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.
Miami has Boston over diversity, the HQ of Latin Culture, the capital of Latin America,
That's all good, but diversity doesn't necessarily equate to importance.
Quote:
Sea Ports, Airports, Air Cargo, International Finance and Media.
International finance? How so? Boston is ranked as the #9 Global Financial Centre, Miami isn't ranked on their list of the 62 top financial centres in the world. The only time Miami banking was important was during the 80s when money laundering was still legal and the cocaine trade was going completely unchecked by the government. Boston is home to the world's leader in mutual funds, Fidelity Investments and the world's leading asset manager, State Street Bank (my employer). It's also arguably the #3 private equity city in the world, trailing behind only New York City and London in the Top 50 Private Equity firms rankings.
The Top 5 by Capital raised over the past five years (by the top 50 firms as of 2008)
1. New York City: $298.15B
2. London: $184.76B
3. Boston: $83.32B
4. Washington DC: $69B
5. Paris: $28.97B
I'll give you the ports, but how does that make Miami more important than Boston?
Quote:
Obviously no one competes with Boston in education. I guess Miami is more important internationally than it is in the US.
Aside from the presence of Latin culture, what does Miami do that makes it have more international influence than Boston's world-class universities, financial institutions, high-tech firms, and biotech/pharmaceutical companies?
Quote:
I actually forgot about Chicago your right, I would make it:
1.NYC
2.LA
3.DC
4.Chicago
5.SF
6.Miami
7.Atlanta
8.Boston
9.Houston
10.Philadelphia/Dallas
I am thinking more on an international scale here not just domestic.
I can't believe you would put Miami and Atlanta ahead of Boston, Houston, Philly and Dallas...how do you justify that? I wouldn't put Atlanta or Miami anywhere near them. Hometown bias much?
*Post 1,000!* wow, I'm such a loser, I've only been on this forum for 6 months...
The Dallas-Fort Worth metro, however, is larger. Fort Worth isn't that small a city.
Moderator cut: Personal Attack What do you think we've been discussing this whole time? Do you really think SF would even be an option if we weren't including the rest of the Bay Area along with it?
Last edited by doggiebus; 08-06-2009 at 01:01 PM..
Reason: Be nice to one another!
Do you write so much in the hope that I'll just give up and stop arguing? Here it goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
And you say I take things the wrong way. WOW. He was making the point that if SJ and The Bay were thought of synonymously (which in many cases they are) you wouldn't have beef with that. But for some weird reason you, and ONLY you, are taking issue with people speaking of San Francisco and the Bay Area interchangeably. You also tried to deny that SF and The Bay are synonymous to people closer to here than Iowa. You thinking that SJ and Oakland are distinct coincides with him saying all three are synonymous with THE BAY AREA. What is so difficult about this for you to understand?
****, you really think I'm so dumb to be such a blatant hypocrite? I would never see "San Jose" and assume somebody was speaking of the entire Bay Area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
You took our view of any of the 3 major cities being synonymous with the Bay as us thinking you were "trying to lay claim over our city." That's your bad, not either of ours. And what's so extreme about pointing out that you most likely wouldn't have been singing the same tune if SJ were more identifiable for the Bay than SF is? I think he's right, and it should have only caused you to ease up rather than go on the attack. All it meant was that it shouldn't be a big deal if people are identifying the region as SF when they could just as easily do the same with Oakland or SJ. And how likely would you realistically be complaining if people were referring to the Bay as "San Jose?" I mean it would be weird, but think about it. If it would bother you just as much, then fine. But at least get where he was coming from when he used that example. And keep in mind that a huge part of the reason that people refer to the Bay as just "San Francisco" is because the Bay Area surrounds the San Francisco Bay. (Yes I'm aware of San Pablo Bay and expect my last sentence to once again cause your panties to severely bunch up, so I'll make it clear to you that I know the correct geography of our region. )
I just addressed this above, but I'll state again that I would not just sit back and revel in people recognizing the region as "San Jose" on a message board. ****, how many times do I have to go out of my way to refute hsw's stupid posts about San Francisco just being a "bedroom community" of Silicon Valley?
