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.
Sure, both areas are multi-nodal, but San Francisco and Silicon Valley share power in a way that LA does not. LA is the undisputed king/center of its region.
But really so what? This notion that different areas within a single region 'share power' is meaningless because they all represent the same region. San Francisco is a globally famous city that always places very high in many rankings regardless of the fact that it's next to Silicon Valley, so really how much is SF 'hurt' by SV?
But really so what? This notion that different areas within a single region 'share power' is meaningless because they all represent the same region. San Francisco is a globally famous city that always places very high in many rankings regardless of the fact that it's next to Silicon Valley, so really how much is SF 'hurt' by SV?
The question should be how much is SF helped by SV? All the fortune 500 and wealthy suburb stats that you posted included companies and areas in SV. The question is if SF is more prestigious than LA, not the entire bay, yet you use SV stats and act as if SF is so much more powerful and prestigious than it actually is.
The question should be how much is SF helped by SV?
Oh really. So LA's appeal is not enhanced by it's surroundings? Are you serious?
Like I said, in a strict city limits comparison, LA actually loses more than SF as far as prestige. Have you ever been to these 2 city centers?
Quote:
All the fortune 500 and wealthy suburb stats that you posted included companies and areas in SV.
Huh?
Fortune 500 Companies, 2015
City of San Francisco: 6( all in Downtown btw)
City of Los Angeles: 4
Los Angeles is 10 times larger in size and 4.5 times more populated than San Francisco.
Quote:
The question is if SF is more prestigious than LA, not the entire bay, yet you use SV stats and act as if SF is so much more powerful and prestigious than it actually is.
Oh, based on your strict city vs city criteria, how is Los Angeles more 'prestigious' than San Francisco?
Im just d-y-i-n-g to know, because thusfar all we've seen is sophomoric references to movie stars, which is stupid.
Oh really. So LA's appeal is not enhanced by it's surroundings? Are you serious?
Like I said, in a strict city limits comparison, LA actually loses more than SF as far as prestige. Have you ever been to these 2 city centers?
Huh?
Fortune 500 Companies, 2015
City of San Francisco: 6( all in Downtown btw)
City of Los Angeles: 4
Los Angeles is 10 times larger in size and 4.5 times more populated than San Francisco.
Oh, based on your strict city vs city criteria, how is Los Angeles more 'prestigious' than San Francisco?
Im just d-y-i-n-g to know, because thusfar all we've seen is sophomoric references to movie stars, which is stupid.
I'm not saying strictly city limits, but msa vs msa. That is a more true reprentation of SF, not SF + SV. The question is which "city" has the most prestige and here on CD msa is usually seen as a true representation of a city.
I'm not saying strictly city limits, but msa vs msa. That is a more true reprentation of SF, not SF + SV. The question is which "city" has the most prestige and here on CD msa is usually seen as a true representation of a city.
Well, you can tell the CD gods that the Bay Area is different because the San Francisco 49ers' home stadium is located in the San Jose MSA, that SJ's ABC, CBS, FOX etc affiliates are stations are all located in the SF MSA, that each day, 1 million+ cars cross the SF/SJ MSA border through seamless and uninterrupted development all the way from SF to SJ and those are just a few reasons why it is perfectly acceptable to use the entire region when weighing the benefits of SF.
Otherwise Mr Ambitious, I think this is an excellent way to accurately compare LA to a similarly sized version of SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
So I was considering the urban cores of these 2 major regions and discovered an extremely interesting comparison that actually makes sense and doesnt handicap LA by comparing it to the much smaller city of SF giving SF higher averages across the board that wouldnt really mean much considering the size difference.
Therefore I decided to do a demographic comparison between the City of Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area.
