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.
I think the presence of Los Angeles really hurts San Francisco's standing. Legitimately speaking, if you were opening up a business, why would you opt to invest/start shop in the smaller city than the larger one if they really all that far apart? I look at most of the major companies in the United States, and most have affiliates in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles: there's really no need to open shop in Los Angeles over San Francisco. Maybe with Silicon Valley that is changing, but I find it difficult to believe someone would willingly say no to opening up shop in the 2nd largest American city over the 13th largest city, if given the option.
Things like culture, cuisine, climate, politics, architecture, aesthetics, and even scenery are subjective. Meaning not everyone has to agree with it. Some will like green and lush and cant bear arid brown, so be it, that's their thing. These aspects to a city, including aesthetics are all to the eyes of the beholders and nothing more nor nothing less. These things are the aspects that make some choose an Oslo to a Barcelona and vice versa right on back. A Shenzhen to a Hong Kong and you guessed it, right on back. Any city can be compared to any other on these things and people always will have and hold an opinion to it.
However prominence and importance and size can be judged and weighed in objectively.
So be it objectively and that's the very measure that does put the Bay Area in another tier than Boston. I think a 14% GDP jump is great, Boston's not sitting around, it's consistently improving but a 29% GDP jump annually while also being the larger economy is even better. Being a larger corporate hub and having a larger international profile (basic 101, just look at the destinations at any terminal for a sneak peak), as well as being the center of one of the presently five most revered and powerful industries in the country just makes the comparison go in favor of the Bay Area.
As cities, one can prefer and think Boston is better than San Francisco, living in a country where you can freely express those opinions and seek out your own ambitions where you want, you can say that easily and believe it. Objectively however, prominence isn't a matter of debate, especially not a long one when it's two cities in the same country.
My general impression is that the Bay Area is already ahead of Boston and its CSA and increasing that margin from year to year, but neither are really booming so even if current trends hold, it will be a good long while before the Bay Area outclasses Boston and any projections that far into the future are to be taken with more than a few grains of salt.
My general impression is that the Bay Area is already ahead of Boston and its CSA and increasing that margin from year to year, but neither are really booming so even if current trends hold, it will be a good long while before the Bay Area outclasses Boston and any projections that far into the future are to be taken with more than a few grains of salt.
575 billion dollars severely outclasses 446 Billion dollars, especially if the latter actually has more people.
There really is no way to spin that into a tie. lol
575 billion dollars severely outclasses 446 Billion dollars, especially if the latter actually has more people.
There really is no way to spin that into a tie. lol
COL means disposable income is nearly the same, look the the income off Denmark or Belguim it it like 4x that of the US but in reality, it's about even due to COL.
Also Heathcare has much smaller profit margins than tech, so the GDP appears smaller,
SF has companies like Apple and Facebook, sure they make fun little gadgets and widgets but are disposable, Boston's Heathcare industry pioneers new procedures that save 1000s of lives. Would you put Facebook above MassGen in importance because it makes more money?
Last edited by btownboss4; 09-04-2013 at 04:11 AM..
COL means disposable income is nearly the same, look the the income off Denmark or Belguim it it like 4x that of the US but in reality, it's about even due to COL.
GDP is the total value of economic activity, not income.
SF/Bos are known for their similarities (dense, physically small, liberal, well educated, scenic,expensive, tech/financial hubs, etc)
However, does anyone feel that SF is pulling away from Boston and moving to the next level? IMO in 20 years comparing Boston and SF could be like comparing SF and Seattle today. Similar, but with one clearly a level above. I'm not implying Boston is declining, far from it. But, it seems SF is advancing at a faster pace.
Economically, SF is rising as a "Silicon Valley" gradually shifts from the office parks of SJ to SF proper. Boston's economy is plugging along, but it’s more of the steady as she goes Eds/Meds and R&D. It’s easier to imagine the next Amazon or Facebook in SF than Boston.
Architecturally, SF is building more "star-architecture" highrises and "world class" projects like the Central Subway and SF MoMa. In 20 years, SOMA could be as vibrant as Chicago's River North, while the South Boston Waterfront looks like Arlington, Va. SF also seems more likely to put 5-7 story tall buildings in 3/4 story areas,whereas Boston is more likely to insist on conformity.
Culturally, SF seems to be transitioning from a NIMBY hippie oasis to a dynamic global tech hub. While Boston remains a more tradition bound, ho hum education/research hub.
Just curious what other feel? Don't mean this as an attack on Boston, just seems that SF is a city that is really rising in the world.
It's easier to imagine the next Amazon and Facebook (which started in Cambridge) in SF than any other US city. If you were to list which cities, aside from SF, that these types of companies would be found in, Boston would rank high on that list.
I would not consider a simple extension that includes only 4 stops a world class project. Even with the problems the MBTA can have, Boston still has better mass transit than SF. Not by a large margin, but it's still better. And yes, SF does have better projects coming out than Boston. But Boston is no slouch in terms of the building boom that is currently happening. You also have to remember that Central Boston is very small size wise, so having multiple towers over 900 feet will be way out of scale with the location. SF does not have this problem.
You make it sound like an educational/research hub is boring. I would disagree.
I would not consider a simple extension that includes only 4 stops a world class project. Even with the problems the MBTA can have, Boston still has better mass transit than SF. Not by a large margin, but it's still better. And yes, SF does have better projects coming out than Boston. But Boston is no slouch in terms of the building boom that is currently happening. You also have to remember that Central Boston is very small size wise, so having multiple towers over 900 feet will be way out of scale with the location. SF does not have this problem.
Yeah, that's kinda what I mean though. SF is building on a grander scale and has a denser core to begin with. In 20 years, if these trends continue IMO you could see SF being a city with a much large, more vibrant urban core than Boston. More housing, shops, restaurants, streetlife, vibrant streetlife etc. Some one traveling from Boston to SF could feel like they are going to the "big city" where today I think its a little more even. Not like going to NYC, but a clearly more active, dense built environment.
If Boston is building DC by the sea on the SBWF, then SF is building Chicago (or at least Vancouver) by the sea in SOMA. I just think in 20 years, SOMA could be as vibrant as the current urban core (Union Square/Chinatwon/Nobb Hill, etc). While it seems harder to imagine SBWF being a seemless extension of the vibrancy of Back Bay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88
You make it sound like an educational/research hub is boring. I would disagree.
No, its pretty cool. But, I just mean it won't generate the same sort of growth. The universities/hospitals will keep gradually growing and some new RD centers will pop up employing a couple hundred researchers here and there. But, SF seems more likely to spawn a global company employing 15,000 people in a HQ complex.
I would give SF the edge but both seem in a similar strata so-to-speak
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.