By the way, San Pablo Bay is a body of water within the greater estuary known as San Francisco Bay. [/panties bunch]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
Who said there was any affront to SF? You just seemed to have such a huge problem with the area being called SF by being so defensive and such a stickler on the specifics of geography that your reaction appeared to be pride-driven. You were making a big issue out of something that really doesn't/shouldn't matter to anyone. The terms aren't interchangeable in your opinion. Fine. To the rest of us they are, so deal with it.
I made one post to point out how "San Francisco" has two definitions on this board. Sometimes it's just San Francisco city and sometimes it's the Bay Area. You skipped right over that whole point to debate some "complex" I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
The whole point of what rah and I were getting at earlier had to do with you making too big of a deal out of the common terms that are used to identify this area. You keep sidestepping that and focusing on how we described the way your behavior appeared to us. And by fixating on that aspect you appeared even more defensive towards SJ and more bent out of shape over something that really shouldn't matter very much. And the only sense we are able to make out of it is to think that you have a problem with people identifying this region as "San Francisco." This is how you are coming across, and I don't know how I could possibly make this any clearer for you.
I didn't make that big a deal of it in the first place. The whole post was less than two sentences. You two biting my head off is a much bigger deal, so to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
You continue to make it appear to be a battle. I, too, do not see why the average individual using a commonly used term ruffles your feathers so, nor do I understand how it was justification for your earlier rant. I find it hilarious that you accuse us of being too extreme in one instance, and then follow up in the same post with an even more exaggerated example that does an even worse job of trying to highlight your point.
It was a "battle" made by rah as he accused me of thinking one case of synechdoche was acceptable while another wasn't. I simply stated that neither was proper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
"United Kingdom" is a term that includes the entire kingdom, much as "Bay Area" or "San Francisco Bay Area" does for this region. Someone shortening it to "SF" is no different than someone using the term "UK." If you had said "England" rather than "Scotland," then you would have identified the wrong country. That would have been the same as singling out San Jose and calling it San Francisco. Nobody did that. People call the entire region "San Francisco" collectively, and SJ gets included in that in the sense that its in the vicinity of SF, which has historically been better known. It was the biggest city in the region for its first 140 years, so old habits die hard.
You missed that analogy bigtime. You cannot use "England" to describe the United Kingdom just as I said you shouldn't use "San Francisco" to describe the region. It's why "Bay Area" is so common in the first place. People other than me have preferred that broader title long before this little spat of ours. Do they all have complexes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
Typically I don't attribute that mind-numbing idiocy to you. But you came off as though that was your angle. And as you know from being on the same side of things when it comes to that, it is a familiar angle. I'm glad to hear you are still not on that side of things, for I've known you to deplore it in the past. As usual, we have misunderstood each others actual meanings and motives. I hope I have made my side of things clear to you now.
I take no issue with you or rah with regard to anything beyond your reactions to me. My post a few pages back addressed the aforementioned variable definitions of "San Francisco." Sometimes the South Bay is just "hideous sprawl" with "no culture" and then other times Silicon Valley is driving the debate for San Francisco's greatness. I'm grouping you with all kinds of SF attitudes I've faced over time so sorry to argue with all of them and not specifically with you.
Sometimes the South Bay is just "hideous sprawl" with "no culture"
Please honey, the South Bay is filthy rich. Turn over a rock and find a Millionaire. Shake a tree and a Billionaire falls out. Your companies are the envy of the world.
That gives you an automatic front row seat in this place we call the Bay Area-and City snobs know that.
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.
And you say I take things the wrong way. WOW. He was making the point that if SJ and The Bay were thought of synonymously (which in many cases they are) you wouldn't have beef with that. But for some weird reason you, and ONLY you, are taking issue with people speaking of San Francisco and the Bay Area interchangeably. You also tried to deny that SF and The Bay are synonymous to people closer to here than Iowa. You thinking that SJ and Oakland are distinct coincides with him saying all three are synonymous with THE BAY AREA. What is so difficult about this for you to understand?
)
