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)
View Poll Results: Which one is the most important?
Bay Area 286 58.37%
Boston 90 18.37%
Philadelphia 93 18.98%
Confused 21 4.29%
Voters: 490. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2016, 06:35 PM
 
Location: So California
8,344 posts, read 8,297,279 times
Reputation: 4533

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felt38 View Post
I think the Bay Area is graduating to the Chicago/DC tier for important cities, so wins hee. Toronto may also be joining this select Group in the near future.


Nothing Against Boston and Philadelphia as they are excellent cities, but they may have to accept two Texas cities into their tier of importance.

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

NY / LA

Chi/SF

DC

Phi/Bos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2016, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Cataumet, MA/Gastonia, NC
2,194 posts, read 931,053 times
Reputation: 1570
Size: Bay Area
- Economic Output (GDP): Bay Area
- Total Personal Income: Bay Area, BUT has an outragious COL
- History: Boston/Philly tie
- Location: Philly
- Niche Industries: Bay Area
- Economy (diversity & variance): Boston
-COL: Philly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 06:59 PM
 
Location: The mountain of Airy
5,088 posts, read 4,869,911 times
Reputation: 3378
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
The problem about "fun" is it's totally subjective and the impact is local. Citing bar closing times vs other cities seems a little strange to use as evidence of economic importance, doesn't it?

It also doesn't consider other things which people consider "fun", like museums, orchestras, theaters, etc. The Boston Marathon, and I'm sure that generates a massive economic impact on Boston, but I wouldn't ever say Boston's more economically important due in part to the Boston Marathon.
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. And where I think one city outdoes another one more clearly in "fun" is in tourism, which also includes restaurants, museums, theaters, sites, etc. I'm not trying to make an argument that fun is the most important or that it's not subjective to an extent; I'm simply saying "fun" is a driving factor in a lot of important city attributes and amenities.

For example, I think one could determine which city people would choose to visit between Albany, NY and Miami, FL for fun. Or Greensboro, NC and New Orleans. Or Roanoke, VA and San Francisco. Those amenities drive tourism, but also make them attractive places to live. They don't make them the most important cities, but they certainly raise their profiles, economies (to an extent) and desirability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2016, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Boston
7,218 posts, read 15,075,425 times
Reputation: 8478
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
The problem about "fun" is it's totally subjective and the impact is local. Citing bar closing times vs other cities seems a little strange to use as evidence of economic importance, doesn't it?

It also doesn't consider other things which people consider "fun", like museums, orchestras, theaters, etc. The Boston Marathon, and I'm sure that generates a massive economic impact on Boston, but I wouldn't ever say Boston's more economically important due in part to the Boston Marathon.
I agree almost entirely. I do think the economic impact is mostly local (with some notable exceptions), but I don't know that "fun" (I translate that to entertainment/tourism) is entirely subjective. I mean obviously different strokes/ different folks. However, there are things that are generally considered fun/entertaining/attractive to tourists even if a handful of individuals may feel differently. San Francisco is considered a naturally beautiful city and the setting is part of what draws tourists who pump billions into the local economy. There are plenty of people who may not care to visit a place like SF, so in that sense it's subjective, but it is a popular tourist destination. That's not subjective, that's a fact. Same could be said for any place with certain "things" that draw tourists. Who it appeals to may be subjective, but whether or not it has broad appeal is not. Nightlife is a stupid one to get fixated on because outside of a few outliers (i.e. NYC, LA, Miami, Vegas), nightlife in major cities is mostly comparable speaking in terms of the big picture even if there are niche strengths and weaknesses.

You're right about bar closing times as evidence of economic importance being completely ridiculous, but that's not to say there's never any relation. Certainly not a deciding factor or primary indicator, but late closing times is often associated with nightlife which in many places is a large component of the economy. Especially when you consider related industries like hospitality, dining, private transit, etc.


Your last point about what "other people consider 'fun' is kicker. Each of these cities are different (in spite of their similarities). Each of them has different appeal for different folks. One posted may feel that SF's nightlife is better than Boston's but another may not care because they feel that the professional sports scene in Boston is better. The Entertainment economy is important to all of these cities. But thankfully the local economies are diversified enough that that's not the only factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felt38 View Post
Nothing Against Boston and Philadelphia as they are excellent cities, but they may have to accept two Texas cities into their tier of importance.
Right. It's our curse and it weighs heavily on the minds of Bostonians (and I assume Philadelphians) every day. Sometimes I don't know how I get out of bed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2016, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 11,983,106 times
Reputation: 4051
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I agree almost entirely. I do think the economic impact is mostly local (with some notable exceptions), but I don't know that "fun" (I translate that to entertainment/tourism) is entirely subjective. I mean obviously different strokes/ different folks. However, there are things that are generally considered fun/entertaining/attractive to tourists even if a handful of individuals may feel differently. San Francisco is considered a naturally beautiful city and the setting is part of what draws tourists who pump billions into the local economy. There are plenty of people who may not care to visit a place like SF, so in that sense it's subjective, but it is a popular tourist destination. That's not subjective, that's a fact. Same could be said for any place with certain "things" that draw tourists. Who it appeals to may be subjective, but whether or not it has broad appeal is not. Nightlife is a stupid one to get fixated on because outside of a few outliers (i.e. NYC, LA, Miami, Vegas), nightlife in major cities is mostly comparable speaking in terms of the big picture even if there are niche strengths and weaknesses.

