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 San Francisco was the size of Los Angeles and New York City it would be the Most Dominate And Powerful City In The World , but guess "what" That will never happen , so you lose because of size restriction San Francisco CA.
I'm from LA, btw. There's no need to be hostile. I didn't know it was a competition. It's not like the winner gets a prize. I already said I voted for my home city, but rather I was just stating that per capita output is higher in the Bay Area than LA. What's wrong with stating facts?
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 01-10-2010 at 08:17 PM..
Reason: Didn't mean to come off so snarky
The Bureau of Economic Analysis. Manufacturing Gross Product, 2006
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $66.683 Billion
New York-Northern NJ-Long Island $62.455 Billion
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet $56.463 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown $50.866 Billion
Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington $46.446 Billion
This is the latest year that NYs data is available.
Does it include Bridgeport in Connecticut? That is very industrial.
Newark, NJ I am 75% sure is ahead of LA. If not simply Newark the area of New Jersey combined including Newark. New Jersey is the largest manufacture place in the nation. Yes why do you think people call that certain part of New Jersey the armpit of America?
Because it's a hellhole. What does being a stinky armpit have to do with manufacturing?
If this little listing is true, then 13 of the 50 biggest life altering things that occured in the 2000s were either ACTUAL BAY AREA COMPANIES, or products devised by them or cultural and social movements the region is known to be center of.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I still pick L.A as the west coast's most prominent city.
But the Bay Area is actually probably more directly influential in the everyday lives of people around the world in 2010 than anywhere except possibly NYC.
Sorry, but the Bay can't really take credit for all of those things you highlighted.
Organic farming has been around as long as farming has been around. Humankind didn't always have Monsanto or Cargill selling pesticides and genetically altered seeds to farmers.
Mobile phone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The first 1G network launched in the USA was Chicago based Ameritech in 1983 using the famous first hand-held mobile phone Motorola DynaTAC."
"Going Green" has gone in and out of fashion numerous times since the late 60's. I learned about recycling, global warming, and Earth Day back in elementary school. I grew up in the late 80's early 90's with cartoons like Captain Planet and Disney movies like Fern Gully preaching the importance of environmentalism. The US virtually made zero progress in this area for the 8 years Bush was president; in some cases things actually got worse. SUV's weren't nearly as popular when Clinton was president as they became when Bush was in power. I think "Going Green" is more of a natural evolution that can be attributed to people of my generation growing up and becoming the leaders of our society, rather than a movement that can be traced to the Bay Area. If anything, people like Ed Begley Jr. do more to hurt the "Going Green" movement, by turning off average Joes, than they do to help it.
Sorry, but the Bay can't really take credit for all of those things you highlighted.
Oh yes we can.
Quote:
Organic farming has been around as long as farming has been around. Humankind didn't always have Monsanto or Cargill selling pesticides and genetically altered seeds to farmers.
Yes, but the region is known for being a leader in all things organic. Yes its true.
Quote:
Mobile phone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The first 1G network launched in the USA was Chicago based Ameritech in 1983 using the famous first hand-held mobile phone Motorola DynaTAC."
Yes, but the article is talking about 2000-2009 and the Bay Area has made the biggest impact on the industry in years with the iPhone and now with google in the fray, look for the industry to gravitate to Silicon Valley.
There's another point for the good guys.
Quote:
"Going Green" has gone in and out of fashion numerous times since the late 60's. I learned about recycling, global warming, and Earth Day back in elementary school. I grew up in the late 80's early 90's with cartoons like Captain Planet and Disney movies like Fern Gully preaching the importance of environmentalism. The US virtually made zero progress in this area for the 8 years Bush was president; in some cases things actually got worse. SUV's weren't nearly as popular when Clinton was president as they became when Bush was in power. I think "Going Green" is more of a natural evolution that can be attributed to people of my generation growing up and becoming the leaders of our society, rather than a movement that can be traced to the Bay Area. If anything, people like Ed Begley Jr. do more to hurt the "Going Green" movement, by turning off average Joes, than they do to help it.
And the region is a leader in Green Tech. Period.
Considering how the Bay Area is only 2% of the nation's population, the fact that so much of what is revelant NOW came from there, I don't think anyone can argue that the region is at least as influential today as LA is.