Look how similar these 2 areas are in size and population:
Area:
San Francisco-Oakland UA 523 sq miles
Los Angeles City 470 sq miles
2010 Population:
Los Angeles City 3,792,621
San Francisco-Oakland UA 3,281,212
2014 Population:
Los Angeles City 3,928,827
San Francisco-Oakland UA 3,468,694
Their current growth:
2010-2014 Population Growth:
San Francisco-Oakland UA +187,482...+5.69%
Los Angeles City +136,206....+3.58%
The San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area has noticeably higher represenation in every racial group except Hispanics and Blacks...
Racial Breakdown, 2014
Los Angeles City: 3,928,827
Hispanic 1,910,990...48.6%
Non Hispanic White 1,118,352...28.4%
Asian 451,825...11.4%
Black 339,431...8.6%
Two or More Races 76,703...1.9%
Other Race 11,513..0.02%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 7,292...0.01%
American Indian 6,596...0.01%
San Francisco-Oakland UA: 3,468,694
Non Hispanic White 1,264,942...36.4%
Asian 954,098...27.5%
Hispanic 782,868...22.5%
Black 281,324...8.1%
Two or More Races 134,750...3.8%
Native Hawaiians/ Pacific Islander 27,132...0.7%
Other Race 14,720...0.4%
American Indian 8,860...0.2%
Now some socio-economic aspects:
Total Households, 2014
Los Angeles City 1,343,084
San Francisco-Oakland UA 1,271,789
Households Earning $200,000+, 2014
San Francisco-Oakland UA 180,129...14.1% of all households
Los Angeles City 97,750...7.2% of all households
Households Earning $150,000+, 2014
San Francisco-Oakland UA 301,721...23.7% of all households
Los Angeles City 170,243...12.6% of all households
Families Living in Poverty, 2014
Los Angeles City 146,491...18.2% of all families
San Francisco-Oakland UA 55,906...7.3% of all familes
Adults with a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2014
San Francisco-Oakland UA 1,161,847...46.4% of all adults
Los Angeles City 851,487...32.3% of all adults
Median Household Income:
San Francisco-Oakland UA $81,112
Los Angeles City $50,544
Median Family Income:
San Francisco-Oakland UA $97,345
Los Angeles City $55,147
Median Married Couple Family Income:
San Francisco-Oakland $117,270
Los Angeles City $73,543
This one in particular really caught my eye
Median Family Income with Children Under 18 Years of Age:
San Francisco-Oakland UA $100,842
Los Angeles City $45,096
We can decipher lots of things from this data about desirability and the sort of people who are migrating to these 2 areas, and it makes perfect sense really.
I'm not saying strictly city limits, but msa vs msa. That is a more true reprentation of SF, not SF + SV. The question is which "city" has the most prestige and here on CD msa is usually seen as a true representation of a city.
Much of the traditional limit of the Valley is in the SF MSA as well (many of those Valley cities you've heard of like Menlo Park, Foster City, Redwood City, with others such as Palo Alto and Mountain View right on the border of the 2 MSAs). And nearly all of what we call "the Valley" is north of SJ reaching towards SF.
Yes, the Valley is a big part of the Bay Area. So is Oakland these days, and Emeryville, and Walnut Creek and Milpitas and Pleasonton and Marin County, and South San Francisco. I'll agree with you that like LA, the Bay Area is a huge mass of economic power, everywhere. But SF is still a stronger city/city center than LA and more firmly anchors the region from an economic and cultural perspective than LA does for its.
Sure, both areas are multi-nodal, but San Francisco and Silicon Valley share power in a way that LA does not. LA is the undisputed king/center of its region.
I don't think you get my point. Los Angeles covers a much larger physical area--the city of Los Angeles itself is multi-nodal and those nodes are often shared along with other municipalities though it really all just runs and blends into each other. Like, Culver City is central to a node, so is downtown Los Angeles, so is Burbank, so is Santa Monica, so is the port area of Los Angeles/Long Beach, so is El Segundo, so is Pasadena, and then you got nodes further out like Thousand Oaks, Anaheim, Irvine, etc. Both areas as a whole are multi-nodal and it doesn't make much sense to cut things off at just the legal borders.
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.
