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 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
City only, Toronto.
MSA, Toronto.
CSA, DC.
I think here on C-D people tend to downplay Toronto...maybe because it's a Canadian city? Unlike the other cities on this list that the OP provided, Toronto is unquestionably the alpha, global city of its country...and it's a noticeable downgrade to the runner up city, Montreal (or Vancouver). To me, this counts for a lot. A city that is around the same population size as Chicago, both city and MSA wise, has dominance over an entire country. Something like 1 in 4 Canadians live in Greater Toronto. So while it probably has the smallest GDP out of all the cities here cause, ya know, it's not in 'Murica, on all other criteria the OP is asking for, Toronto leads the pack, or is right there. Construction, finance, media, infrastructure, diplomatic power, diversity, you name it, Toronto's there. Biggest construction boom in North America outside of NYC (and maybe Miami). Financial capital of Canada, third in NA after NYC and Chicago. Huge media presence, third largest film industry after California and New York. Large and very prominent festivals. Very strong case as the most diverse city on the planet, ahead of Miami, LA and NYC. Hottest rapper in hip hop, at the moment. I can keep going. We here on C-D love to talk about cities that "punch above their weight", like the Bay, Houston, etc. Well, given its status as Canada's largest city by far, Toronto is one of those cities, too.
Overall, once we zoom out to the CSA level and include Baltimore and a ton of wealthy sprawlburb (terrible, **** measuring metric btw but I digress) though, DC ekes out a win here. To me, CSA DC is the best of both the Bay and Toronto. Wealthy and educated, like the Bay, while diverse and incredibly prominent, like Toronto. Combine that with a stable industry (government) that will, barring catastrophe, only continue to grow and the DC CSA, imo, has a very strong shot at 3rd or 2nd (already at 4, to me). So the overall winner, though I think Toronto is the true "city" winner.
I think here on C-D people tend to downplay Toronto...maybe because it's a Canadian city? Unlike the other cities on this list that the OP provided, Toronto is unquestionably the alpha, global city of its country...and it's a noticeable downgrade to the runner up city, Montreal (or Vancouver). To me, this counts for a lot. A city that is around the same population size as Chicago, both city and MSA wise, has dominance over an entire country. Something like 1 in 4 Canadians live in Greater Toronto. So while it probably has the smallest GDP out of all the cities here cause, ya know, it's not in 'Murica, on all other criteria the OP is asking for, Toronto leads the pack, or is right there. Construction, finance, media, infrastructure, diplomatic power, diversity, you name it, Toronto's there. Biggest construction boom in North America outside of NYC (and maybe Miami). Financial capital of Canada, third in NA after NYC and Chicago. Huge media presence, third largest film industry after California and New York. Large and very prominent festivals. Very strong case as the most diverse city on the planet, ahead of Miami, LA and NYC. Hottest rapper in hip hop, at the moment. I can keep going. We here on C-D love to talk about cities that "punch above their weight", like the Bay, Houston, etc. Well, given its status as Canada's largest city by far, Toronto is one of those cities, too.
Most of that is true, but it's also true that Toronto is smaller, less iconic and significantly less wealthy than those other regions. So I would have to rank it last of the four.
It going to take more than 5 years for Chicago to become 4th, by any measure. Chicago's strength against LA/SF is that the Windy City stands alone as a regional capital, the economic hub of a region of 65 million people. LA and San Fran are both powerful cities (hence why California is a behemoth), but some of the influence is divided among them.
That said, I always take the "in 50 years" statistics with a grain of salt because a lot can happen in that time. If the current course continues, yeah I can see Chicago descending down the list. However, environmentally California is in a lot of trouble. Here in the Midwest, Chicago is sitting next to the world's largest supply of freshwater and is surrounded by miles and miles of fertile farmland, away from the rising sea.
While it may take more than five years, it likely won't take more than fifteen. Washington, along with San Francisco, is already hot on Chicago's heels, and I'm speaking of Washington at all levels---the city, the metro, the CSA, etc. Chicago will always be a top 5-6 city, likely, unless some unforeseen Detroit-style collapse happens in the future. But it's days of being considered an elite top 2/3 city are numbered, maybe even top four, as it is not outside of the realm of possibility that BOTH SF and DC pass it by. Realistically, it is no longer a matter of 'if' Chicago loses its place, it's when. The city has been losing prominence for decades (since LA bumped it for Second City status), and that will only continue...
