U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Most prestigious
Los Angeles 114 44.36%
Chicago 39 15.18%
Washington, DC 44 17.12%
San Francisco 60 23.35%
Voters: 257. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:23 AM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 447,038 times
Reputation: 382

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Well, you saw my list. I don't think Chicago is more prestigious than DC and LA for the reasons provided above. I would also say it's not as prestigious as Boston due to the history, concentration of wealth, Harvard, etc.
So, what's so prestigious about San Francisco more so than other cities? And are you talking about the bay or just tiny san Francisco, because these things matter. Should the topic state that San Francisco and San Jose are more prestigious than LA?

 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:27 AM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 447,038 times
Reputation: 382
Can't wait until Philly joins NYC as a CSA, so it can be more prestigious than San Francisco since a city gets to claim other cites assets if they're in the same CSA.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,623 posts, read 24,826,243 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
SF doesn't have 10 million people, and LA doesn't fall to SF in any factor related to prestige.
SF is both wealthier and more educated. Not to say that's the end all be all, but those are two factors where SF has LA beat.

There's no way to prove prestige. Though I would say most people would agree that New England is more prestigious than the Deep South. If that's true, then why is that the case?
 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,623 posts, read 24,826,243 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious View Post
So, what's so prestigious about San Francisco more so than other cities? And are you talking about the bay or just tiny san Francisco, because these things matter. Should the topic state that San Francisco and San Jose are more prestigious than LA?
I spelled it out in my previous post.

-It's wealthier than Chicago

-Not as blue collar

-Whiter than Chicago proper (and White people are more educated).

-More diverse metro

-More comparisons to Europe

That's pretty much it. I think it has more cachet than pretty much all of the other cities in the U.S. (Boston, imo, is close). As I stated earlier, prestige is dictated by upper middle class white tastes and perceptions, which is why London will always be considered more prestigious than Mexico City and Mumbai.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:36 AM
 
Location: LA
41 posts, read 27,722 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Oh?
Yes.

Haahahah, Jeff Rotschild is not part of that family. Jeff Rotschild is a rustbelt-born American and is not a Rothschild heir.

And besides, "Jeff Rotschild" perfectly paints my picture.

Quote:
Jeff Rothschild was by far the oldest executive at Facebook when he joined the company in 2005, a year after it was founded.
Again. Is there an example of one truly super-rich person who lives in San Francisco by choice? As in not working in tech? The list of San Francisco billionaires are nearly all tech-related. Obviously, they live there...what choice do they have?

Which begs me to ask this question: Why don't the jet-set genteel class find San Francisco prestigious or desirable? There are 1,645 billionaires in the world, and I doubt you will find a single one of them who owns homes in San Francisco if they don't live there/not related to the tech industry. I'm sure over half of them own homes in NY, LA. Why the global-rich think so lowly of San Francisco would actually make a great case study.

You can copy & paste all of the economic stats you have in your back-pocket unit your fingers fall off, but in the real world, LA will always be seen as a city with more cachet and desirability. I know you find that frustrating but that's life.

Last edited by GTSAMG; 08-26-2015 at 11:53 AM..
 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:46 AM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 447,038 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTSAMG View Post
Yes.

Haahahah, Jeff Rotschild is not part of that family. Jeff Rotschild is an American and is not a Rothschild heir.

And besides, "Jeff Rotschild" perfectly paints my picture



Again. Is there an example of one truly super-rich person who lives in San Francisco by choice? As in not working in tech? The list of San Francisco billionaires are nearly all tech-related. Obviously, they live there...what choice do they have?

Which begs me to ask this question: Why don't the jet-set genteel class find San Francisco prestigious or desirable? Why the global-rich think so lowly or San Francisco would actually make a great case study.
The bolded is one of the points I was making. They don't seem to get it. San Francisco millionaires are ric off of tech while LA's millionaires are more than likely there by choice. NYC, LA, and even small parts of Miami are a rich person's paradise. If you ask the general public where they would buy a home if they had a million bucks, San Francisco probably won't crack the top 5.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,166,725 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The Newark area is almost certainly more prestigious than the Chicago area.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,598 posts, read 53,157,788 times
Reputation: 14516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious View Post
San Francisco is a fine city that's just lucky to have Silicone Valley nearby. Without that, its nothing more than a west coast Boston, which is still good.
Yes, Silicon Valley which was and is financed by SF investors was created by students and faculty at Stanford University, a school that was built on the country estate of San Francisco railroad baron, Leland Stanford.

And once again,
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious
LA doesn't need to hold another city's nuts to prop up its importance either, its a monster by itself.
LA has 18 Million people but falls to a region with 10 Million less people in most key factors.

Does LA even have nuts?
Basically this is what it all boils down to.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 12:04 PM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 447,038 times
Reputation: 382
Wow, even on city data San Francisco is losing, imagine in real life what the results would be.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,598 posts, read 53,157,788 times
Reputation: 14516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTSAMG View Post
Yes.

Haahahah, Jeff Rotschild is not part of that family. Jeff Rotschild is a rustbelt-born American and is not a Rothschild heir.

And besides, "Jeff Rotschild" perfectly paints my picture.



Again. Is there an example of one truly super-rich person who lives in San Francisco by choice? As in not working in tech? The list of San Francisco billionaires are nearly all tech-related. Obviously, they live there...what choice do they have?

Which begs me to ask this question: Why don't the jet-set genteel class find San Francisco prestigious or desirable? There are 1,645 billionaires in the world, and I doubt you will find a single one of them who owns homes in San Francisco if they don't live there/not related to the tech industry. I'm sure over half of them own homes in NY, LA. Why the global-rich think so lowly of San Francisco would actually make a great case study.

You can copy & paste all of the economic stats you have in your back-pocket unit your fingers fall off, but in the real world, LA will always be seen as a city with more cachet and desirability. I know you find that frustrating but that's life.
Yes dear I know that was for fun.

Just wanted to make your eyes pop out which clearly they did.

Oh, and I didnt read past the first few lines. I dont devote too much effort to "new"( giggles) forumers.

What is apparent is that in the grand scheme of the debate thusfar, San Francisco pretty much owns Los Angeles.

Celebrities and their homes is the only thing you or any other 8th grader from stupidlandia has brought up as a point.

Dear Lord, send me a worthy opponent.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top