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.
If the issue is urban vs suburban, then the little city of SF by itself is a far superior urban environment and vastly more "world class" than the massive city of Los Angeles and anywhere in its even more massive CSA.
Downtown SF on its worst day, is stil far more "World Class" than the "up and coming" cbd LA calls a downtown on its best day. Wouldnt you agree?
Hands down SF defines world class
that said LA has the larger persona
SF is riding a more recent wave and probably will continue to have a lot of momentum
I actually miss some of the edge of SF from even 15 years ago but with change there is always good and bad aspects.
Lastly a city does not have to be a core urban etc to be world class LA is a great example of this Also much of what has really given the Bay area the fuel to gain today is not really driven form SF proper.
I like LA and SF both very much, 10 years ago I would have chosen SF over LA as a preferred place today LA is actually growing on me much moreso and may now be my first choice of the two
I actually miss some of the edge of SF from even 15 years ago but with change there is always good and bad aspects.
Very true, SF in comparison was actually kind of dumpy in a lot of parts before 2000 imo. A lot of areas have cleaned up very well, but have also lost some character, authenticity in the process.
Quote:
Lastly a city does not have to be a core urban etc to be world class LA is a great example of this Also much of what has really given the Bay area the fuel to gain today is not really driven form SF proper.
"Indeed, it's fascinating how Super Bowl 50 has come to reflect the Bay Area's regular, everyday 21st-century zeitgeist. In San Francisco, you'll have all of the touristy stuff and beautiful people trying to look trendy by desperately seeking out hip gatherings and flash mobs. Meanwhile, all of the real business that drives the regional economy will be getting done in Silicon Valley and the South Bay."
Boston can make a healthy claim for the #6 spot in the US based on their MSA alone--and it's certainly not laughable to suggest it. Two of Boston's most prominent industries, financial services/asset management and medical research & development, won't have their effect/influence shown in a GDP calculation. Asset Management would obviously be measured by their level of Assets Under Management, of which Boston is #2 by a wide margin, trailing only NYC in the US and potentially only NYC and London in the entire world.
Top 300 Asset Management Firms as of 2012:
1. NYC 101 firms totaling $11.670 trillion under management
2. Boston 26 firms, $5.563 trillion
3. Los Angeles 13 firms, $2.965 trillion
4. San Francisco 12 firms, $1.711 trillion
5. Philadelphia 6 firms, $1.589 trillion (95% is from Vanguard)
6. Chicago 17 firms, $1.508 trillion
As for R&D, Greater Boston is ground zero for medical/pharma/biotech research. It has lead NIH funding for 20 years and has easily the best lineup of research hospitals in the nation. It has arguably the best environment for biotech/biopharma startups, and almost all of the largest life sciences companies in the world have major research centers in the area.
Beyond that, it's the #2 startup city in the country. Traditionally, it has been easily #2 for private venture capital only to Silicon Valley, but New York City has caught up recently and the two have been trading spots at #2. However, when you consider the $4 billion/year that MIT and Harvard put into startups within their own environment, Boston pushes way ahead of anyone except for the Bay. As a result, Boston will be at the forefront of the "next big thing" almost in perpetuity, pushing medical & technological breakthroughs.
For those reasons, I think it's fair to say Boston could have an argument as the #6 city in the nation despite having the #9 (though possibly #8 by the time the 2014 MSA numbers come out) GDP in the nation.
I think the only city with an argument against Boston for the #6 spot is Houston. I don't think Dallas or Philadelphia have as strong of arguments--at least I haven't seen them.
Great post, solid information, cant say I disagree with any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Your mistake is considering GDP as the only measure of importance.
I'm pretty sure I made the argument with TPI, Population, and GDP in unison and not just solely GDP. If you read something different, that's not on me.
I'm pretty sure I made the argument with TPI, Population, and GDP in unison and not just solely GDP. If you read something different, that's not on me.
Yea, that's on me. I guess I was focusing too much at you saying it was 9th in GDP and that's part of the reason it doesn't have an argument as #6. You did list other factors.
For a city its size, the public transportation in LA is an embarrassment. That alone is an important criteria When determining world-class cities.
Not that important, especially when there are sufficient alternative transportation options like highways. LA has terrible (though improving) rail network, though the bus system is quite good as far as I can see.
Not really what I was getting at all or what I thought Fastphilly's post was indicating.
He/she seems to be deriding LA for being a "behemoth" because of its large suburban population. Well 90% of the Bay Area's population is also in the suburbs. Pot, Kettle...
The reason on made that post is because too many ppl on this forum put way too much stock in population when ranking cities or to a more specific topic such as world class.
One poster made some specific points to justify LA as world class. Some points were good while other points were terrible.
Two such points were airport O&D which has more to do with CSA than city proper. Another was world class amusement parks. Last time I checked Disneyland is in Anahiem, Not Los Angeles. Third point was more international destinations. The disparity between LAX and SFO for direct flights to foreign countries isn't that substantial to discredit one city while praising the other as world class.
^^^ I actually agree (with the earlier) that certain infrastucture aspects have hurt philly coupled with tax structures of Philly proper and PA
sorry folks this was posted in the wrong thread
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.
