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.
I'm sure Houston is very livable. Just not as livable as Boston, which isn't as much as Honolulu or Vancouver. These aren't opinions. They calculate factors to make the study. Call up the Mercer Foundation and prove to them otherwise about Houston.
Honestly, they can come up with all kinds of methodology they want. If Houston is more livable to ME, then I will not care what some list says. I won't go off what some list says on what is more livable or not anyway. It is opinionated to me. Nobody needs to call Mercer Foundation, the National livable center, the White House, the House of Blues, or any other place to show how livable their city is for them.
What makes you think Houston's going to get denser? You guys have a lot of room to spread out.
Contrary to popular belief, Houston does have an urban core, that is only densifying. And you'll continue to see it densify once all 5 new LRT lines are completed, with 3 under construction.
As its growing,it spreads out, but Houston's limits are pretty much set, notice I said set, not developed, so the only thing happening now is that its getting built out, and meanwhile inner Houston is already built out for the most part, so all thats left for it to do is densify, which is happening.
I'm boggled by this: "That is more a product of a university than of Boston". That's like saying "the economic contribution of Company X is more a product of Company X and not City Y".
Take for example that City A's net worth of all of its combined companies headquartered there is 2 trillion. Yet its GAP is only 400 billion. Can City A honestly claim that 2 trillion? That's what I mean by alumni having no revelance.
I think listing the alumni is totally relevant because the people received their education from Boston institutions. Education is important, right? It's a huge part of our economy and like you said, not all these students stay in Boston. In my opinion that even furthers my point. These people are trained in Boston and then go to other cities and use the skills they learned here. It's one of our main industries. Houston produces oil, Boston produces knowledge.
I understand your point, I just don't think you can actually use that as a selling point for Boston's importance. You can say that Boston's has the most universities, most research money, etc, but imo, you can't say our alumni have turned out to be CEO's of F500 companies , etc and still hold that as having relevance. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I already wrote my response, and then the page refreshed so I'll be direct. As Houston grows, it will densify, become more livable, get bigger, and become more important due to its size. And your right, the GAP shouldn't be the only factor, although I would say the first and most important measure of comparison.
GAP is certainly a very important factor, but if the gap isn't astoundingly big (such as the case between Boston and Houston's MSA or that between their CSAs), then it makes sense to start factoring in a lot of other crucial factors that aren't very well-measured by simple gross domestic product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthmoreAve
I think bringing in alumni from Boston's numerous higher education instituations doesn't really count. That is more a product of a university than of Boston. Because its not like they all stay in Boston. It would be like adding all the money made by companies headquarter'd in a city, which would not make sense since not all the companies work is done in that city. It just doesnt work out, and imo, shouldn't even be brought up in this discussion. If all the presidents of the US graduated from Rice, that would mean nothing to illustrate the importance of Houston imo.
These people are the product of other areas, of course, but they are also a product of Boston. What someone learns at places such as Harvard/MIT/Tufts/Brandeis/etc., and then applies in other areas of the world lends importance to both where that initial education, thoughts, principles, and opportunities comes from (Boston) and to where they ultimately end up putting those principles into practice (the latter which much more directly contributes to a GDP but doesn't negate the influence of Boston). As for headquarters, of course much of the work is usually done outside of headquarters, but what work is done there--the actual higher-level decision making--should have its influence weighted far more strongly since it can influence the other regions much more strongly.
Also, the stats definitely back you up with Houston "densifying" in its core. Hopefully this keeps up and the sprawl gets reined in more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
I'm sure Houston is very livable. Just not as livable as Boston, which isn't as much as Honolulu or Vancouver. These aren't opinions. They calculate factors to make the study. Call up the Mercer Foundation and prove to them otherwise about Houston.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think relying on these livability charts isn't very authoritative. There's a reason why people keep moving to Houston, and livability in a very pragmatic sense (cost-of-living for a certain set of amenities, future growth, job opportunities) is much of what drives this. On a personal level, everyone weighs things differently and there's a lot of arguments on that level which would make Houston more livable than Boston for various reasons. A study for what is "generally" livable is actually pretty wanky.
And Houston doesn't produce knowledge??? Boston isn't unique in that factor. Houston produces up to about 30% of the US black pharmacist (TSU). Rice, Baylor School of Medicine, University of Houston, and more.
It's not that Houston (or many other cities) doesn't produce knowledge. It's not like other cities aside from Houston lack a presence in the energy industry. The difference is in magnitude. Rice is truly a top tier school, but it's certainly dwarfed by the various institutes in the Boston area. Also keep in mind that Rice is actually a far smaller school (students, faculty), and thus not as competitive in as many fields, as many of the schools in the Boston area. It doesn't negate its importance, but it does show how powerful Boston is in education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthmoreAve
Take for example that City A's net worth of all of its combined companies headquartered there is 2 trillion. Yet its GAP is only 400 billion. Can City A honestly claim that 2 trillion? That's what I mean by alumni having no revelance.
