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.
Los Angeles more prestigious than San Francisco? That's almost impossible to prove with facts, because it's not true.
San Francisco has the most prestigious downtown and is the most venerable business address on the West Coast. By Far.
In California, to conduct business from San Francisco's Financial District means you are taken more seriously as a company. It's because of SF's prestige that it is a way more expensive place to rent/ lease office space than anywhere in SoCal.
San Francisco has the most prestigious and highly regarded suburbs( more BY FAR), the most prestigious urban neighborhoods( does LA even have any prestigious urban neighborhoods? Certainly not near downtown)
San Francisco has the most prestigious academic institutions( and that applies to public/ private K-12 as well)
Los Angeles does exceptionally well as far as cultural institutions usually associated with "prestige", but then so does San Francisco. I actually would say that the combined Ballet+Opera+Symphony trio in SF tops LA but I still like the collection of LAs museums more than SF, but SFs museums have undergone and are undergoing much more dramatic and highly publicized expansions at the moment so I'll reserve judgement on museums.
We really could go on and on but its clear that some of you are confusing celebrity/ fame as prestige. That's laughable.
Within California, only people in places like Victorville or Bakersfield would ever say LA is more prestigious than SF.
Dont get me wrong, within CA, SF is blasted as a bossy, tempermental, liberal, hippie, socialist haven. But it's still considered more prestigious than LA. Actually by a very wide margin.
This is yet another way that SF beats LA in a category that LA should win.
Hmmm your argument is very flawed. SF alone cannot stand against the sheer size of the LA economy. LA has millions more people and it's physical size is more than 10 times that of SF. It's just not in the same league of SF. SF is the financial heart of the Bay Area which is riding a high wave of wealth as the center of an economic boom spurred by the tech industry. However, when this boom cycle goes bust, the Bay Area will be left pretty vulnerable. The LA region still has a more diverse economic sector and though things have been stagnant the past few years, the region is still has far more gravitas than the Bay Area nationally and internationally due to the city being host to epicenter of American media and entertainment.
Sorry, but this is just regurgitated gibberish that has already been debunked and destroyed in 3 other threads. Please read this thread over and come back to me if you have any questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sf_arkitect
SF is a very wealthy city of course, and for it's comparatively smaller population it definitely punches above it's weight. However, it's wealth still doesn't amount to the size of cities like LA and CHI.
Yawns. Constantly responding to clueless posts such as this really gets tedious.
Top 30 US Cities by Ultra High Net Worth Individuals
($30 Million+), 2014-2015
World Rank/ City / Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, 2014-2015
1 New York 8,655 4 San Francisco 5,460
5 Los Angeles 5,135
9 Chicago 2,885
11 Washington DC 2,730
12 Houston 2,545
15 Dallas 2,330
31 Atlanta 1,230
36 Seattle 1,095
37 San Diego 1,090
38 Miami 1,085
38 Detroit 1,085
41 Minneapolis 990
46 Denver 850
51 Philadelphia 695
52 Milwaukee 685
58 Orlando 640
61 Indianapolis 615
62 Kansas City 610
65 Tampa 580
68 Sacramento 550
75 Nashville 490
76 Cleveland 480
76 Fresno 480
78 Phoenix 475
78 St Louis 475
82 Palm Beach 455
30 Charlotte 440
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,140 posts, read 7,606,413 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTSAMG
LOL. If Washington DC were "sophisticated" and "prestigious" it wouldn't be actual flyover land to the world's actual sophisticated and prestigious people. Surely, somewhere "sophisticated and prestigious" would have dining and shopping worthy of prestige and sophistication? There seems to be a disconnect between what people who work there think of themselves and what the actual world thinks of them. Is there even a singe luxury store in Washington? It's odd that even to this day, the world's top fashion houses and greatest chefs (and billionaires, of course) don't find it worthy of their presence.
I'm sure the president can't wait until he's out of there so he can move somewhere more powerful so he can and mingle with his sophisticated & prestigious pals.
There are multiple luxury stores in DC, (shows how much you know) and 18Montclair already posted the cities with the most Ivy League grad residents of which LA was last in every school after NY SF and DC. Flyover country for whom? More international dignitaries fly into Washington to do business than LA regularly. How many embassies and consulates does Los Angeles have vs DC? You have more multi millio dollar mansions but half of your metropolis lives in almost third world poverty. DC is the highest educated and wealthiest metro on median income in the nation INCLUDING New York. GOH with that nonsense. LA is just bigger definitely not more prestigious.
