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.
Both are pretty great and specialize in different things.
If you had to pick a singular city in a vacuum, I think it is easily Los Angeles. San Francisco punches way above its weight but without the Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley it cannot reach the magnitude of importance Los Angeles does. Taking the whole Bay Area versus all of Southern California, it gets closer (because IE is a bit of an anchor while the South Bay is a huge boost) but I think Southern CA still gets the nod.
Seriously. I've lived in both the Bay Area and LA, and I think its amazing the lengths people go through to denigrate the other side. I see what 18Montclair is trying to say, that the Bay Area isn't your typical 2nd city that is reliant on Los Angeles for anything. That would be correct, the Bay Area is in its own sphere of influence, and is a large influence on its own.
However, since the thread is asking "what is each state's 2nd city", that would assume there is a #1. And yes, LA and SF share a state and LA is #1, no matter how much mental gymnastics you play with it.
BUT what the LA homers seem to miss right now is that SF on its own right is important. Saying that it's only a "job center" (bizarre way to think, I and most other professionals spend most of our lives working, so I don't see how that's a minor detail) or that somehow that the importance of the Bay Area is solely tied to LA is preposterous.
Both sides are being pretty hyperbolic. It's kind of stupid when it comes down to it because at the end of the day, state lines are completely arbitrary, and the Bay Area in relation to LA is a city that's 400 miles away. LA is more important, but that doesn't mean that SF isn't important as well. Jeez.
They are most definitely in the same GDP level because NYs GDP is $500 Billion bigger than LA!
You are closer to the Bay than you are to New York.
So just drop it because this road your on will only lead to you having hurt feelings.
We all know NY can only be discussed with the likes of London and Tokyo...and that's probably it. LA doesn't belong in the same light, and SF Bay area doesn't in LA's. Just like the Rhine-Ruhr region in Germany, which is an economic juggernaut in tech and finance, doesn't belong with Paris - which is really LA's European match. Nonetheless, all this metro areas have an immense global presence that so many other metros can only dream about (I'm thinking Texas lol).
Don't worry about my feelings. They aren't linked to a city's dominance or how people perceive it to be. LA has a lot of problems, and Angelenos will be the first ones to point them out. Either way, Long Beach is my favorite city in California. It might not have the glam of LA or the charm of SF, but the culture and people are hard to beat anywhere else in the state (laid back, friendly and cool without the pretentious attitudes found in both metros).
Seriously. I've lived in both the Bay Area and LA, and I think its amazing the lengths people go through to denigrate the other side. I see what 18Montclair is trying to say, that the Bay Area isn't your typical 2nd city that is reliant on Los Angeles for anything. That would be correct, the Bay Area is in its own sphere of influence, and is a large influence on its own.
However, since the thread is asking "what is each state's 2nd city", that would assume there is a #1. And yes, LA and SF share a state and LA is #1, no matter how much mental gymnastics you play with it.
BUT what the LA homers seem to miss right now is that SF on its own right is important. Saying that it's only a "job center" (bizarre way to think, I and most other professionals spend most of our lives working, so I don't see how that's a minor detail) or that somehow that the importance of the Bay Area is solely tied to LA is preposterous.
Both sides are being pretty hyperbolic. It's kind of stupid when it comes down to it because at the end of the day, state lines are completely arbitrary, and the Bay Area in relation to LA is a city that's 400 miles away. LA is more important, but that doesn't mean that SF isn't important as well. Jeez.
I agree. San Francisco is the first city, besides Los Angeles, that I felt utterly in love with at first sight, and the love gets deeper every time I visit the Bay Area. I'm a big fan of Oakland too. We are lucky to have both metros in the same state, and I really wish that this bullet train were built YESTERDAY, as I would be spending every other weekend up there. SF and LA's economies compliment each other, if anything. Sure, SF is California's tech and finance center, but LA is North America's western gateway to the world (geographically and culturally), especially Asia.
