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.
What could be said is that both the tri-state area and the bay area punch well above their weight in terms of their population size (along with a few others such as Santa Fe, Seattle, Boston, and the Twin Cities). However, the tri-state area is substantially bigger so overall it's more influential than the Bay Area in most areas.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-31-2012 at 10:59 PM..
What could be said is that both the tri-state area and the bay area punch well above their weight in terms of their population size (along with a few others such as Santa Fe, Seattle, Boston, and the Twin Cities). However, the tri-state area is substantially bigger so overall it's more influential than the Bay Area in most areas.
What could be said is that both the tri-state area and the bay area punch well above their weight in terms of their population size (along with a few others such as Santa Fe, Seattle, Boston, and the Twin Cities). However, the tri-state area is substantially bigger so overall it's more influential than the Bay Area in most areas.
Er, punching above ones weight really renders being substantially bigger moot-wouldnt you agree? Your comment seems to contradict itself.
Anyway, the criteria of the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11
Which metropolis is overall more desirable place to live because of the income, housing, burbs, nabes, education attainment, yada yada.
As far as income and education the Bay Area wins by about $10,000 per household as far as median income(considering the cost of living in these 2 areas the difference is not much) and about 16% more educated(42% is 16% greater than 36%). As far desirability as defined by median home prices, the Bay Area is more expensive than the Tri-State area by quite a margin actually.
But there are other things too. The Tri State is untouchable as far as concentration of large corporations-point blank. The Bay Area is still 2nd as far as corporate presence despite being the 6th largest in population which is extremely impressive. As far as global corporate brands and market capitalization, the gap actually closes quite a bit between NY and the Bay Area which is very interesting.
I know this is controversial but when I think about the trajectory of the SF Bay Area, all I keep seeing is the economy of the future. There is not a single metro in the US that's been rising as fast as the SF Bay Area economically. Well, ok Dallas and Houston and for a short time DC but that's over with.
Er, punching above ones weight really renders being substantially bigger moot-wouldnt you agree? Your comment seems to contradict itself.
Anyway, the criteria of the OP:
As far as income and education the Bay Area wins by about $10,000 per household as far as median income(considering the cost of living in these 2 areas the difference is not much) and about 16% more educated(42% is 16% greater than 36%). As far desirability as defined by median home prices, the Bay Area is more expensive than the Tri-State area by quite a margin actually.
But there are other things too. The Tri State is untouchable as far as concentration of large corporations-point blank. The Bay Area is still 2nd as far as corporate presence despite being the 6th largest in population which is extremely impressive. As far as global corporate brands and market capitalization, the gap actually closes quite a bit between NY and the Bay Area which is very interesting.
I don't see why it's a moot point. They both punch above one's weight, but one's weight class is much larger than the other. It's why the tri-state is inarguably larger and more important to the domestic and international economy than the Bay Area. The Bay Area is certainly impressive, but it's impressive in terms of it being a metro of 7 million plus. It does great though, and I wish my hometown LA could take a bigger cue from both of these places.
Also, I have to go back to the issue of racial minorities and diaspora and upward mobility.
First the overall stat:
Households Earning $200,000+, 2011 Census Estimate
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 700,789
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 303,955
A really great showing by the Bay Area which is 3 times smaller btw. But that's not the real interesting stat no, to me its the following:
Minority Households Earning $200,000+, 2011 Census Estimate New York-Newark-Bridgeport 145,536 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 100,885
The gap is virtually erased considering the enormous population difference between these 2 regions.
I understand that, but the fact is that the NYC area just has substantially more wealthy minorities even if a smaller percentage. It's basically the same argument I've seen for LA in various categories (percentage might be bad in some respects, but overall absolute clout is great). Also, what do you think of selection bias for the Bay Area? Certainly the Chinese community in the Bay Area generally draws from a more affluent community in terms of its immigrants, but I think it might stand for immigrants overall. This could be a good and bad thing--NYC gives a pretty great opportunity for working class immigrants, but it doesn't get the same kind of per capita benefit that the Bay Area gets. Do you believe there is a selection bias?
Also, it's not that I want the poor to stay poor in NYC, but I think it's good overall for the area to offer a good stepping stone towards social mobility upon immigration. The city and parts of the metro offers a substantial amount of services and it's pretty amazing.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-01-2012 at 12:28 AM..
I know this is controversial but when I think about the trajectory of the SF Bay Area, all I keep seeing is the economy of the future. There is not a single metro in the US that's been rising as fast as the SF Bay Area economically. Well, ok Dallas and Houston and for a short time DC but that's over with.
That's a great point and the reason for why the Bay Area punches so well above its weight. It's also been a good model for various cities in the US and NYC is one of those following suit. NYC was never a lightweight in the tech industry (Shockley was basically a reaction to the northeast monopoly on tech back then when IBM and Bell Labs ruled the roost), but it has been sort of lucky in that sense of having Bloomberg as mayor. He's helped propel a lot of high-profile industries such as media production and tech startups. After all, he did start his empire through tech, and he's now purportedly learning python and javascript. NYC's been growing substantially in the field from an already strong base. The Roosevelt Island and possibly Governor's Island development are proof of a serious move towards this economy of the future though I think his support of small-scale smart manufacturing is a good move in terms of bringing old industries into the new economy--after all, we can't be reliant on outsourcing these industries and concentrating on tertiary sectors forever. Then again, I'm pretty excited about Make magazine, Google X labs, and Tesla Motors.
At this point I would say elevated rail is a better option for coastal areas than subways. Elevated rail is easier to dismantle and repair in segments too and it serves the same purpose. Chicago's done good there.
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.
