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.
Maybe we could create a new thread for discussions on the formal boundries of MSAs.
Yeah that's not a bad suggestion. Although the subject has pretty much been covered entirely already in this thread. But you've got the right idea at least. This thread at this point should probably just focus solely on the two cities. But like I said earlier, if we are going to compare the metros of the two cities (as they were mentioned in the OP), then we should look at the realistic metros. Either one of those options I'm completely in favor of, and I would be glad to see the unpleasant exchanges cease.
I'm all for that if the others agree....city limits of San Francisco vs. city limits of Philadelphia.
You'd be better off arguing downtown vs downtown or architecture vs architecture,past vs past, those are matchups that you could argue pro Philadelphia.City vs city in the year 2009? Realistically not a good idea.
The per capita economic stats of SF are equivalent to Phillys suburbs. Economically speaking SF measures up statistically to our Montgomery County. If Philly still had Montgomery + Chester Counties demographics (like it did back in the day) then Philadlephia would be one of the great cities of the world, unfortunately suburban sprawl took its toll on the once great city.
SF- 808,000 people. Per capita income $67,333
Montgomery County PA- 778,000.Per capita income $73,998.
Gives you a more honest barometer and the Bay Area still leads, although quite frankly its closer than it should be given the fact that the Pacific Ocean eliminates 50% of the Bay Area's real estate, causing real estate indexes to soar.
2007 household median stats SF MSA vs Philadelphia MSA
There you go again, purposely making a meaningless comparison--this is the kind of thing that is hijacking the thread. The 4.3 million MSA is useless. The only reason SF and SJ metro are separated is because a of a glitch with an office park and "preserved land" between Santa Clara and San Mateo county (which technically leads to 2.8 miles of overlapped development, instead of 3). Its essentially a distinction based on a bizarre loophole, as there is clearly unfettered development between the two cities (far more than Seattle and Tacoma, for example, which are part of the same MSA).
For the purposes of comparing the regions, you gotta either include the Bay Area or don't. As we've shown, pretty much every source outside the census considers the Bay Area to include Santa Clara County. This stubborn insistance to divide the metro in half is really petty...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
You'd be better off arguing downtown vs downtown or architecture vs architecture,past vs past, those are matchups that you could argue pro Philadelphia.City vs city in the year 2009? Realistically not a good idea.
The per capita economic stats of SF are equivalent to Phillys suburbs. Economically speaking SF measures up statistically to our Montgomery County. If Philly still had Montgomery + Chester Counties demographics (like it did back in the day) then Philadlephia would be one of the great cities of the world, unfortunately suburban sprawl took its toll on the once great city.
SF- 808,000 people. Per capita income $67,333
Montgomery County PA- 778,000.Per capita income $73,998.
Gives you a more honest barometer and the Bay Area still leads, although quite frankly its closer than it should be given the fact that the Pacific Ocean eliminates 50% of the Bay Area's real estate, causing real estate indexes to soar.
2007 household median stats SF MSA vs Philadelphia MSA
Just to **** off some forumers here, the UC Census Bureau counts Santa Cruz and San Benito counties as part of the Bay Area. Have fun sleeping at night.
There you go again, purposely making a meaningless comparison--this is the kind of thing that is hijacking the thread. The 4.3 million MSA is useless. The only reason SF and SJ metro are separated is because a of a glitch with an office park and "preserved land" between Santa Clara and San Mateo county (which technically leads to 2.8 miles of overlapped development, instead of 3). Its essentially a distinction based on a bizarre loophole, as there is clearly unfettered development between the two cities (far more than Seattle and Tacoma, for example, which are part of the same MSA).
For the purposes of comparing the regions, you gotta either include the Bay Area or don't. As we've shown, pretty much every source outside the census considers the Bay Area to include Santa Clara County. This stubborn insistance to divide the metro in half is really petty...
Philadelphia County was missing
along with Camden County NJ
Just to **** off some forumers here, the UC Census Bureau counts Santa Cruz and San Benito counties as part of the Bay Area. Have fun sleeping at night.
LOL
Rainrock, you forgot Philadelphia County.
Here are Per Capita Income Stats.
Philadelphia 5.8 M people
Montgomery (PA) $62,086
Chester (PA) $58,130
Mercer (NJ) $52,255
Bucks (PA) $50,070
Delaware (PA) $48,060
New Castle (DE) $45,755
Burlington (NJ) $44,077
Camden(NJ) $39,266
Gloucester(NJ) $37,331
Philadelphia(PA) $34,764
San Francisco 4.3 M people
Marin- $91,483
San Mateo- $71,753
San Francisco-$71,342
Contra Costa-$55,580
Alameda- $48,679
If the Eagles moved to New York, would it still be appropriate to call them the Philadelphia Eagles? Because it certainly would be, if Philadelphia and New York "merge just as much" as San Francisco and San Jose.
What the! That's a huge discrepancy from rainrock's numbers.
Rainrock's #s inflate Philadelphia's metro county numbers by approximately 50%, and left off the lowest one of all, Philadelphia proper.
A little intellectual honesty would be have been appreciated.
Bottom line, the SF Bay Area has more people and more income per capita. That you can take to the bank.
Not that I think this is pertinent to the overall discussion -- because honestly, we're really splitting hairs here -- but I felt the need to jump in and clear up some confusion.
The income measures here are comparing apples to oranges. 18Montclair is citing per capita income numbers, which are not really that indicative of overall wealth -- a couple of highly affluent CEOs can really inflate those numbers and certainly explains the astronomically high per capita wealth in an area as CEO-laden as suburban SF. Are you really willing to claim that the average working individual in Marin County has an income of $91,483? I find that a bit hard to believe. Per capita income is interesting in terms of finding out where the REALLY rich people reside -- but again, it really does not say much about the average Joe who lives/works there.
What rainrock cited was median household income figures, which gives a much better picture of overall wealth. Using his figures, 50% of households make above $83,910 and 50% below that in Marin County. That figure is only negligibly higher than Chester County's median household income of $82,979 and certainly falls within the margin of error.
Both are, without a doubt, among the most affluent counties in the country, however, as they are both far above the US median HH income of $50,740.
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.
