Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-16-2014, 12:02 AM
 
1,612 posts, read 2,420,493 times
Reputation: 904

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8loody View Post
In my opinion L.A should be considered a Alpha- it's mostly just a big suburb with small pockets of nice areas scattered around the city.
LA has the second largest concentration of wealth of any metro on the planet. Only the NYC area has more high net worth earners.

How could LA only "have small pockets of nice areas"? The wealthy are all choosing to live in slums?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2014, 01:18 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,985 posts, read 4,883,900 times
Reputation: 3419
Small pockets of nice areas? If you were to take LA metro's wealthy neighborhoods together, you'd probably have a region that is larger than entire cities. There's probably more rich people in LA county than the entire Seattle metro population for crying out loud.

And by all means, someone please post a photo of a "slum" house in LA. Last time I checked, they didn't exist seeing as how LA's "lower income" houses are worth more in value than the majority of normal homes by US national standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2014, 03:29 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,655 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiVegas View Post
LA has the second largest concentration of wealth of any metro on the planet. Only the NYC area has more high net worth earners.
This is incorrect.

According to Knight Frank Wealth Report 2013, New York, London and Tokyo each have more ultra high net worth individuals than Los Angeles, which is 4th, 4th is very impressive by the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
156 posts, read 244,791 times
Reputation: 185
I fail to see Fort Worth anywhere on the list, but see dozens of inferior and less globally important cities listed (including gammas and sufficiencies).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:09 AM
 
Location: Dallas
39 posts, read 46,756 times
Reputation: 43
Default No no.

Ft. Worth is not a global city, it's just a generally nice, pleasant, very large suburb of the real global city 30 miles east. And that swamp to the south is not a global city on the level of Dallas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 11:46 AM
 
1,526 posts, read 1,985,218 times
Reputation: 1529
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeopleAreStrange View Post
I fail to see Fort Worth anywhere on the list, but see dozens of inferior and less globally important cities listed (including gammas and sufficiencies).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,515 posts, read 33,531,365 times
Reputation: 12152
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTwoFace View Post
Ft. Worth is not a global city, it's just a generally nice, pleasant, very large suburb of the real global city 30 miles east. And that swamp to the south is not a global city on the level of Dallas.
This is the type of comment that gets people annoyed with Dallasites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 01:49 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,068 posts, read 2,922,578 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTwoFace View Post
Ft. Worth is not a global city, it's just a generally nice, pleasant, very large suburb of the real global city 30 miles east. And that swamp to the south is not a global city on the level of Dallas.
You are correct; the "swamp" to the south is not a global city on the level of Dallas; it is a global city WAY ABOVE the level of Dallas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:11 PM
 
2 posts, read 2,648 times
Reputation: 11
Chicago is declining. NYC, Bost, San Franc, WashingDC are superior financial centers, 10 yrs ago Chicago was #5 in the world. It's fallen to #15

[url]http://www.longfinance.net/images/GFCI15_15March2014.pdf[/url]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Dallas
39 posts, read 46,756 times
Reputation: 43
Default Yeah.

It's the exact type of comment that allows eveyone to know exactly how awesome Dallasites already know that they are. And as a proud Dallasite I never miss an opportunity to offend Houstonians, their awful city and their pathetic sports franchises.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top