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.
All things considered, the east coast has the most impact, followed by the west coast.
Impact as far as what? And The East Coast is actually two separate regions, part of the East Coast is actually the Northeast and the other part is considered the South.
Quote:
There is nothing remotely comparable on the west coast to the east coast megalopolis
Wrong. There is nothing remotely comparable to THE NY METRO on the west coast.
Take away NYC and environs and The Bay Area by itself blows everything else on the East Coast out of the water as far as economic importance and overall global contribution. Let's not kid ourselves.
Boston, DC and Philadelphia are all great but economically LA and SF are more important. Both quoted GAWC charts confirm that.
Quote:
especially when you consider that Oregon and Washington are far more lightweight than California, essentially taking up space
I know, Microsoft is such a non-player and has is hardly used by anyone around the world on a daily basis. And Nike? Who ever heard of that? And Boeing is certainly a small upstart that will never contribute to our national economy. What a lightweight place. Excuse me while I indulge in a brownie from a small Seattle-based company known as Starbucks, I guess they dont have them outside of the west coast.
Quote:
.....on the east coast, the impact is almost everywhere dense, including the carolinas, georgia, and florida.
Oh no ya dont-Those areas are the South-its funny how people use areas when its convenient to their point but then dont hesitate to belittle them in other threads.
Quote:
Also, between LA and San Fran is essentially nothing but the pac coast coast highway.
The most productive agricultural corridor in the United States also known as The Central Valley, a region that produces 50% of our nation's produce, is between LA and San Fran. What a nonsensical thing to say.
Quote:
On the west coast, you have only 4 cities of anything approaching world moving status, which is seattle, san francisco, LA, San diego. The east coast has 10-15 majors depending on the parameters
world moving status? I think there are only 5 cities in the US that are truly worldwide in their scope and influence.
Quote:
and chicago is a financial adjunct to the east coast, and should be included as east coast stats.
This is all your personal opinion and it flies in the face of uh, geography.
Quote:
Chicago can only properly be understood as an adjunct to the east coast. Built with east coast money, it exists as an injection of east coast money into the heartland of the midwest. It belongs in spirit with the east coast as well.
Ha! The whole damn nation was built with East Coast money, where have you been?
Quote:
In that case, the non-asian adjunct east coast will always maintain its status as the nexus of the USA financial grid per world flows. No question about it!
I realize that it makes people in the NE and Chicago feel better about themselves to constantly remind us of some perceived and self-imagined control they have over the economy as if we all live and die by their whims, but I would like to point out that in 2006, The West surpassed the Northeast to have the 2nd largest regional economy, behind THE SOUTH. Regional GDP, 2006
Northeast $3.106 Trillion(CT,DE,DC,ME,MD,MA,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,VT)
South $4.381 Trillion(AL,AR,FL,GA, KY,LA,MS,MO,NC,OK,SC,TN,TX,VA,WV)
West $3.138 Trillion(AK,AZ,CA,CO,HI,ID,MT,NV,NM,OR,UT,WA,WY)
So while you can make all these unsubstantiated claims of financial grid flows(hahahaha)-there is actual data that shows a real shift in the balance of power in this nation's economy. The West and South are now greater contributors to the National Economy then the Northeast and Midwest-and that's undisputable.
Quote:
Finally, I would not give heed to manufacturing stats
And the reason is because you dont like the actual data-it clashes with your grandiose views of how things should be-not how they actually are.
Quote:
In todays world economy, a control of the flows themselves are all that matters. He who controls the financial flows themselves control de facto all world manufacturing. All wealth flows in that direction. Thats simply reality....
Oh brother, this is like saying that people who work at the bank are more important then the accountholders themselves.
(within the tiers there's no particular order as it is highly debateable) Probably the only one agreed across the board is my 1st tier #1.
Tier 1 -U.S. Global cities
New York
L.A.
