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.
Reality is they're much closer to Boston, Philly, Houston, Miami, Dallas, and Atlanta than they are to NYC and LA
Only really because the "Bay Area" includes 5 different metros, 2 of which have over 1 million people and the rest altogether includes another 1 million.
SF MSA only has 4.3 million people, down with the likes of Phoenix, Seattle, and Riverside.
Judging by their egos you would have thought they were second largest trailing only NYC.
Well, by ego size, they'd be first. Never have I seen such ego from one part of the country before.
This is why I'm here posting: to put cities back in their natural order and to put places back in place. Just want to send the reality home, no matter how much it annoys people.
Anyways, back on topic.
By City
1) Philadelphia
2) Boston
3) San Francisco (Bay Area is NOT a city)
By metro
1) Boston/Philadelphia (tied)
3) San Francisco (Bay Area is NOT a metro)
I voted for the Bay Area
Boston/Philly/San Francisco are really about tied
But..
San Jose is much more important than Providence or Wilmington, DE
Oakland is more of a city than Cambridge or Camden
which puts the Bay Area above Boston/Philly
I wonder how these three cities would be faring if they had the kind of infrastructure investment that DC had/has.
Short answer; better, much better today and recently
The level of investment today and over the last 15 years spawned but govt massive growth is amazing
Really this a fairly recent phenomenon; to me not sustainable for DC whereas these others may do better at other times in the relative sense so on the whole hard to say as the development say in the 80s and 90s was stronger in the others in general so not sure on the long term it is a simple answer
Short answer; better, much better today and recently
The level of investment today and over the last 15 years spawned but govt massive growth is amazing
Really this a fairly recent phenomenon; to me not sustainable for DC whereas these others may do better at other times in the relative sense so on the whole hard to say as the development say in the 80s and 90s was stronger in the others in general so not sure on the long term it is a simple answer
Well, the mass transit investment was over a course of three and a half decades and is still continuing. I was thinking if these other cities all had such dedicated and steady transit investment how much better they'd be by now (not just more coverage, but much more frequent service and a good use of interlining). It seems a bit absurd how little investment in transit these fairly dense cities have had.
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.