To @redjohn's original post, I think LA is also being challenged, but it's not in as grave or imminent a position as Chicago is. San Francisco is certainly gaining on it, but LA is an entirely different monster. It's Second City status should be secure for another generation at least. But I do agree--Chicago is no longer the biggest threat to LA. The biggest threats are San Francisco and Washington. The gap between LA and SF/DC is certainly a smaller one than the gap between NY and LA. But SF and DC should be playing catch up for at least the next quarter century....
I think here on C-D people tend to downplay Toronto...maybe because it's a Canadian city? Unlike the other cities on this list that the OP provided, Toronto is unquestionably the alpha, global city of its country...and it's a noticeable downgrade to the runner up city, Montreal (or Vancouver). To me, this counts for a lot. A city that is around the same population size as Chicago, both city and MSA wise, has dominance over an entire country. Something like 1 in 4 Canadians live in Greater Toronto. So while it probably has the smallest GDP out of all the cities here cause, ya know, it's not in 'Murica, on all other criteria the OP is asking for, Toronto leads the pack, or is right there. Construction, finance, media, infrastructure, diplomatic power, diversity, you name it, Toronto's there. Biggest construction boom in North America outside of NYC (and maybe Miami). Financial capital of Canada, third in NA after NYC and Chicago. Huge media presence, third largest film industry after California and New York. Large and very prominent festivals. Very strong case as the most diverse city on the planet, ahead of Miami, LA and NYC. Hottest rapper in hip hop, at the moment. I can keep going. We here on C-D love to talk about cities that "punch above their weight", like the Bay, Houston, etc. Well, given its status as Canada's largest city by far, Toronto is one of those cities, too.
Overall, once we zoom out to the CSA level and include Baltimore and a ton of wealthy sprawlburb (terrible, **** measuring metric btw but I digress) though, DC ekes out a win here. To me, CSA DC is the best of both the Bay and Toronto. Wealthy and educated, like the Bay, while diverse and incredibly prominent, like Toronto. Combine that with a stable industry (government) that will, barring catastrophe, only continue to grow and the DC CSA, imo, has a very strong shot at 3rd or 2nd (already at 4, to me). So the overall winner, though I think Toronto is the true "city" winner.
LOL and the Bay Area is not SF Bay area is already the 2nd city of this country and a case can be made for LA, however all it has to argue is a GDP and population.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Most of that is true, but it's also true that Toronto is smaller, less iconic and significantly less wealthy than those other regions. So I would have to rank it last of the four.
I'll give you less iconic, sure. Maple leafs, blue jays, a CN Tower and a Drake don't compete with monuments, a Golden Gate bridge and tall skyscrapers. As far as smaller, I'm not following that. Of the list, Toronto is second only to Los Angeles in city proper. If we do the numbers inflate game with CSAs (which Canada doesn't have), Toronto (Golden Horseshoe measurement) is pretty much the same size as the Bay Area; both areas are behind DC/Baltimore and Chicago. When most people think "city" though, city proper (or city center) is the defining feature, and Toronto wins on that front.
Economy-wise, Toronto is the most powerful city of the four, trailing only Los Angeles. Puts up the least raw numbers in terms of GDP, but that's just one factor. The first link below has Toronto's ranking on numerous lists for economic might, while the second shows Toronto's ultra high net-worth individuals (quick, where's Montclair?). Wealth-wise, Toronto is second only to NYC in having super-rich people.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
LOL and the Bay Area is not SF Bay area is already the 2nd city of this country and a case can be made for LA, however all it has to argue is a GDP and population.
The Bay isn't the 2nd "city" of this country--sorry to burst your bubble. As of today, I'd place it at 5, behind NYC, LA, CHI and DC. Booming and doing very well, for sure, but it hasn't passed any of those ahead of it--yet.
All LA has is GDP and population? Uh, those are pretty important metrics for these city vs city discussions. Lol at the salt to just discard those. SF really does hate LA, doesn't it?
It is very difficult for anyone to deny that the San Francisco Bay Area has been on a hot-streak/tear for 5 years now and is coming up fast.
I don't understand but I get the impression that the San Francisco Bay Area's boom has been rubbing people off the wrong way. I think people were too comfortable and used to thinking of the San Francisco Bay Area as a Western United States equivalent to Greater Boston and now that the two are definitely in different tiers that people haven't adjusted to it well enough yet.