Chicago
Tier 2- U.S. national cities (lesser global importance)
Dallas/Ft. Worth
San Francisco
Boston
Atlanta
Philly
Houston
Washington D.C.
Tier 3-U.S. cities of great regional importance and lesser national importance
Las Vegas
Seattle
Phoenix
Miami
Charlotte
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Tier 4- Great importance in their state, but not as important regionally at tier 3
New Orleans
Cleveland
Raleigh
Kansas City
San Diego
Nashville
Baltimore
Portland
Oklahoma City
Virginia Beach/Norfolk
Orlando
Tier 5-small regional influence and sizeable state influence
Richmond
Columbus
Indianapolis
Sacramento
Austin
San Antonio
Memphis
Omaha
Milwaukee
Jacksonville
Tampa
Cincinnatti
Tucson
Albuquerque
..and a whole lot more
Hmm, interesting, I like this list for some reason. But at the same time, in terms of importance to the state in the region, you can throw in every capital city into tier 4...
Hmm, interesting, I like this list for some reason. But at the same time, in terms of importance to the state in the region, you can throw in every capital city into tier 4...
Haha good point. I actually forgot to include Detroit but I would put it either at the bottom of tier 2 or the top of tier 3
what do you men crap? Percentagewise is more telling of overall growth. I dont know why you would seek to delegitemize their growth as if its fake of something.
And as far as sheer numbers, The Los Angeles CSA is by far, the leader in sheer numbers.
Percentagewise isn't the most important stat though imo. If it was, I think some small retirement community in Florida wins as its increased 50% or something. Its similar to diminishing returns, there's no way PHoenix and Las Vegas will keep up their rate of growth %. They are turning into the place they seek to leave. Not to mention how incredibly unatural it is to have major cities in the middle of the desert like that. Water shortages will be a huge problem this century.
And aren't most people moving into the LA CSA coming from the LA MSA? I know the LA MSA isn't growing that fast.
No, Houston deserves to be there. Not just the fortune 500 headquarters thing, but, it being at the center of the US energy nexus itself would put it in that catbird seat. Houston has huge impact on world markets for its energy nexus alone. Prob will for the near future as well....
Well I agree energy has made Houston a very important city but I wouldn't put it as a permanent first tier city. If energy is as important to increasing Houstons national status as you say it is than they will go the way of Detroit.
I do know Houstons economy is more diversified than that but it just lacks the long term ability to be very important imo.
Honestly, this may come as a surprise to many of you, but I would love for Houston to one day be a first tier city. The South needs one and I think its between DFW, Atlanta, and Houston. I enjoy any success the south has.
Houston still needs a denser city (alot of that land they annexed is pretty damn suburban), a couple more million in the Metro area, and a world-class mass transit system would do the trick. Not the meager one they have planned now.
Percentagewise isn't the most important stat though imo. If it was, I think some small retirement community in Florida wins as its increased 50% or something. Its similar to diminishing returns, there's no way PHoenix and Las Vegas will keep up their rate of growth %. They are turning into the place they seek to leave. Not to mention how incredibly unatural it is to have major cities in the middle of the desert like that. Water shortages will be a huge problem this century.
And aren't most people moving into the LA CSA coming from the LA MSA? I know the LA MSA isn't growing that fast.
That's a good point, much of the growth in the Inland Empire is from LA County itself. But then the CSA has grown by 1.2 Million so far this decade. Maybe there have been a lot of births. I believe that around 700,000 of that is through legal immigration.
Kansas City, Cinti. and Milw. are all twice the size of San Antonio. We aren't hating, just reiterating the fact that San Antonio does not have the population or sway necessary for it to be on the 2d or 3d tier of that list.
Twice the size of San Antonio are you on something? San Antonio is over 2 miilion people and nearly 1.4 million in the city proper.It is growing super fast, while the cities you mentioned are not.San Antonio is projected to have 3 miilion people by 2020.Thats a high growth scenario but the way this city is growing I wouldn't doubt it.
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.