Nonetheless, the discussion is fun to say the least. Better distraction than what I should actually be doing with my time. lol
Seriously. I've lived in both the Bay Area and LA, and I think its amazing the lengths people go through to denigrate the other side. I see what 18Montclair is trying to say, that the Bay Area isn't your typical 2nd city that is reliant on Los Angeles for anything. That would be correct, the Bay Area is in its own sphere of influence, and is a large influence on its own.
However, since the thread is asking "what is each state's 2nd city", that would assume there is a #1. And yes, LA and SF share a state and LA is #1, no matter how much mental gymnastics you play with it.
BUT what the LA homers seem to miss right now is that SF on its own right is important. Saying that it's only a "job center" (bizarre way to think, I and most other professionals spend most of our lives working, so I don't see how that's a minor detail) or that somehow that the importance of the Bay Area is solely tied to LA is preposterous.
Both sides are being pretty hyperbolic. It's kind of stupid when it comes down to it because at the end of the day, state lines are completely arbitrary, and the Bay Area in relation to LA is a city that's 400 miles away. LA is more important, but that doesn't mean that SF isn't important as well. Jeez.
What LA homers are you talking about? If anything its been one way argument with SF boosters with non Californians.
Yes, LA is a great air hub, congrats( lol), but as far as business in this day and age, it's about relevance and being necessary.
Yes, both Greater Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are relevant and necessary places. It really shouldn't kill you to admit that Greater Los Angeles more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Your reliance on the sheer size of LA, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Bay Area is heads and shoulders above LA as far as influencing the global economy NOW is laughable.
As the recent GDP numbers show, Los Angeles and the industries based in Los Angeles have the larger annual output by well over $330 Billion (that's nearly half of the Bay Area's entire economy as it is). Industries such as trade/logistics are factored into that where Los Angeles serves as a colossal import market and export market. That is power, that is influence too.
In the first world, there are rare instances where just a city is better than a megacity but that is rare and not true of the United States. For example, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester despite what any one individual thinks will never be on London's level. Amsterdam, Berlin, Barcelona as cities are not on Paris or London's level.
Here in the United States, New York is tops, Los Angeles second. It isn't any different and this applies to the state of California too.
So yes, size, that thing you'll never have going for you versus Los Angeles, ever, is a pretty crucial thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
And in a thread about US states, who the hell cares what people in Turkey think?
Don't be angry that Greater Los Angeles has a higher profile overseas than the San Francisco Bay Area. Image is one part of the reason Los Angeles is California's premier city too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
San Francisco clearly owns that image in California, sorry to disappoint ya. lol
The United States is a kitchen with 50 ovens. In 15 minutes all contents in all 50 ovens will be ready, when you open the one labeled "California" and take out the contents that are inside, Los Angeles is the pizza and San Francisco is the bagel bite.
That is to illustrate the obvious size disparity. Sorry to disappoint you.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 04-20-2015 at 01:08 PM..
I agree. San Francisco is the first city, besides Los Angeles, that I feel utterly in love with at first sight, and the love gets deeper every time I visit the Bay Area. I'm a big fan of Oakland too. We are lucky to have both metros in the same state, and I really wish that this bullet train were built YESTERDAY, as I would be spending every other weekend up there. SF and LA's economies compliment each other, if anything. Sure, SF is California's tech and finance center, but LA is North America's western gateway to the world (geographically and culturally), especially Asia.
This is closer to my real life experience of the Bay Area. I haven't been back in a bit since life got really busy, but it's awesome we share a state with each other. Together, both cities make California what it is. I hope the Bullet Train is finished too, so I can visit my old college friends a lot more, and going on interviews for jobs up there would be a lot easier. However, the drive there can be nice, especially if you take the time to take CA-1.
I get why a lot of Bay Area people feel the need to puff their chest a bit, given the underexposure the Bay Area has vis-a-vis LA. However, I think compared to other cities in its tier (Chicago, DC, Boston, etc.), it's actually exposed just as much or even more than they are. It's hard to compare to LA or NYC on that front, since media is based in both cities.
