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.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
And steering kinda sorta back to the thread, if San Francisco gets to include Napa Valley, then NYC should be able to include Philadelphia, as they're about the same distance. I realize NYC dominates SF in most categories except nature and per-capita wealth, two areas not to be discounted, so I guess that's why the arguments keeps steering back to Philly/SF. Philly/SF is more fun because it's a more evenly balanced competition.
And steering kinda sorta back to the thread, if San Francisco gets to include Napa Valley, then NYC should be able to include Philadelphia, as they're about the same distance. I realize NYC dominates SF in most categories except nature and per-capita wealth, two areas not to be discounted, so I guess that's why the arguments keeps steering back to Philly/SF. Philly/SF is more fun because it's a more evenly balanced competition.
Nobody ever denied NYC the ability to claim Philly for weekend trips! Napa is a little different, though. It's part of the SF CSA and people actually live there and commute in for work (Sausalito Ferry, San Rafael Ferry). It's definitely moreso a frequent "daytrip" than a sparing weekend trip. The tippy top of Sonoma Valley where Healdsburg is is a littler further and should require a night to enjoy a trip like that.
In terms of SF/Philly being a better comparison than SF/NYC, that may be true in some regards. But SF does have a considerably stronger "center of the universe" vibe than Philly does, or will. SF is not really overshadowed like Philly is (nor is it battling constant brink of decline or past decades of significant decline or a very obvious lack of fresh immigration). SF/Bay Area is also the center of the world for a few key things, like tech. It's much more of a modern, bustling city that also serves as a huge immigration hub. It's not nearly as worldly a city as New York (only 2-4 other cities in this world even are), but it's still leagues more worldly than Philly, and its residents know that and carry that with them. You can feel it when you're there. It IS the "New York of the W Coast". In fact, only NYC and SF are commonly known as The City, and only in NYC and SF are the terms "bridge and tunnel" commonly used to describe those who don't live in the actual city (SF or Manhattan).
SF/NYC is still a great comparison, and may regard the two to be the two most "complete" cities in the country. There is a reason that the two are by far the most expensive cities in the country, and arguably the most desirable. The Bay Area has the 3rd largest economy in the country, even ahead of Chicago's. It's also a CSA of 8+ million people and a sphere of direct influence including Sacramento and "NorCal" of 10-12 million people. This is apparent when you're there. It's a weird mixture of "small, provincial city" and "very important huge metropolis".
New York and SF share many things together - 1st and 2nd most dense cities, THE absolute hubs of finance and tech, the most expensive cities in the country, the 2 best food cities in this country (many will argue that, and the Culinary Institute chooses to have its two campuses in either area), 2 of the most important immigration hubs in this country out of only a few, 2 cities with the greatest wealth, 2 biggest/best Chinatowns (lol), arguably the 2 most important *urban* retail markets (the 2 most important markets would be NYC/LA, and most put Chi/SF on equal footing but it definitely means something to be ON the coast), and the list could go on.
Philly just feels like a big old city in the NE Corridor. It doesn't feel all that special or important the way New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC, heck even Boston "feel" when you're in them. Philly feels more "historic" and sentimental, and more intimate. But not "grandiose" or "important" on some world scale.
But I agree, SF/Philly are great comparisons, too. But for entirely other reasons.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
^^Great points anonelitist. You do put up a convincing argument. The only contention I really have with the post is the NYC day trip deal--people do live in Philadelphia and commute daily to NYC, and vice versa. It's not terribly inconvenient, if a bit pricey, so the distance between the two cities doesn't relegate visits to only sparing weekend trips--daily commutes are a fact of life, in both directions. The only reason Philly/NYC isn't a CSA at this point is most likely politics--they already overlap in many facets of life, and have disputed counties in NYCs favor (Lehigh Valley, Mercer). I predict a merger in the next 10-20 years, honestly, but we'll see. It's all contiguous development from Philly to NYC, buoyed by heavy rail, much in the same manner as the Bay.
And yes, SF is the NYC of the W. Coast. The advantage SF has over Philadelphia is isolation--Los Angeles is what, 5/6 hours away? There's much less competition due to distance. Philly has the behemoth that is NYC to contend with, and to a lesser extent, Washington DC. Its metro area is also split across four states, as well, which hampers interconnectivity. Philly's proximity is its greatest asset, which is why its boosters always bring it up, me included, but it is also its greatest weakness. I'd argue being indisputedly a top 10 metro in the shadows of arguably the two most important cities in the country is a huge feat.