You're right about bar closing times as evidence of economic importance being completely ridiculous, but that's not to say there's never any relation. Certainly not a deciding factor or primary indicator, but late closing times is often associated with nightlife which in many places is a large component of the economy. Especially when you consider related industries like hospitality, dining, private transit, etc.


Your last point about what "other people consider 'fun' is kicker. Each of these cities are different (in spite of their similarities). Each of them has different appeal for different folks. One posted may feel that SF's nightlife is better than Boston's but another may not care because they feel that the professional sports scene in Boston is better. The Entertainment economy is important to all of these cities. But thankfully the local economies are diversified enough that that's not the only factor.
Very good points. I guess my main complaint about 'fun' as an economic factor is when it comes to comparing cities. There's something that rubs me the wrong way when comparing economic strength and saying "Boston is home to Biogen Idec, Fidelity, General Electric, State Street Bank, the most potent biotechnology cluster in the nation...and a sweet new Dave & Busters at the Braintree Plaza". That isn't to say fun stuff isn't economically important, but until it gets to the level of Las Vegas or Orlando or Miami, where 'fun' is your benchmark industry, I don't think it's all that important in a city vs city comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2016, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Boston
7,218 posts, read 15,075,425 times
Reputation: 8478
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Very good points. I guess my main complaint about 'fun' as an economic factor is when it comes to comparing cities. There's something that rubs me the wrong way when comparing economic strength and saying "Boston is home to Biogen Idec, Fidelity, General Electric, State Street Bank, the most potent biotechnology cluster in the nation...and a sweet new Dave & Busters at the Braintree Plaza". That isn't to say fun stuff isn't economically important, but until it gets to the level of Las Vegas or Orlando or Miami, where 'fun' is your benchmark industry, I don't think it's all that important in a city vs city comparison.
Haha, yeah, I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2018, 11:06 PM
 
Location: So California
8,344 posts, read 8,297,279 times
Reputation: 4533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felt38 View Post
I think the Bay Area is graduating to the Chicago/DC tier for important cities, so wins hee. Toronto may also be joining this select Group in the near future.


Nothing Against Boston and Philadelphia as they are excellent cities, but they may have to accept two Texas cities into their tier of importance.
Bay Area graduated to that level long long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 06:30 PM
 
598 posts, read 338,581 times
Reputation: 225
NY

LA

Chi/SF

DC

Bos



Phila/Dal/Houst
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2018, 03:57 PM
 
Location: BC
150 posts, read 175,453 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Bay Area graduated to that level long long ago.

This.



NY


LA


Chi / DC / SF



Toronto/Boston/Dallas/Houston
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2018, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Chibostoncaliseattle
1,354 posts, read 597,052 times
Reputation: 1140
On a per capita basis, here is a statistically backed take on the criteria:

- Economic Output (GDP): SF, Boston........Philly
- Total Personal Income: SF, Boston, Philly
- History: Boston/Philly....SF
- Location: Tie.
- Niche Industries: Boston, SF.... Philly
- Economy (diversity & variance): Boston, SF...Philly
- Finance: As in stability of the public sector? No clue. None?

I like the Bay Area a lot, though the city of SF continues to be downgraded in my book since I left. I hate to beat a dead horse, but the homeless population and the general urban decay in the heart of SF is pretty wild. Still, I prefer Boston and SF more than Philadelphia. Center City is cool, and has some nightlife and buzz, but Philly just isn't as pretty or as dynamic. It's as much Boston as it is Cleveland, though I do like the gritty yet gentrified feel in it's nucleus and surrounding hoods. Once we include economic impact, income levels, MSA, I think the delta grows a bit between SF, Boston, and then Philadelphia. The good news is that the COL reflects the local demand and performance, so consumption levels seem fairly high in Philadelphia and the suburbs. That is to say, COL vs. income is probably best in Philly. All things considered, I personally like living in Boston more than any other city yet including SF (Chicago is tough to beat, though).
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, 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