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.
In my experience, the booming sunbelt cities are always the most overrated. Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix and San Diego immediately come to mind.
I picked Los Angeles from this list. L.A. County is an excellent region, but as a city, L.A. leaves a lot to be desired--no downtown, poor transportation, ugly buildings, ugly streets and neighborhoods... Milwaukee WI has a more happening downtown and more attractive architecture than LA.
New York, Boston, San Fran and Miami carry their weight.
Las Vegas was once very overrated, but it's getting a lot better there.
Chicago is underrated by people who don't live there and overrated by the people who do live there, so I guess it balances itself out.
Austin is a cool city, but very niche-y and seems to have little to offer to the 30+ crowd.
Posts like this prove how underrated (more accurately, how little-understood) LA is.
When do we see NYC and Philly? or Chicago and Milwaukee?
Dont flip flop now that you've been corrected. It was you who mentioned CSAs in your post so please dont pretend that the concept is foreign nor unbelievable to you.
Dont flip flop now that you've been corrected. It was you who mentioned CSAs in your post so please dont pretend that the concept is foreign nor unbelievable to you.
Pfff, as if.
Simply mentioning CSA doesnt mean I agree with the concept.
You are the one who made mentioned that the Chicago CSA has 2.2 million more people than the Bay Area CSA but now vainly bristle at the fact that the Bay Area CSA's GDP is actually larger than the Chicago CSA's GDP.
You are the one who made mentioned that the Chicago CSA has 2.2 million more people than the Bay Area CSA but now vainly bristle at the fact that the Bay Area CSA's GDP is actually larger than the Chicago CSA's GDP.
Sounds like a flip flop to me.
It actually isnt because the first position remained the same. Theres no change in population with the CSA since the Metro is also a difference of about 2 million, so whether I used CSA or MSA, wouldnt matter.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA
CSA populations are goofy anyway.
not in the case of a few, like the Bay Area. This is really a contiguous urban area. A significant employment center in the South Bay is dependent on SF commuters and the City benefits greatly from it. The reason the Bay Area is spread out to three cities is geographical. There is water and mountains governing the growth pattern. In Houston or Chicago, it's kind of crazy to start reaching out an hour's driving time to include the population as a single urban area, but here, it makes sense.
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.
