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.
It's hard to argue LA is even #1 in California nowadays. I don't think a single politician from the LA-area holds a statewide elected office. Both US senators are from and have been from the Bay Area for a long time now.
It's not hard to argue at all, metro LA has 33% of Californians, but constitutes 40% of California's economy I would say it punches good enough, just enough to let SF breathe without total dominance of the state.
It's not hard to argue at all, metro LA has 33% of Californians, but constitutes 40% of California's economy I would say it punches good enough, just enough to let SF breathe without total dominance of the state.
No, it has nearly half of CA's population. From the article:
"The five-county Los Angeles region has more than twice as much population as the Bay Area – and nearly half of the state’s residents..."
It depends on the region. In Latin American absolutely. In Europe, its probably similar. In Asia, absolutely not.
I've been going to Seoul at least once a year for about the last 6 years. Completely caught me off guard with the amount people who inquired about Florida??
I've been going to Seoul at least once a year for about the last 6 years. Completely caught me off guard with the amount people who inquired about Florida??
That doesnt make it more well known than Chicago or especially SF. It definitely isnt in that region.
That doesnt make it more well known than Chicago or especially SF. It definitely isnt in that region.
Sure. But people in far reaches of south america and Cape Town, South Africa aren't inquiring about SF when you say you're from the US. I'm not saying anything about actual GDP, metro population and so on...all I'm saying is that Miami/Florida must have a heck of a tourism bureau playa?
At the end of the day prominence is perception and everyone has their own.
I wouldn't say Chicago is "overrated" per say because the city draws as much extreme negativity as it does boosterism. On City Data, Chicago is either "Manhattan 2.0" or "Detroit 2.0", depending on who you ask.
However, Chicago has an undeniably stagnant economy. It doesn't take away from its importance as a major city per say but, in terms of economic dominance, it's clearly a tier below the San Francisco CSA(which is similar in population to Chicagoland). Bay Area tech is transforming the scope of the world as we type while Chicago is still latching on to industries that have already been surpassed by NYC and LA, namely its financial and entertainment sectors. (The largest bank in Chicago is headquartered in NYC, for instance.)
The song "Anything you can do, I can do better" plagues Chicago when compared to these 2 cities because, otherwise, Chicago is definitely a tier above most major cities in the U.S., including Boston, Seattle, Philly, Houston, DC, etc. It just suffers from being "2nd place" in many areas and 1st place in very few.
As for SF vs LA, LA is simply too big to say that SF "surpassed" it. The LA CSA is more than twice the population of the SF CSA.
SF may have a faster growing economy but economies of scale are a big factor here.
However, Chicago has an undeniably stagnant economy. It doesn't take away from its importance as a major city per say but, in terms of economic dominance, it's clearly a tier below the San Francisco CSA(which is similar in population to Chicagoland).
Is this really true, though?
Latest stats showed GDP growth at ~3.4% y.o.y. for Chicago metro, which was percentage wise smaller than SF metro, but similar in raw numbers:
I would say LA still has significant prominence over SF due to it's sheer size and our media/s childish fixation on Hollywood. I would however now say SF is more prominent than Chicago.
Chicago is sort of viewed as yesterday's news, a city who's best days are behind her. LA is known for it's Hollywood brand, SF for it's high-tech and social progression, and Chicago for it's crime. LA is simply too large to lose it's #2 spot while many Metros are nipping at Chicago's tails. It will always be viewed as a major and important US city but it's relative stature continues to decline and there is no reason to think that scenario will change. Even it's once dominance of being NA most important city away from the coast is dwindling with the dramatic ascendency of Toronto.
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.
