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.
San Francisco is basically the west coast version of Boston. It will never quite be the Alpha city like NYC, LA, or possibly Chicago are, but it is a strong regional base. It is known for its Eds, Meds, and Tech, and while it certainly holds its own with its original cultures, culinary scene, scientific development, and some diversity, it isn't quite at a top. If the city was a car brand, it would be a Lexus, while LA would be a Bentley or Rolls-Royce. Remember, LA/NYC have just as many great schools, hospitals, tech firms, plus more. It can be an advantage in that it doesn't have the big, egocentric entertainment gossip of LA/NYC, and I enjoyed my visit there last October and it actually felt a bit more relaxed than LA, though more sophisticated.
Based on the global and national stage, It would go like this:
1. NYC/LA (the Alpha+ cities)
2. Chicago (the Alpha city)
3. SF/Boston/DC (the Alpha- cities)
4. Houston/Philadelphia/Miami (the Beta+ cities)
5. Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/San Diego (the Beta cities)
6. Minneapolis/Denver/Phoenix/Las Vegas/San Antonio (the Beta- cities)
7. Cleveland/Columbus/Portland/Austin/Detroit/Tampa/Charlotte/Orlando (the Gamma+ cities)
8. Baltimore/St. Louis/Milwaukee/Indianapolis/Orlando/Nashville/Raleigh/New Orleans/Pittsburgh (the Gamma cities)
9. St. Louis/Providence/Albuquerque/Sacramento/Jacksonville/Fresno/Salt Lake City/Kansas City/Cincinnati/Louisville/Oklahoma City/Memphis (the Gamma- cities)
10. Richmond/Tulsa/Omaha/Rochester/Albany/Buffalo/Boise/Anchorage/Little Rock/Birmingham/Charleston/Columbia/Erie (the Delta cities)
As far as this suspicion, this is likely due to some event with a brown, oval-shaped ball in which the women watch more for the commercials and midgame show. Based on my scale, I consider any city from Gamma+ down to be based on national prominence as opposed to international since they are mostly regional and subregional centers in which regional and national economic development far outweighs international output.
San Francisco is basically the west coast version of Boston. It will never quite be the Alpha city like NYC, LA, or possibly Chicago are, but it is a strong regional base. It is known for its Eds, Meds, and Tech, and while it certainly holds its own with its original cultures, culinary scene, scientific development, and some diversity, it isn't quite at a top. If the city was a car brand, it would be a Lexus, while LA would be a Bentley or Rolls-Royce. Remember, LA/NYC have just as many great schools, hospitals, tech firms, plus more. It can be an advantage in that it doesn't have the big, egocentric entertainment gossip of LA/NYC, and I enjoyed my visit there last October and it actually felt a bit more relaxed than LA, though more sophisticated.
Based on the global and national stage, It would go like this:
1. NYC/LA (the Alpha+ cities)
2. Chicago (the Alpha city)
3. SF/Boston/DC (the Alpha- cities)
4. Houston/Philadelphia/Miami (the Beta+ cities)
5. Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/San Diego (the Beta cities)
6. Minneapolis/Denver/Phoenix/Las Vegas/San Antonio (the Beta- cities)
7. Cleveland/Columbus/Portland/Austin/Detroit/Tampa/Charlotte/Orlando (the Gamma+ cities)
8. Baltimore/St. Louis/Milwaukee/Indianapolis/Orlando/Nashville/Raleigh/New Orleans/Pittsburgh (the Gamma cities)
9. St. Louis/Providence/Albuquerque/Sacramento/Jacksonville/Fresno/Salt Lake City/Kansas City/Cincinnati/Louisville/Oklahoma City/Memphis (the Gamma- cities)
10. Richmond/Tulsa/Omaha/Rochester/Albany/Buffalo/Boise/Anchorage/Little Rock/Birmingham/Charleston/Columbia/Erie (the Delta cities)
As far as this suspicion, this is likely due to some event with a brown, oval-shaped ball in which the women watch more for the commercials and midgame show. Based on my scale, I consider any city from Gamma+ down to be based on national prominence as opposed to international since they are mostly regional and subregional centers in which regional and national economic development far outweighs international output.
Why is SD in the Beta with Dallas, Atlanta, and Seattle? No top international lists include SD. Usually you see Atlanta and Dallas appear in a top 50 cities in the world list.
I do thoroughly enjoy the "well its only tech and finance", as if those two things aren't insanely important in the modern world. Newsflash, if you own any kind of smart phone, you can thank the eggheads or use google on a daily basis, you can't make the argument that it isn't important. There's some kind of irony of posting how tech isn't important using the internet.
Look, the Bay Area and SF isn't a top 2 metro/city. It can't be because it's way too small. Even if it was vastly outperforming its size (which it is), population still has a bit of importance.
But the gaps between 3-5 are really really miniscule in the larger scheme of things.
Some CAN make the argument that SF is out of the top 5 altogether, but I won't make that argument (and I would suspect, neither would most objective people). Instead, what we see on this forum is "Well SF is more important than NYC" or "SF is less important than Des Moines, IA", of which both are insanely wrong.