So yes, I guess I have to concede "worldliness", wealth and importance to SF. On paper, it is the stronger metro (though Philly's metro is routinely shortchanged). I just feel that Philly has intangibles, the sentimentality as you put it. In my opinion, the gap between NYC and SF/Bay Area is much bigger than the gap between SF and Philadelphia.
Nobody ever denied NYC the ability to claim Philly for weekend trips! Napa is a little different, though. It's part of the SF CSA and people actually live there and commute in for work (Sausalito Ferry, San Rafael Ferry). It's definitely moreso a frequent "daytrip" than a sparing weekend trip. The tippy top of Sonoma Valley where Healdsburg is is a littler further and should require a night to enjoy a trip like that.
In terms of SF/Philly being a better comparison than SF/NYC, that may be true in some regards. But SF does have a considerably stronger "center of the universe" vibe than Philly does, or will. SF is not really overshadowed like Philly is (nor is it battling constant brink of decline or past decades of significant decline or a very obvious lack of fresh immigration). SF/Bay Area is also the center of the world for a few key things, like tech. It's much more of a modern, bustling city that also serves as a huge immigration hub. It's not nearly as worldly a city as New York (only 2-4 other cities in this world even are), but it's still leagues more worldly than Philly, and its residents know that and carry that with them. You can feel it when you're there. It IS the "New York of the W Coast". In fact, only NYC and SF are commonly known as The City, and only in NYC and SF are the terms "bridge and tunnel" commonly used to describe those who don't live in the actual city (SF or Manhattan).
SF/NYC is still a great comparison, and may regard the two to be the two most "complete" cities in the country. There is a reason that the two are by far the most expensive cities in the country, and arguably the most desirable. The Bay Area has the 3rd largest economy in the country, even ahead of Chicago's. It's also a CSA of 8+ million people and a sphere of direct influence including Sacramento and "NorCal" of 10-12 million people. This is apparent when you're there. It's a weird mixture of "small, provincial city" and "very important huge metropolis".
New York and SF share many things together - 1st and 2nd most dense cities, THE absolute hubs of finance and tech, the most expensive cities in the country, the 2 best food cities in this country (many will argue that, and the Culinary Institute chooses to have its two campuses in either area), 2 of the most important immigration hubs in this country out of only a few, 2 cities with the greatest wealth, 2 biggest/best Chinatowns (lol), arguably the 2 most important *urban* retail markets (the 2 most important markets would be NYC/LA, and most put Chi/SF on equal footing but it definitely means something to be ON the coast), and the list could go on.
Philly just feels like a big old city in the NE Corridor. It doesn't feel all that special or important the way New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC, heck even Boston "feel" when you're in them. Philly feels more "historic" and sentimental, and more intimate. But not "grandiose" or "important" on some world scale.
But I agree, SF/Philly are great comparisons, too. But for entirely other reasons.
The real glaring difference in the two comparisons (NYC/SF and Philly/SF) is the kind of scale and magnitude we're talking about.
When you say 1st and 2nd most dense or 1st and 2nd of most things, but you're including NYC in the comparison, the fact is NYC is usually so far ahead that the 2nd place doesn't really matter. The gap between 1st and 2nd makes the gap between 2nd and 3rd, or even 2nd and 8th depending on the criteria, pretty small.
Over a large set of different criteria, the difference in scale between NYC and second place is going to dwarf that between probably second place to something like sixth or tenth place depending on what you're measuring. It is an entirely separate tier for almost all of these things whereas SF and Philly are for the most part going to be in a pretty similar tier.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-28-2014 at 08:18 AM..
And steering kinda sorta back to the thread, if San Francisco gets to include Napa Valley, then NYC should be able to include Philadelphia, as they're about the same distance. I realize NYC dominates SF in most categories except nature and per-capita wealth, two areas not to be discounted, so I guess that's why the arguments keeps steering back to Philly/SF. Philly/SF is more fun because it's a more evenly balanced competition.
If we're going for Napa Valley-ish comparisons and that sort of more relaxed retreat nearby the city, then NYC's metro area retreats are mainly the Hudson River Valley and parts of Long Island such as the Gold Coast and the Hamptons. Poconos and Jersey Shore also.
The real glaring difference in the two comparisons (NYC/SF and Philly/SF) is the kind of scale and magnitude we're talking about.
