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 would say a tie, and even on IT DC is no slouch, both beat each other on certain aspects. Being the capital is the trump card for me.
Just as DC benefitted from the capital the bay benefitted from tech and then the place grew and atrracted more talent. If the same companies started in Minneapolis, you may call this the tech capital today. Same with DC on being the capital
but on economic output - to say one excels that much more than another is myopic and narrow-sighted. There is more to an economy than any one industry, sexy or not
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,032,687 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91
Just to touch on your IT point; sure most of the big tech companies have their HQ's in the Bay Area, but most of them have "secondary" HQ's in the DC metro area. Why? Virtually all of these tech companies have HUGE Public Sector hubs. The company I work for, which happens to be the worlds largest software company, has a massive hub in the DC area, and basically every other company does as well within a stones throw.
I know its all matter of opinion, but I truly believe DC has the strongest economy in the entire country. Bay Area and DC are the two wealthiest metro areas in the country, they are on par with eachother. Culturally I would give a slight edge to S.F. but economically I give the edge to Washington.
Yeah I just looked up the GDP. Washington DC has a larger GDP, I thought it would have been the Bay Area. They aren't too far off from one another.
Washington DC does have a far lower unemployment rate, and has a more stable economy. Bay Area has a more diverse economy, but yeah you're right, the edge does go to Washington DC. Thought I should clarify on that before I was suspected of bashing Washington DC or something like that.
My bad on that, I was wrong about the economy since I didn't look up the CSA GMP's before or got them mixed up since it's been a while. I would still like to work in the Bay Area though but that is just off preference. San Jose > Washington DC & San Francisco, IMO.
Which are is better overall? This includes importance, prestige, economy, lifestyle, entertainment?
The cities are, imho, very similar actually, notwithstanding the climate and natural scenery. The real difference between the two cities to me is that one is full of Type-A prestige whores and the other is full of Type-As who are not so prestige whorish. Otherwise, they are both very well-educated, rapidly-gentrifying cities that continue to lose their character and identity by the U-Haul truck (though SF is far worse than DC, imo).
To address the five factors...
Importance: Washington, DC takes this pretty easily. The Washington Post has the second highest readership for a reason, and the paper has a higher circulation than any paper in the Bay Area. DC is the focus of media attention much more than San Francisco; NBC Nightly News airs from DC at least once a week, and then there's Meet the Press, This Week, Washington Journal, Beltway Boys, etc, etc. You could say that this means nothing, and that all that matters is what the DC area produces (i.e. cars, infotech), but the fact of the matter is that people tend to care about what's happening in Washington on a day-to-day. The same can't be said for San Francisco.
Prestige: Again, I think DC wins pretty handily. DC is prestige ***** central. I don't even think this is worth debating. Next.
Economy: I suppose you could look at numbers, which I'm not going to do, but I'd venture to say that DC has a lower unemployment rate and higher GDP due to the presence of the federal government.
Lifestyle: San Francisco gets the point. It's one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
Entertainment: Subjective, but I'll give this one to DC because there are more options. San Francisco has dive bars, garage bands, and other things that you could probably find other places. But DC has the Go-Go scene and there's nothing comparable to that in San Francisco. There's also a very strong Caribbean presence in the region, which adds more variety because of the carnival season. Then there's always Baltimore, Philly and NYC close by.
You could argue that DC is the most "important" place in the United States based on the fact that it's the seat of power. However, take that one factor away and DC is not really bringing much to the table.
I don't get this line of thinking, although I see it a lot on here. If you take away the government, DC has no reason to exist. Heck, it *wouldn't* exist--it exists as a planned city designed to be the nation's capital. But you don't really hear things like that said about other cities, as in "take away the financial sector and New York ain't all that great" or "if it weren't for the energy industry, Houston wouldn't be that special". Well, of course--but those things *are* there, so what is the point in pontificating as to what kind of city XYZ place would be without its dominant industry?