However, the culture of the Bay Area isn't geared toward traditional media coverage to begin with. Hell, even Bay Area born sports stars (Marshawn Lynch, Paul Pierce, etc.) hate the media. I actually appreciate that a lot.
Quote:
Nonetheless, the discussion is fun to say the least. Better distraction than what I should actually be doing with my time. lol
This is closer to my real life experience of the Bay Area. I haven't been back in 2 years since life got really busy, but it's awesome we share a state with each other.
I dunno why I can't have fun reading these City v City discussions. I need to chill out haha Totally the opposite attitude that most 4/20ers have.
I think once you get over the "who's more important than who" and cross out pros and cons for both cities and just appreciate them for what they are, it's actually totally possible to love both the Bay Area and LA. Hell, I'm a Niner fan because of my time in the Bay Area. LA will always be home for me though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
What LA homers are you talking about? If anything its been one way argument with SF boosters with non Californians.
I agree. San Francisco is the first city, besides Los Angeles, that I felt utterly in love with at first sight, and the love gets deeper every time I visit the Bay Area. I'm a big fan of Oakland too. We are lucky to have both metros in the same state, and I really wish that this bullet train were built YESTERDAY, as I would be spending every other weekend up there. SF and LA's economies compliment each other, if anything. Sure, SF is California's tech and finance center, but LA is North America's western gateway to the world (geographically and culturally), especially Asia.
Nonetheless, the discussion is fun to say the least. Better distraction than what I should actually be doing with my time. lol
If the bullet train was built, I think a member of my family would be using it almost every weekend. I have a young child so my in-laws are always visiting or vice versa, and the idea of ditching the car (nightmare on the 5) and not having to deal with getting to LAX and from SFO/OAK to the suburbs would be amazing.
Just hop on the Gold Line, get on the bullet train, get off the bullet train, hop on BART, get picked up 5 minutes from the in-laws.
If the bullet train was built, I think a member of my family would be using it almost every weekend. I have a young child so my in-laws are always visiting or vice versa, and the idea of ditching the car (nightmare on the 5) and not having to deal with getting to LAX and from SFO/OAK to the suburbs would be amazing.
Just hop on the Gold Line, get on the bullet train, get off the bullet train, hop on BART, get picked up 5 minutes from the in-laws.
Both are pretty great and specialize in different things.
If you had to pick a singular city in a vacuum, I think it is easily Los Angeles. San Francisco punches way above its weight but without the Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley it cannot reach the magnitude of importance Los Angeles does. Taking the whole Bay Area versus all of Southern California, it gets closer (because IE is a bit of an anchor while the South Bay is a huge boost) but I think Southern CA still gets the nod.
Assuming making these comparisons are based on economy still, the IE doesn't hold back Southern CA at all. If I make comparisons based on GDP between the two regions SoCal wins on every front.
LA>SF Bay Area
San Diego>San Jose
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (The IE)>Sacramento
yes, and mind you I never said that LA isnt a primary city because clearly it is.
My contention is that SF actually is a primary city in CA as well, and based on the facts, is clearly true as well.
Well that is not what this thread is about. Los Angeles is the premier city of California and the thread is about the SECOND CITIES in each state.
Here is the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
Every state has a primary city be what it may. Most states are easy, Chicago is Illinois' primary city, Denver is Colorado's primary city. But what about second cities? Every state has to have a runner up city, the second most important, second most visited, second most populous, second coolest, etc, whatever it is, share each state's SECOND city. You can do all 50 states or just the ones that interest you, just curious to see what people think. Have fun!
I've taken the liberty of underlining the topics the OP wanted us to use to breakdown the arguments. By every single last one of them, San Francisco finishes second in California. It is not debatable.
San Francisco Bay Area is the SECOND most populous in California. San Francisco Bay Area is the SECOND most visited city in California. San Francisco Bay Area is the SECOND most important place in California. No way to quantify cool objectively, so I will leave that alone.
San Francisco: Second place finish.
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.
Totally the opposite attitude that most 4/20ers have.
