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.
San Antonio is also the home to 7 fortune 500 companies.Home to The largest oil and gas company in America bigger than Exxon,Valero Energy.It is home to At&T & Clear Channel Worldwide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
world moving status? I think there are only 5 cities in the US that are truly worldwide in their scope and influence.
This is all your personal opinion and it flies in the face of uh, geography.
Ha! The whole damn nation was built with East Coast money, where have you been?
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.
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.
Oh brother, this is like saying that people who work at the bank are more important then the accountholders themselves.
The west covers a huge swath of territory, much of it barren desert and mountain regions. Economically, you can consider it to consist of the pacific seaboard. Outside of that, you just have Vegas, Denver ,PHX and SLC. The northeast, using the same reasoning, economically consists of the NYC megalopolis, extending from Boston to DC. If the east was as expansive as the west region, going inland like the west, it would include Atlanta, Charlotte, and many other "southern" cities. The vast majority of the west's wealth is concentrated in just two cities, LA and SF. Portland, even with Nike, is not even in the same class as Austin, Tex., with Dell. Seattle lost its major employers headquarters to Chicago, you can read into that what you will. It lives and dies with tech, and if tech tanks, or outsourcing kicks in big time. the city will essentially shut down. California has been losing population big time per its sky-high housing prices. In short, few folks can afford to live there anymore. I live in Austin, and I see reams of Californians coming here enmasse. Companies are bailing out of california as well per the tax rate, and we are getting quite a few companies relocating here in Austin. Now that the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit, the state is reeling big time with foreclosures. Now, not only can't renters afford to buy, but owners can't afford the mortgage and are losing their houses left and right.If there are any winners here, they would prob be located in the south, which is absorbing manufacturing from the midwest and asia, AND the exodus of taxed out california companies, whose employees can no longer afford to live there. I think the USA as a whole has problems, that are far more germane than any regional rivalries. Not sure what kind of economic powerhouse the US will be in 10 years. We may ALL be adjuncts of Asia and Europe at that point. That means we ALL lose, west, south, NE, and midwest., I would bet on that happening the way things are going, which would indeed render any US regional rivalries meaningless.
Last edited by soothsayer1234; 11-05-2007 at 12:06 PM..
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.
He's talking about the BosWash megapolis, and the Bay Area might rival Boston, DC, Baltimore and Philly on an one on one basis, but if your talking about region, I don't know how you can compare. Even without NYC.
It's funny how some of the Houstonians on here aren't able to promote their city without making some sort of backhanded comment about Atlanta. Face it guys--Atlanta anchors the rapidly-growing Southeast region...always has. One guy had Atlanta as a Tier 3 city? Another called it an over-rated craphole?
Here's my list in no particular order:
TIER I: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco Bay Area
TIER III: Kansas City, Nashville, Charlotte, St Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego, Portland, Pittsburgh, Raleigh-Durham, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Tampa-St Pete, Austin, New Orleans, San Antonio
TIER IV: Memphis, Jacksonville, Birmingham, El Paso, Salt Lake City, Omaha, Indianapolis, Norfolk, Greenville-Spartanburg (SC), Louisville, Dayton, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Buffalo, Hartford, Providence, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque
Last edited by south-to-west; 11-05-2007 at 12:29 PM..
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.
Per water issues, I would say that Vegas and Phoenix have both jumped
the shark at this point. Add the subprime issues, and you may see both
turn back into the desert before long. California's water issues loom large
as ever, with LA living and dying from the little water diverted from the
Sacramento River. The great lakes, ironically, could become thelocation
of choice for business and residents if the water issues shut down the west.
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.
e
I think that the location of Houston inhibits that great leap to world-class status. Out of the way, mega-humid weather, unsightly refineries, all that will not make it a mecca it needs to be to be a true first-tier city....I think it qualifies now as 1st just by the huge energy loci there. In todays world, if you control energy, you are top of the heap. Houstons' energy companies invest all over russia, the saudi peninsula, and asia in general. They are now getting into shale and green energies as well. They are top tier to the nth degree. As far as the city itself being "world class", they have work to do. Being so kind as to absorb Katrina folks knocked it for a loop as well. Time will tell if Houston takes that leap, but economically it is top tier.
Last edited by soothsayer1234; 11-05-2007 at 12:46 PM..
Per water issues, I would say that Vegas and Phoenix have both jumped
the shark at this point. Add the subprime issues, and you may see both
turn back into the desert before long. California's water issues loom large
as ever, with LA living and dying from the little water diverted from the
Sacramento River. The great lakes, ironically, could become thelocation
of choice for business and residents if the water issues shut down the west.
Hmm, think it's time to start investing in Desalination refineries??
Whats to desalinate in the desert? Per California, hard to say if it would be cost-effective on a scale to supply LA and San Diego, but who knows. Where there's a will there's a way, but that sea water is so toxic with e-coli ,refinery waste, and general effluvia from manufacturing that it may be far beyond the point of desalination. I would bet on pipelines of water from the great lakes before desalination. Even so, the cost may make it more practical for manufacturing to relocate enmasse overseas or out-of-area. And you know that the population will follow the jobs as
well.....
Whats to desalinate in the desert? Per California, hard to say if it would be cost-effective on a scale to supply LA and San Diego, but who knows.
Where there's a will there's a way, but that sea water is so toxic with
e-coli ,refinery waste, and general effluvia from manufacturing that it
may be far beyond the point of desalination. I would bet on pipelines
of water from the great lakes before desalination. Even so, the cost
may make it more practical for manufacturing to relocate enmasse overseas
or out-of-area. And you know that the population will follow the jobs as
well.....
Don't take my comments personally steve. Very interesting discussion.
Sure beats talking about Britney Spears....LOL!
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.
