's not even close...their GDP Per Capita is over $215,000. It's home to the most expensive street in the world, Avenue Princesse Grace, which fetches $120,000 per square meter. The second most expensive street, Chemin da Saint-Hospice, located in France about 15 miles away from Monte Carlo (it fetches a less impressive $100k/sq m). The difference between the Bay and Monte Carlo is that people live in the Bay and Monte Carlo is a destination for the ultra-rich.
With all due respect to you Rhymes with Best Coast, this entirety of the thread Ive viewed as disrespect to LA and Chicago two juggernauts in power and influence IMO
Inflation with GDP comes from boom and bust cycles, look at Houston or NYC for example at their boom periods both cities can add $120 billion to their economies of GDP in 1 year and in a bust cycle can lose the same amount in the same time. GDP is not a indicative size of an economy but rather the profitability of an economy during a boom-bust-cycle or a particular time period. I agree with you both LA and Chicago are closer to matching SF than are to NYC but given size alone for now I give LA and Chicago the green light over DC and SF, however that is needless to say changes can happen. DC doesnt get a free pass either no matter what DC homers seem to think, LA, Chicago, and NYC (even SF) have outranked DC in power index's before
This list seperates SF and San Jose, two critical nodes of the Bay Area. You have to combine them along with important Bay Area counties like Napa and Marin, you will see the Bay Area shoulder to shoulder with DC and Chicago.
with combinations the DMV is about 435 Billion and the bay at 360 Billion (the size of Philly (gasp) with Trenton added which is far closer than SJ to SF) and Chicago is at 418 Billion and LA with Riverside is at 675 Billion; SF is way behind LA on par with Philly and behind the DMV and Chicago
Just saying...for all the dismissals of San Francisco-here were are, comparing San Francisco with Paris as far as so usually easy to decide as recognizability, and YET, both sides have incredibly valid points.
That speaks volumes about SF.
I think Americans themselves dont know that their domestic view is very different from what people in other parts of the world think. This almost indignant notion of "Paris is great and world reknowned, so therefore San Francisco cant also be great and world reknowned" is really wrong.
And in that vein, I cant count on 5 fingers the number of US cities that could possibly compare with either Paris or San Francisco as far as this particular issue(worldwide recognizability).
Ummm no, you and a few boosters are comparing SF to Paris, everyone else is telling you that they don't compare.
With all due respect to you Rhymes with Best Coast, this entirety of the thread Ive viewed as disrespect to LA and Chicago two juggernauts in power and influence IMO
Inflation with GDP comes from boom and bust cycles, look at Houston or NYC for example at their boom periods both cities can add $120 billion to their economies of GDP in 1 year and in a bust cycle can lose the same amount in the same time. GDP is not a indicative size of an economy but rather the profitability of an economy during a boom-bust-cycle or a particular time period. I agree with you both LA and Chicago are closer to matching SF than are to NYC but given size alone for now I give LA and Chicago the green light over DC and SF, however that is needless to say changes can happen. DC doesnt get a free pass either no matter what DC homers seem to think, LA, Chicago, and NYC (even SF) have outranked DC in power index's before
Never any disrespect to our brothers in LA.
However, I wanted point out the double standard that is applied to SF whenever mentioned along the likes of Chicago and DC, when all along they have similar economic #s. The Bay Area claiming #2 may be a stretch, but #3 is not. That's all I'm saying.
However, I wanted point out the double standard that is applied to SF whenever mentioned along the likes of Chicago and DC, when all along they have similar economic #s. The Bay Area claiming #2 may be a stretch, but #3 is not a stretch at all. That's all.
Still a stretch to me - honestly i see no way to really substatiate it above NYC/LA/Chicago or the DMV - best case is five and that is probably likely; in the same range (actually all could argue for 5) with Boston and Philly.
Last edited by kidphilly; 03-04-2011 at 11:56 AM..
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.
