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.
Now adays, I've seen from at least a few people on here that put San Francisco right after New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I even saw someone said San Francisco was more dominant than Chicago, and even crazier, said the city is on an even playing field or even more powerful than LA??
Is San Francisco really this economically powerful? I see that vacancy rates are still going down and rents (retail and residential) are still going up. San Francisco is geographically constrained, (not just in land area but by mountains as well) and there is some reluctance to build tall apartment buildings (I believe there is a 40 foot height limit outside of downtown).
Do you think Seattle could possibly come to surpass San Francisco in most aspects? Seattle has grown at such an incredibly fast rate that now its only about 130,000 behind San Francisco in population. Seattle's skyline is about equal with San Francisco's right now and Seattle is about 80% larger in area.
I could see Seattle surpassing SF proper in population only due to its larger land area and maaaaybe having a larger skyline at some point, but in all other aspects like density, transit options, prestige, culture, and international recognition........not likely.
In our lifetime? Probably not. The Bay Area is an economic powerhouse. In the distant future, who knows! Every country is poised for economic and political upheaval at some point, not to mention to change in geopolitical structure the next "big one" is sure to bring.
Now adays, I've seen from at least a few people on here that put San Francisco right after New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I even saw someone said San Francisco was more dominant than Chicago, and even crazier, said the city is on an even playing field or even more powerful than LA??
You must have been beside yourself in shock
lol
Quote:
Is San Francisco really this economically powerful? I see that vacancy rates are still going down and rents (retail and residential) are still going up. San Francisco is geographically constrained, (not just in land area but by mountains as well) and there is some reluctance to build tall apartment buildings (I believe there is a 40 foot height limit outside of downtown).
Do you think Seattle could possibly come to surpass San Francisco in most aspects? Seattle has grown at such an incredibly fast rate that now its only about 130,000 behind San Francisco in population. Seattle's skyline is about equal with San Francisco's right now and Seattle is about 80% larger in area.
It IS likely that Seattle's city proper will become larger than San Francisco's. It IS likely that Seattle's skyline will outgrow San Francisco's.
On a metro area level, though, as well as on a GDP level and international prominence level I just don't see it.
There are a few San Francisco members on here who are a bit unrealistic, though, in thinking it's a rival of NYC. NYC is unparalleled in this country. Then it's L.A. Then Chicago. Then probably DC. If anything DC might continue its rise and overpower Chicago in the coming years to be third-most-important MSA.
I could see valid arguments for San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia to all duke it out to be the 5th-most-important/dominant MSA in the country. I view Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle (and a few others) to be the next level down from there.
It IS likely that Seattle's city proper will become larger than San Francisco's. It IS likely that Seattle's skyline will outgrow San Francisco's.
On a metro area level, though, as well as on a GDP level and international prominence level I just don't see it.
I agree with this 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
There are a few San Francisco members on here who are a bit unrealistic, though, in thinking it's a rival of NYC. NYC is unparalleled in this country. Then it's L.A. Then Chicago. Then probably DC. If anything DC might continue its rise and overpower Chicago in the coming years to be third-most-important MSA.
I could see valid arguments for San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia to all duke it out to be the 5th-most-important/dominant MSA in the country. I view Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle (and a few others) to be the next level down from there.
Not sure I fully agree with this - I think it's clearly NYC and then LA as the #1 and #2. But I would put SF right there with Chicago and DC in the next tier, or at the very least I'd put it closer to Chicago and DC than to Dallas or Boston.
San Francisco is a city of 8,000,000 and Seattle is a little more than half that, broadly speaking.
City-of isn't terribly important...Seattle has more room to grow and is allowing a lot more growth...maybe we'll pass SF someday.
Downtowns...SF's core is quite a bit bigger and denser, but Seattle is growing at an astonishing pace, including way more highrises...we'll be a peer soon if this keeps going.
But I voted no overall. At least no anytime soon.
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.