Last edited by Lets Eat Candy; 02-05-2016 at 10:35 AM..
San Francisco is basically the west coast version of Boston. It will never quite be the Alpha city like NYC, LA, or possibly Chicago are, but it is a strong regional base. It is known for its Eds, Meds, and Tech, and while it certainly holds its own with its original cultures, culinary scene, scientific development, and some diversity, it isn't quite at a top. If the city was a car brand, it would be a Lexus, while LA would be a Bentley or Rolls-Royce. Remember, LA/NYC have just as many great schools, hospitals, tech firms, plus more. It can be an advantage in that it doesn't have the big, egocentric entertainment gossip of LA/NYC, and I enjoyed my visit there last October and it actually felt a bit more relaxed than LA, though more sophisticated.
Based on the global and national stage, It would go like this:
1. NYC/LA (the Alpha+ cities)
2. Chicago (the Alpha city)
3. SF/Boston/DC (the Alpha- cities)
4. Houston/Philadelphia/Miami (the Beta+ cities)
5. Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/San Diego (the Beta cities)
6. Minneapolis/Denver/Phoenix/Las Vegas/San Antonio (the Beta- cities)
7. Cleveland/Columbus/Portland/Austin/Detroit/Tampa/Charlotte/Orlando (the Gamma+ cities)
8. Baltimore/St. Louis/Milwaukee/Indianapolis/Orlando/Nashville/Raleigh/New Orleans/Pittsburgh (the Gamma cities)
9. St. Louis/Providence/Albuquerque/Sacramento/Jacksonville/Fresno/Salt Lake City/Kansas City/Cincinnati/Louisville/Oklahoma City/Memphis (the Gamma- cities)
10. Richmond/Tulsa/Omaha/Rochester/Albany/Buffalo/Boise/Anchorage/Little Rock/Birmingham/Charleston/Columbia/Erie (the Delta cities)
As far as this suspicion, this is likely due to some event with a brown, oval-shaped ball in which the women watch more for the commercials and midgame show. Based on my scale, I consider any city from Gamma+ down to be based on national prominence as opposed to international since they are mostly regional and subregional centers in which regional and national economic development far outweighs international output.
LA is a big dog in some ways, but is also surprisingly deficient in a lot of ways and an overall argument that LA is closer to NYC than the Bay Area is difficult since there are so many, especially economic, metrics in which the Bay Area ranks considerably higher than Los Angeles.
Overall, would say:
NYC
.
LA, DC, Bay Area, Chicago
Boston, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, Seattle
If you include the Silicon Valley in the calculation then yes, SF is more prominent than LA and Chicago. SF has always been a leader of new ideas and innovation not only for the US but the entire world.
It's 'cause of Silicon Valley and the degree to which it / tech revolution has become such a huge part of the culture today.
That said, S.F. is my favorite city by far. It's beautiful and magical although sadly, because of Silicon Valley, it's becoming more and more gentrified and will lose it's "soul" if this trend continues.
I'd like it if people woke up, got their eyes off the d____ screen and their heads out of their a____ and the entire tech industry take a huge nose dive and then re-invent itself as an industry that does some good for people and the planet instead of churning out useless and disposable crap that serves no true purpose but to keep people distracted and deluded into thinking that their actually doing something worth a d_____.
That's my rant.
Can't stand the whole Silicon Valley paradigm
They're all bunch of money grubbing, bratty, entitled, heartless, soul-less, self-important, capitalist whores. Generally speaking.
O.K. ... now i'm done.
Last edited by blueskywalker; 02-05-2016 at 10:50 AM..
I do thoroughly enjoy the "well its only tech and finance", as if those two things aren't insanely important in the modern world. Newsflash, if you own any kind of smart phone, you can thank the eggheads or use google on a daily basis, you can't make the argument that it isn't important. There's some kind of irony of posting how tech isn't important using the internet.
Look, the Bay Area and SF isn't a top 2 metro/city. It can't be because it's way too small. Even if it was vastly outperforming its size (which it is), population still has a bit of importance.
But the gaps between 3-5 are really really miniscule in the larger scheme of things.
Some CAN make the argument that SF is out of the top 5 altogether, but I won't make that argument (and I would suspect, neither would most objective people). Instead, what we see on this forum is "Well SF is more important than NYC" or "SF is less important than Des Moines, IA", of which both are insanely wrong.
No one said that the tech industry wasn't important but that the pervasive attitude by the geeks in the Bay Area is that they believe they're truly revolutionizing society in a radical way. They're not, they're changing society more and more to rely on their trinkets. A lot of it is for the better and a lot of it is getting bloated and just as stagnant as what happens with any major industry as they get huge and starts colluding with the govt. It's the holier than thou insistence that they're something different than the predecessors but they're not anymore bottom line driven than any other industry. They're not in the business of revolutionizing the world but in the business of making money. Nothing wrong with that but stop insisting that you're so different. A tycoon is a tycoon. That's the annoyance I have with this "creative class"
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.
has become such a huge part of the culture today.