A good illustration of the Bay Area's lack of relative prestige- Sergey Brin, the richest guy in the Bay Area, is supposedly buying a nearly $50 million home in Alpine, NJ, just across the river from Manhattan.
Google's Sergey Brin eyes lavish 49m mansion- Google
Even the Bay Area's tech royalty puts their money in more desirable markets. Yeah, the home purchase might be related to Google's massive Manhattan presence (something like 5,000 employees and 3 million square feet of space). Google, after all, is basically a holding company at this point, and the nontechnical staff should be in a global city, not a Silicon Valley office park.
But it also speaks to the Bay Area's relative (lack of) desirability compared to NYC, LA, London, Paris, etc. SF is a very good city, but also a long way from top-tier. The tech talent is 90% around San Jose, 50 miles to the south. Global elites don't want to live in Cupertino tract homes and eat at Applebees, which is the typical SV lifestyle. They want a global city.
Sorry, but this is just regurgitated gibberish that has already been debunked and destroyed in 3 other threads. Please read this thread over and come back to me if you have any questions.
Yawns. Constantly responding to clueless posts such as this really gets tedious.
Top 30 US Cities by Ultra High Net Worth Individuals
($30 Million+), 2014-2015
World Rank/ City / Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, 2014-2015
1 New York 8,655 4 San Francisco 5,460
5 Los Angeles 5,135
9 Chicago 2,885
11 Washington DC 2,730
12 Houston 2,545
15 Dallas 2,330
31 Atlanta 1,230
36 Seattle 1,095
37 San Diego 1,090
38 Miami 1,085
38 Detroit 1,085
41 Minneapolis 990
46 Denver 850
51 Philadelphia 695
52 Milwaukee 685
58 Orlando 640
61 Indianapolis 615
62 Kansas City 610
65 Tampa 580
68 Sacramento 550
75 Nashville 490
76 Cleveland 480
76 Fresno 480
78 Phoenix 475
78 St Louis 475
82 Palm Beach 455
30 Charlotte 440
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS STATISTIC.
How does having a high number of rich people residing in the city limits mean translate to the city economy being among the largest? Ooops, sorry for you but it does NOT! lol
Anywho, yawn....<rolling eyes>, you do read about the rent/eviction tensions going on in SF right? for the past few years? I assume you do, but maybe you are at a loss for remembering any of it. Many of the tech employees who have relocated to SF actually make their fortunes down the peninsula in cities like Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and San Jose. lol
I can name a few big brands in SF like Salesfore, Twitter, Wells Fargo, Charles Schwab, Levi's.....but the biggest sector of the SF economy is still from tourism, the city's hotel infrastructure is highly developed and international........but again, it is just not LARGE enough to offset the sheer amount of economic activity that happens in LA. You do realize LA is 3.8 million and growing vs. 850,000 in SF? I guess not, you are living in a bubble.
Sorry, but this is just regurgitated gibberish that has already been debunked and destroyed in 3 other threads. Please read this thread over and come back to me if you have any questions.
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS STATISTIC.
Erm, not according to Knight Frank.
Nice try cherry-picking the stats to find the survey that best suits your agenda. Knight Frank is more prestigious than "Wealth X". They know what they're talking about.
Reality:
World Rank/ City / Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, 2014-2015 New York - 3,008
Los Angeles -969
San Francisco -526
Boston -398
Washington, DC - 347
Los Angeles has far more UHNWI than San Francisco. Anyone who believes otherwise, and believes your source (which shows KANSAS CITY having more super rich than Boston and Miami - LOL!!) needs to get their heads examined.
Furthermore, I did a look into those real estate prices in Bel Air and discovered something that I hadnt considered before.
The two most expensive single family homes currently for sale in Bel Air, Los Angeles
1 $85 Million
2 $65 Million
Very impressive right?
Okay, now Pacific Heights, San Francisco
1 $12 Million
2 11.75 Million
Not nearly as impressive---but wait a sec.
That $85 Million Bel Air house is on a gigantic 122,403 sq ft lot.or 2.81 ACRES
That comes out to $694 per sq ft.
That $65 Million Bel Air House is on a whopping 83,199 sq ft lot or 1.91 ACRES
That comes out to $782 per sq ft.
