California's top second tier city? (San Diego, San Jose: best school, camping, subdivisions)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

In some ways that's true but in other ways that's not. While the North East does have a lot of great cities in the same general area, those cities developed for entirely different reasons that had everything to do with them being in different states. The liberal bent of Pennsylvania for example wouldn't have existed if it was an extension of the New England Commonwealth. DC was created for the purpose of being an entirely separate entity from the other influential states. If all of those cities were in the same state then a number of them probably wouldn't exist due to the extreme polarization of ideas that existed in the region in the 1700's.


California has its own dichotomy (Norcal vs. Socal) but even then, for the most part California is unified by ideas. The fact that it's developed as well as it has in the last 150 years is a testament to its increased functionality as a result of Norcal and Socal coexisting.

Actually sans DC (because of the Capital) all 4 other large cities developed because of their ports not really having anything to do with their states. At the time of their developement a good and navicable port was the catalyst. Baltimore was a safe non-marshy port up the Cheasepeake, Philly was first good natural port area up the Delaware, NY much closer to the Ocean had a navaicable port protected from the ocean, Boston the same. Seriously there was little to do with states and almost all to do with commerce and a good port.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

I agree, SD is not on LA nor SF's level. IMO it still edges out the other California cities though.

I do agree that San Diego would probably be 3rd because of its more clearly defined image as a large US city with its own MetropolitanNESS about it that perhaps Sac and SJ dont have as much of.

Sacramento however is growing by leaps and bounds Metrowise, so we'll see how it all pans out.

[N69]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I do agree that San Diego would probably be 3rd because of its more clearly defined image as a large US city with its own MetropolitanNESS about it that perhaps Sac and SJ dont have as much of.

Sacramento however is growing by leaps and bounds Metrowise, so we'll see how it all pans out.

I agreed with your earlier points that only San Francisco and Los Angeles are first tier. I love San Diego but its closer in both size and importance to San Jose, Sacramento, and Oakland than to San Francisco and especially Los Angeles.

California is great though, every city appears to do its own thing and have its own unique function. Some just receive more attention than others.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by N69

I agreed with your earlier points that only San Francisco and Los Angeles are first tier. I love San Diego but its closer in both size and importance to San Jose, Sacramento, and Oakland than to San Francisco and especially Los Angeles.

Yeah, I pretty much think we take a back seat to those 2.

But if any city has staked out its own image on the national and worldwide consciousness, I guess it would be San Diego.

[N69]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yeah, I pretty much think we take a back seat to those 2.

But if any city has staked out its own image on the national and worldwide consciousness, I guess it would be San Diego.

I must say I agree. Lovely city with a lovely reputation.

Then again, name recognition is one part of being a city, power is another, wealth another, size another, politics another, so many factors!

After Los Angeles and San Francisco, I think of it as a 4 way tie between San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, and Oakland with San Diego leading the tier. San Jose's GDP is catching up to San Diego fast as well.

[S.D. Calif]

Originally Posted by N69

I agreed with your earlier points that only San Francisco and Los Angeles are first tier. I love San Diego but its closer in both size and importance to San Jose, Sacramento, and Oakland than to San Francisco and especially Los Angeles.

California is great though, every city appears to do its own thing and have its own unique function. Some just receive more attention than others.

San Diego is closer to San Francisco and L.A. than it is to San Jose, Sacramento, and Oakland. It's much more of a global city. To be fair, it is growing but it is still not at the top with L.A. and San Francisco. I would still place it leagues ahead of the other cities though.

[N69]

Originally Posted by S.D. Calif

San Diego is closer to San Francisco and L.A. than it is to San Jose, Sacramento, and Oakland. It's much more of a global city. To be fair, it is growing but it is still not at the top with L.A. and San Francisco. I would still place it leagues ahead of the other cities though.

I hear ya and in respect to San Diego I will agree it is a tier above the others. California is hard to classify if I had to tier California it would be an impeccable task.

To me a city is made of size, wealth, economy, corporations, politics, media, logistics, colleges, and even tourism.

Size: San Diego (3 million) > Oakland (2,532,756) > Sacramento (2,461,780) > San Jose (1,836,911)

Wealth: Oakland ($184 billion) > San Diego ($171 billion) > San Jose ($147 billion) > Sacramento ($94 billion)

Corporate: San Jose > Oakland > San Diego > Sacramento

Politics: Sacramento > Oakland > San Diego > San Jose

Media: San Diego > Oakland > San Jose > Sacramento

Logistics: Oakland > San Diego > San Jose = Sacramento

Colleges: San Jose (Stanford) > Oakland (Berkeley) = San Diego (UCSD) > Sacramento (UC-Davis)

Tourism: San Diego > Oakland > Sacramento = San Jose

Economy: San Diego = San Jose = Oakland = Sacramento

On politics it may just be my own ideology but Oakland's setting in East Bay next to arguably the most liberal city in the country (Berkeley) puts it at # 2 behind the seat of California's government, being Sacramento.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by N69

Wealth: Oakland ($184 billion) > San Diego ($171 billion) > San Jose ($147 billion) > Sacramento ($94 billion)

Dahhling.



LOLjk

Very good post btw. You really confirmed my sentiment--that is not that cut and dry.

I wish we could tabulate the GDP for the South Bay Area of LA County to get an idea of Long Beach's local economy.

[BRinSM]

if san jose and long beach are included as 2nd tier cities, then i think irvine needs to be thrown in the mix. while the population might not be as large, there are a lot of professional businesses in the area surrounding john wayne airport and a lot of wealth generated by these companies. if you were to remove defense from the san diego economy, i would venture to guess that it would be smaller than that of orange county. however, going with the original list, san jose is easily the most important of all of these cities. the tech industry is one of the most important industries in the world and the silicon valley is one of the most global metros on earth (in business and demographics).

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by S.D. Calif

Long Beach has a much nicer waterfront. It has the larger grossing port, and even has it's own WTC.



It also has the better skyline.

Oaktown has a better skyline than Long Beach. It is more dense.

Also, Oakland is just a much more iconic city. It's identity is very strong. While when I think of Long Beach, it's more like a suburb/city in the larger LA area. Look, don't go off because I know it's not a "suburb", but I usually do not think of it as it's own city, it's really just a part of LA. Oakland just has a lot more history, more culture, more of an identity.