I understand your point, I just don't think you can actually use that as a selling point for Boston's importance. You can say that Boston's has the most universities, most research money, etc, but imo, you can't say our alumni have turned out to be CEO's of F500 companies , etc and still hold that as having relevance. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I don't think tmac is saying that you can directly attribute all the earnings and inventions of a Boston-area graduate working elsewhere as completely the result of a Boston education. What does make sense is that those years of study, and that expertise centered where he studied, makes a crucial difference--and this goes hand-in-hand with saying how difficult it is to measure a place strictly by its GDP.
I would concede that livability is a 'refined opinion' than an actual measurement.
But nonetheless the studies ranking Boston's economy/economic factors are very reputable, and pretty hard to argue with.
They do take into account human capital, education, reseach, financial institutions--things that can't/won't be ennumerated in a GDP, as tmac9wr as written a few times, which is why Boston ranks so high in world standings. These are things that should no longer be denied.
Looking at these studies it's hard to deny Boston's supremacy over Houston and many, many other cities in the country and world even.
But whether Boston is better than Houston, or Houston is better than Boston will always be debatable. A piece of advice about debating, let the facts presented speak for themselves, if you don't agree with them, find others, so on and so forth. Saying "Notah" doesn't really help anyone.
It's more of a fact and it's more of an exaggeration when people say Houston has lots of room to grow.
Huh? It was the best of times, it was the worst of times?
Is it a fact or an exagerration.
Quote:
And Houston doesn't produce knowledge??? Boston isn't unique in that factor. Houston produces up to about 30% of the US black pharmacist (TSU). Rice, Baylor School of Medicine, University of Houston, and more.
Nobody has a 100% market share. Houston isn't the only city in the country with oil companies. However, Houston is definitely the oil king for the US. Are you seriously going to say those schools belong in the same sentence as Harvard or MIT? I sure hope not. Rice is a great school, but it's not on the level of Harvard. Boston is on a different plane when it comes to education. There are so many students in the Boston area...about 250,000 in Boston, Cambridge and Brookline alone. I know everyone talks about density ad nauseam but the college student density for those three cities comes out to 4,045 spsm (250,000/61.8 square miles). That's pretty ridiculous.
Quote:
Overall; I don't think neither city has a large lead over the other. Boston has us in history and influence; However, I think Houston leads in importance and progressiveness (specifically growth, economy, etc). Thinking about it; I could see Boston on a higher level than Houston; However, Houston isn't exactly lagging behind.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying Houston is more progressive than Boston...politically, Boston's considered to be a very progressive city. I agree that I don't believe either city is considerably more important than the other though.
I don't think tmac is saying that you can directly attribute all the earnings and inventions of a Boston-area graduate working elsewhere as completely the result of a Boston education. What does make sense is that those years of study, and that expertise centered where he studied, makes a crucial difference--and this goes hand-in-hand with saying how difficult it is to measure a place strictly by its GDP.
Ya I definitely am not saying that since an MIT alumni founded Intel, that counts as a Boston company haha.
Huh? It was the best of times, it was the worst of times?
Is it a fact or an exagerration.
It's a fact that Houston is becoming more dense and it's an exaggeration that Houston has tons of land to use.
Nobody has a 100% market share. Houston isn't the only city in the country with oil companies. However, Houston is definitely the oil king for the US. Are you seriously going to say those schools belong in the same sentence as Harvard or MIT? I sure hope not. Boston is on a different level when it comes to education. There are so many students in the Boston area...about 250,000 in Boston, Cambridge and Brookline alone. I know everyone talks about density ad nauseam but the college student density for those three cities comes out to 4,045 spsm (250,000/61.8 square miles). That's pretty ridiculous.
I don't think anyone ever said Houston is the only city in the country with oil. My point is how education is used for Boston (which does offer some of the best universities in the country); however, you don't have to go to Boston to get a good education. I personally don't believe Education is a good argument against Energy.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying Houston is more progressive than Boston...politically, Boston's considered to be a very progressive city. I agree that I don't believe either city is considerably more important than the other though.
That's why I said specifically growth and economy.
That's why I said specifically growth and economy.
What do you think drives growth and economy? Financial firms are attracted to Boston because of its human captal. The same way a energy company would be attracted to Houston.
Boston's mammoth economy is built on its educational institutions. Just as Houston's was built on oil.
I don't think anyone ever said Houston is the only city in the country with oil. My point is how education is used for Boston (which does offer some of the best universities in the country); however, you don't have to go to Boston to get a good education. I personally don't believe Education is a good argument against Energy.
And you don't need to go to Goldman Sachs to invest...but it's the best option. Take a look at the list of alumni of MIT or Harvard (more). Those people don't graduate and flip burgers. Yes, you can get a fantastic education in other schools. Boston certainly isn't even close to the only option...however, it's considered to be a college Mecca.
I don't know how to react about your comment regarding energy vs education...
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.