When you say 1st and 2nd most dense or 1st and 2nd of most things, but you're including NYC in the comparison, the fact is NYC is usually so far ahead that the 2nd place doesn't really matter. The gap between 1st and 2nd makes the gap between 2nd and 3rd, or even 2nd and 8th depending on the criteria, pretty small.
Over a large set of different criteria, the difference in scale between NYC and second place is going to dwarf that between probably second place to something like sixth or tenth place depending on what you're measuring. It is an entirely separate tier for almost all of these things whereas SF and Philly are for the most part going to be in a pretty similar tier.
Exactly. Slice and dice all the per capita/on average stats you want but scale of NYC cannot be ignored.
^^^Sheer scale doesn't always make for 'better', though. I brought up the density, and that's what you guys are referring to, but in terms of other similarities, "scale" goes out the door and the similarities that are fairly unique between the two cities still stand. And the differences between the two cities are quite complimentary (i.e. it's not a difference like Detroit vs DC - crumbling vs thriving, or even Topeka vs LA - little vs big as both are quite big on different scales, but more a difference of lifestyle and amenities).
For instance, if wanted to immerse oneself in the best city on the East Coast - New York is the undisputed king. For the West Coast, it really is a toss up between LA and SF as they are two totally different, but amazing cities. I think SF can stand on its own, entirely, however, LA is also a huge draw as it's the more stereotypical "California/West Coast" city and it's larger. For me the top 3 most important cities in the country are NYC, LA, and SF, two being in CA, and NY and CA being the clear most important/dominant states (lots of similarities between the two states, as well). Sorry DC and Chicago DC's the nation's capital and all, but that's what props it up (it was bestowed), and Chicago might be my favorite American city but it's not on the coast, which makes a difference for this sort of discussion.
But for me, personally, SF is the best city on the W Coast and NYC is the best city on the E Coast and the two can go head to head.
^^^Sheer scale doesn't always make for 'better', though. I brought up the density, and that's what you guys are referring to, but in terms of other similarities, "scale" goes out the door and the similarities that are fairly unique between the two cities still stand. And the differences between the two cities are quite complimentary (i.e. it's not a difference like Detroit vs DC - crumbling vs thriving, or even Topeka vs LA - little vs big as both are quite big on different scales, but more a difference of lifestyle and amenities).
For instance, if wanted to immerse oneself in the best city on the East Coast - New York is the undisputed king. For the West Coast, it really is a toss up between LA and SF as they are two totally different, but amazing cities. I think SF can stand on its own, entirely, however, LA is also a huge draw as it's the more stereotypical "California/West Coast" city and it's larger. For me the top 3 most important cities in the country are NYC, LA, and SF, two being in CA, and NY and CA being the clear most important/dominant states (lots of similarities between the two states, as well). Sorry DC and Chicago DC's the nation's capital and all, but that's what props it up (it was bestowed), and Chicago might be my favorite American city but it's not on the coast, which makes a difference for this sort of discussion.
But for me, personally, SF is the best city on the W Coast and NYC is the best city on the E Coast and the two can go head to head.
It's simply not comparable. There range of what there is in NYC is so much greater that pretending as if it's weighing between two nearly equivalent choices is ridiculous.
The differences among Boston, Chicago, DC, Philly, and SF are minor compared to that between any one of these and NYC. SF, like most of these metros, trades particularly well in one or two things and has a pretty similar population size and overall GDP. All of these are going to be within some percentage of each other, and all of them are going to be a fraction of what NYC is. Many of them have several strong sectors, and possibly the strongest for whatever specific field or criteria, but none of them will have overall prominence or be at the top for nearly as many categories as NYC. This is not comparable. The Bay Area/SF being comparable is such a ridiculous assumption, and I can't for the live of me figure out how people fall into that argument. I understand personal preferences, sure, but really, no.
LA is the odd one out which flits above, among, and below those other cities depending on what you're looking for.
Exactly. Slice and dice all the per capita/on average stats you want but scale of NYC cannot be ignored.
Yeah but thats not always a good thing.
For example, Manhattan is one thing, but the outer boroughs are not appealling to me at all.
To each his own, but the East Bay(Oakland-Berkeley area) is just as diverse, but much classier overall, and is visibly wealthier, more posh, more sophisticated, less gritty and really more pleasant.
There are perks to not being forced to accomodate millions of middle to lower income people) into such a small area. NYC can have that. I dont have the patience to live like that.
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.
DC's the nation's capital and all, but that's what props it up (it was bestowed), and Chicago might be my favorite American city but it's not on the coast, which makes a difference for this sort of discussion.