I mean it goes much deeper than watching movies. We're talking people getting all their info and planning their lives around what google tells them. For heavenssakes. People watch YouTube more then any tv network in the world. Facebook is used by 300 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide. And so on.
No, the region keeps getting written off and always roars back to take a bigger piece of the pie.
I'm from LA, btw. There's no need to be hostile. I didn't know it was a competition. It's not like the winner gets a prize. I already said I voted for my home city, but rather I was just stating that per capita output is higher in the Bay Area than LA. What's wrong with stating facts?
My BAD I didn't know that I was coming across as hostile , I was just trying to say that because of the size of San Francisco and the Bay Area (that) it would never over shadow LA or NYC....When I first came out to California I lived in Long Beach for about 1 year and a couple of months 1978-79 and preferred SoCal to NorCal , but have lived in the Bay Area since 1979 with the exception of 2 1/2 years in Tulsa OK 88-90.
My BAD I didn't know that I was coming across as hostile , I was just trying to say that because of the size of San Francisco and the Bay Area (that) it would never over shadow LA or NYC....When I first came out to California I lived in Long Beach for about 1 year and a couple of months 1978-79 and preferred SoCal to NorCal , but have lived in the Bay Area since 1979 with the exception of 2 1/2 years in Tulsa OK 88-90.
Don't worry about it. It's harder to communicate some things online rather than if you said it in person and its easier to detect hostility than good intent due to the nature of the 'City vs City' forum. You've probably lived in California way longer than I've been alive (I was only born in 1989!) so you have every right to reserve that opinion. However, I don't take back what I said because it addressed per capita output, rather than the direct question of 'Principal West Coast City'
Anyways, I somewhat agree with you because geography really does restrict much of the Bay Area's growth. Due to the coastal ranges AND NIMBY'ism, the Bay Area can only grow by becoming more dense, rather than spreading out suburbia like we saw in the LA Area over the last 20-30 years. However, the LA area is also near build out (the only place left to physically expand is in the Inland Empire), and will eventually have to go the same way as the Bay Area is now. Unlike Bay Area residents, people in SoCal aren't so much afraid of developing hilly areas as well You have two extremely different types of growth; one extremely anti-development and one being extremely pro-development. As of recent years, Bay Area residents have increasingly moved to San Joaquin, Solano, and eastern Contra Costa County, moving in places such as Stockton, Fairfield, Antioch, Pittsburg, etc. So yes, the Bay Area is still growing, just in directions that one would never expect.
This is why the sub-prime crisis started in California. Look at this map of foreclosure rates:
Notice how the highest rates of foreclosure in California are in areas SURROUNDING LA (Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside) and the Bay Area (Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, and Solano) when the crisis first really started in 2008. In other states (Arizona, Nevada, Florida), this also affected the main cities of their metropolitan areas in this early stage. In CA, the reverse happened except in Sacramento.
For relevance in this discussion, don't count out the Bay Area yet. Population is only one indicator of power. In terms of proportion to its size, the Bay Area has a lot of influence.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA (incl. LA, Riverside, and Oxnard MSAs)
2008 Population: 17,786,419 (48.3% of California's population)
2008 GMP: $866,095,000,000 (46.8% of California's GSP)
San Jose-San Francisco- Oakland, CA CSA (incl. San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, Santa Cruz, and Napa MSAs)
2008 Population: 7,354,555 (20% of California's population)
2008 GMP: $508,418,000,000 (27.5% of California's GSP)
The Bay is only 1/5 of California's population, but contributes more than 1/4th of California's economy. This is why people have been saying 'argument can show San Francisco or Los Angeles being...'
I love SF, and would much rather live there than LA but there is only 1 correct answer- Los Angeles.
Let's do a "principal East coast city", it'd be just as absurd.
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.
It's harder to communicate some things online rather than if you said it in person and its easier to detect hostility than good intent due to the nature of the 'City vs City' forum. You've probably lived in California way longer than I've been alive (I was only born in 1989!) so you have every right to reserve that opinion. However, I don't take back what I said because it addressed per capita output, rather than the direct question of 'Principal West Coast City'
You have two extremely different types of growth; one extremely anti-development and one being extremely pro-development. As of recent years, Bay Area residents have increasingly moved to San Joaquin, Solano, and eastern Contra Costa County, moving in places such as Stockton, Fairfield, Antioch, Pittsburg, etc. So yes, the Bay Area is still growing, just in directions that one would never expect. 
