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.
Agree. If San Francisco were to have a major downturn it will be due to land value and startups and companies wanting to relocate to widen their margins. But technology itself is to broad a segment to do to SF what automobile did to Detroit. A better comparison would be if SF was big on mobile phone manufacturing period, but it's not. Also I doubt we as humans ever stop being innovative, that would be the downfall of all cities not just SF.
So cars aren't important to humans either?
And no one is saying that humans will lose the ability to use technology - it'll just be outsourced like it currently is right now. The car industry got outsources to Japan, the tech industry is going to India.
I'm very skeptical of places that rely solely on one industry to survive. Yes, finance exists in SF. Yes, tourism exists in SF, but most of its economy is based off of one thing.
And no one is saying that humans will lose the ability to use technology - it'll just be outsourced like it currently is right now. The car industry got outsources to Japan, the tech industry is going to India.
I'm very skeptical of places that rely solely on one industry to survive. Yes, finance exists in SF. Yes, tourism exists in SF, but most of its economy is based off of one thing.
Not to burst your bubble because I think MIA is a nice city, but SF really is one of America's top cities. Anyway you slice it, from tech, finiance, biotech, tourism, food, history, cultural influence. SF packs a punch.
Not to burst your bubble because I think MIA is a nice city, but SF really is one of America's top cities. Anyway you slice it, from tech, finiance, biotech, tourism, food, history, cultural influence. SF packs a punch.
So did Detroit before the 1970s.
SF is a great city - it just isn't top 5 city. We can agree to disagree.
It's not like SF is "new" to being a powerhouse, either. SF throughout its existence since ~1850 has been a major American city. Chicago, Detroit, and San Francisco are all born of the same era (~1850). The only one that skyrocketed to much greater status earlier on is Chicago. Wayne County, MI and the city limits of San Francisco today (excluding Oakland) had almost the same exact population in 1900. Detroit had a bit of a prewar growth spurt, but we're talking 2.5 million vs 1.5 million people by 1940 (meanwhile Chicago had boomed to ~4.5-5 million by that time period).
SF gave the US both Bank of America and Wells Fargo. It dominates private equity, asset and wealth management, investment banking, and other factions of the financial sector that only cities like Boston and Chicago can likewise say they too dominate (after New York, obviously). It is to VC what New York is to finance in general. Things like the Transcontinental Railroad, the W Coast ports, and operations sustaining the gold rush, copper mining, etc out west were all financed by SF institutions. Basically, the western US exists largely because of San Francisco. That legacy is a bit hard to replace or deteriorate.
SF also is a major player in trade (the Bay Area ports aren't Long Beach/LA but are still top 5-6 in the country), biotech/pharma (up there with Boston), general corporates, and with Google/Tesla/Uber/Apple leading the charge in driverless cars and the technologies that go with them, will probably be a center of car manufacturing as well. Not to mention the Bay Area is also the lead economic region for developing, manufacturing, and implementing clean/green tech, which will undoubtedly become a more important aspect of our lives and the economy. While Detroit's metro petered out around 5 million people, the Bay Area will hit 9 million people soon and continues to grow despite its really high housing costs. Not to mention the Bay Area has been one of the top 3-5 immigration centers of this country for its entire existence, something that Detroit really didn't benefit so much from, and a really important quality for cities to grow, thrive, and retain relevance in an ever changing world.
Basically, the world needs to end for San Francisco to become the next Detroit.
Now, that squashed, top 5 cities for much of the last few generations, if not for a good while longer, have been NYC, Chicago, LA, DC, and SF. This really hasn't changed all that much since SF, DC, Chicago, and LA all really came into their own in the 2nd half of the 20th century into the 21st century. Detroit and Philly may have slipped in there somewhat at some point, but Detroit's era of power and dominance was fairly short lived, and Philly lost a good chunk of relevance towards the point these other cities were born.
LA - megacity, southern cal is a monster, undisted leader of the second largest population center on the US
Chicago - undisputed leader of the third largest center in the US. Sphere of influences stretches throughout parts of Great Lakes region.
DC - US Capital, very educated, and anchors a large region, although it somewhat shares with Baltimore. Considering it is the capital it might be interchangeable with Chicago.
SF - This is the toughest one for me. I am not the biggest fan of CSAs and CD has made me develop a slight dislike for The City, but I do feel its top 5. Its a big player in finance and tech and has a booming economy at this point. Its also very rich and educated. There hsve been much talk about the tech industry cooling off for a while now and I dont think it will be Detroit, but its economy will come back down to eart at some point. It also shares its region with SJ and Oakland.
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.