San Francisco has zero homes that are that big. The biggest single family home in the entire city of San Francisco is the residence of the Chinese Consul General in Monterey Heights, and it clocks in at just under 1 acre. LOL. We have very few homes on even a tenth of an acre.
So, this is what happens,
That $12 Million Pacific Heights house is on 8,712 sq ft. lot. TEENY TINY by Bel Air standards, no?
And yet price wise your paying $1,377 per sq ft.
That $11.75 Million Pacific house is on a small 2,971 sq ft lot, which comes out to $3,954 per sq ft.
Here's an illustration for the reading challenged:
What this means is that this Bel Air House priced at $85 Million would cost $483 Million if it were located in Pacific Heights.
Nice try cherry-picking the stats to find the survey that best suits your agenda. Knight Frank is more prestigious than "Wealth X". They know what they're talking about.
Reality:
World Rank/ City / Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, 2014-2015 New York - 3,008
Los Angeles -969
San Francisco -526
Boston -398
Washington, DC - 347
Los Angeles has far more UHNWI than San Francisco. Anyone who believes otherwise, and believes your source (which shows KANSAS CITY having more super rich than Boston and Miami - LOL!!) needs to get their heads examined.
Hahaha They are the same source. Your link is city limit, mine is metro area.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,188,871 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTSAMG
Eyeroll. That poster has some chip on his shoulder, as he brings that subject into everything. China is more prestigious than Sweden.
In any case, there is no such thing as "social power". Money rules the world lol. Even the "prestigious" politicians are bought & sold by corporate interests. America worships money (aka power) and as long as you have tons of it, you're generally prestigious in the eyes of the typical person. Perhaps it's different in England, but certainly not here.
People in places like Washington live in a bubble, are many times politicos who are fascinated and think highly of their politicians, thus have a grandiose sense of self.
Money doesn't rule the world; people do. Money is often the tool used to do so, but not the only one, and money certainly does not confer prestige. Donald Trump is not looked at as particularly prestigious, though he went to prestigious schools and is fabulously wealthy. Conversely, Pope Francis is not wealthy, and yet he is considered one of the most prestigious individuals on the planet.
As this thread yet again devolves into "money, money, money", I have to keep repeating this: wealth is not prestige! Prestigious people are often wealthy, but it's not automatic. The same could be said of cities.
And if I were to get dragged into this never-ending money argument, what entity actually prints the money? Controls its value? Limits its abuse? If we're gonna keep talking about money (which is very important, don't get me wrong) as a measure of prestige, we have to talk about the government, don't you think? D.C. literally regulates the one thing posters here are arguing confers prestige. That seems fairly important and prestigious to me.
How does having a high number of rich people residing in the city limits mean translate to the city economy being among the largest? Ooops, sorry for you but it does NOT! lol
Anywho, yawn....<rolling eyes>, you do read about the rent/eviction tensions going on in SF right? for the past few years? I assume you do, but maybe you are at a loss for remembering any of it. Many of the tech employees who have relocated to SF actually make their fortunes down the peninsula in cities like Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and San Jose. lol
I can name a few big brands in SF like Salesfore, Twitter, Wells Fargo, Charles Schwab, Levi's.....but the biggest sector of the SF economy is still from tourism, the city's hotel infrastructure is highly developed and international........but again, it is just not LARGE enough to offset the sheer amount of economic activity that happens in LA. You do realize LA is 3.8 million and growing vs. 850,000 in SF? I guess not, you are living in a bubble.
ZZzzzZZZZZzz
Locations of homes priced $10 million and above, 2015 Manhattan: 612
The Hamptons: 253
Los Angeles County: 198
Miami: 192
Greenwich:45
Aspen: 42
Naples: 37
Palm Beach: 28
Dallas: 20
Westchester County: 19
Honolulu: 19
Marin County: 17
Santa Clara County: 16
Atherton: 12
Brooklyn: 10
La Jolla: 10
San Francisco: 9
Santa Barbara: 9
Atlanta: 9
Newport Beach: 6
Houston: 6
Washington, DC: 6
Go market your city to these people, because they look down on it. These are the people that matter.
Don't shoot the messenger.
And while we're at it, which luxury stores do you have lol.
How does having a high number of rich people residing in the city limits mean translate to the city economy being among the largest?
You said that SF's wealth does not rise to the level of Los Angeles or Chicago and that is patently, statistically false because the Bay Area has more ultra high net worth individuals than BOTH and more billionaire than BOTH.
Anything else?
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.
or 2.81 ACRES