I remember reading this article when it came out a few years ago:
I think there is a lot of truth to it. IMO the big thing that really holds the Bay Area down (relatively speaking of course) is the extreme nimbyism but with all the extreme growth even in the past few years I wonder how much longer the nimbies and fat cats can continue to keep the flood gates closed. But I don't think SF as a city can hold a candle to LA. Just when you consider the CSA does the comparison become apparent.
The population of a city/MSA may not count as much in the 21st century as it did in the 19th and the 20th.
The old Big Three (NYC, Chicago, and Philly, which was later replaced by LA) were "big" because of the wealth generated by manufacturing, which was labor intensive. NYC and SF are generating a lot of wealth via finance and tech, but these are not labor intensive industries. Google employs 55,000 and Goldman Sachs employs about 34,000 (these numbers includes overseas offices). These are small companies compared to giant corporations of the late 19th century and 20th century. Of course, finance and tech generate jobs outside of their immediate payroll, but these tend to be low-paying service jobs like bartenders and baristas. NYC may be the largest in the U.S. but its MSA is still 12th in the world, smaller than cities like Guangzhou, Karachi, Delhi, Mexico City, and Mumbai. These cities may not exactly be the most glamorous places in the world, but their main industries are much more labor intensive than NYC.
In the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised if Sun Belt cities begin to threaten to surpass the Big 3 in the next fifty years. Austin is growing at a rapid rate, for example. Despite their wealth, NYC and SF are growing at a relatively slow rate (percentage wise). However, the people moving to cities like NYC and SF are much more educated. Look at the employment statistics at the Ivies and other elite universities in the U.S. and notice where their grads are ending up. The majority end up in cities in NYC, SF, or DC. I think this might be the best way to answer OP's question
The South is growing up in an era of horrible infrastructure planning. Cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston, etc have far superior infrastructure. And even then, SF probably has a top 5 transit system in the country and I'd say globally for a city its size and in such a wealthy, developed country/area, it's one of the worst transit systems and pales even to systems in 3rd world countries.
So I'm not confident that the South, exploding in population *now*, will be able to handle all that growth efficiently.
Also, it really means something to have the aged, experienced, and knowledgeable human capital attracted to the older greats. The south is simply attracting a lot of people, but these are people that vote down higher taxes to fund quality of life enhancements that attract the elite or transit enhancements that naturally attract companies just as much as incentives do.
Speaking of, everyone likes to talk about how NY and CA are shedding jobs and are horrible business environments. But then why is that most companies are grown and based in cities in these states, and that when they move, it's typically due to insane incentives packages offered by Sunbelt states? If it's so horrible in CA, why does it take FL, GA, or TX offering sometimes tens of millions of dollars to lure these companies away?
I guess my point is, I don't see the South truly competing any time soon and I place only some value on sheer population growth. I'm from the south - it's an understatement to consider the whole sunbelt relatively backwards and certainly not an overstatement to call the entire sunbelt relatively under developed/under-industrialized for its population.
The two areas that truly matter the most in this country and always will are the Bos-Wash corridor and the West Coast. Portland will be immensely huge and important in our future, and Seattle is already there, and we haven't even gotten to CA. No explanation needed for BosWash.
In the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised if Sun Belt cities begin to threaten to surpass the Big 3 in the next fifty years. Austin is growing at a rapid rate, for example. Despite their wealth, NYC and SF are growing at a relatively slow rate (percentage wise). However, the people moving to cities like NYC and SF are much more educated. Look at the employment statistics at the Ivies and other elite universities in the U.S. and notice where their grads are ending up. The majority end up in cities in NYC, SF, or DC. I think this might be the best way to answer OP's question
I doubt it. I mean... bigger cities by nature will have much smaller growth rates. For example, Charlotte went from 540,000 residents in 2000 to over 800,000 in 2014. That's over a 40% increase in population. New York only increased in population by about 6% or so during the same time period, but added nearly 500,000 residents. But of course Charlotte is the city that is framed as "booming" even though its growth is comparatively unimpressive in terms of raw numbers.
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.
SF Bay area is already the 2nd city of this country and a case can be made for LA, however all it has to argue is a GDP and population.