As to the poll question...well, I'll basically state what i stated in the DC/LA thread: it's not a fair comparison to compare DC to any other U.S. city in terms of national importance because of the role that the federal government plays. No other city possesses institutions that can start wars, alter the balance of global finance, direct national policy or control the purse strings on trillions of dollars in spending.
San Fran and the Bay Area play a critical role in the country, as both the west coast financial hub and a global leader in IT and innovation. Those are substantial things, of course. But I don't see how one can measure the importance of those things versus the power and influence of the federal government.
I would still like to work in the Bay Area though but that is just off preference. San Jose > Washington DC & San Francisco, IMO.
I would like to *live* in the Bay Area. We just got back from a 2+ week trip there, and my God what a beautiful city San Fran is. Simply stunning. For my tastes, I don't think there's a city in the U.S. that rivals it (but I am very much drawn to the Mediterranean/hilly/Euro aesthetic). Also, the weather suits me just about perfectly.
I don't get this line of thinking, although I see it a lot on here. If you take away the government, DC has no reason to exist. Heck, it *wouldn't* exist--it exists as a planned city designed to be the nation's capital. But you don't really hear things like that said about other cities, as in "take away the financial sector and New York ain't all that great" or "if it weren't for the energy industry, Houston wouldn't be that special". Well, of course--but those things *are* there, so what is the point in pontificating as to what kind of city XYZ place would be without its dominant industry?
As to the poll question...well, I'll basically state what i stated in the DC/LA thread: it's not a fair comparison to compare DC to any other U.S. city in terms of national importance because of the role that the federal government plays. No other city possesses institutions that can start wars, alter the balance of global finance, direct national policy or control the purse strings on trillions of dollars in spending.
San Fran and the Bay Area play a critical role in the country, as both the west coast financial hub and a global leader in IT and innovation. Those are substantial things, of course. But I don't see how one can measure the importance of those things versus the power and influence of the federal government.
Actually people say that all the time. Anyway, energy is no longer the major player in our economy (about 30 percent now). But anyway I agree with you. DC is DC because it was set up as the capital. It is the seat of power, and thus is the most powerful. There is nothing to compare with it in the US so it is not comparable. There is no other city in its league. Not even New York. New York is king in its category and DC is in its own category.
SAn Fransisco should be compared with Boston or something, not DC.
LA should be compared with NY, Chicago, etc, not DC.
I don't get this line of thinking, although I see it a lot on here. If you take away the government, DC has no reason to exist. Heck, it *wouldn't* exist--it exists as a planned city designed to be the nation's capital. But you don't really hear things like that said about other cities, as in "take away the financial sector and New York ain't all that great" or "if it weren't for the energy industry, Houston wouldn't be that special". Well, of course--but those things *are* there, so what is the point in pontificating as to what kind of city XYZ place would be without its dominant industry?
As to the poll question...well, I'll basically state what i stated in the DC/LA thread: it's not a fair comparison to compare DC to any other U.S. city in terms of national importance because of the role that the federal government plays. No other city possesses institutions that can start wars, alter the balance of global finance, direct national policy or control the purse strings on trillions of dollars in spending.
San Fran and the Bay Area play a critical role in the country, as both the west coast financial hub and a global leader in IT and innovation. Those are substantial things, of course. But I don't see how one can measure the importance of those things versus the power and influence of the federal government.
Yeah its kind of dumb. It is the equivalent statement of saying without tourism San Francisco would not exist. Works both ways.
it's not a fair comparison to compare DC to any other U.S. city in terms of national importance because of the role that the federal government plays.
So you wouldn't agree that Washington, DC is of greater national importance than Macon, Georgia?
I think DC can be fairly compared to other cities. The presence of the federal government makes it more important than any other city except New York. Washington's where the power is and New York's where the money is. Money and power. There's a reason why more people read the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and Washington Post than the San Francisco Chronicle or the Chicago Tribune. People focus on the NASDAQ and S&P 500 or events on Capitol Hill far more than the latest developments at Google. That fact, in my mind, makes DC the more important city.
And this is coming from someone who has never been all to enthused about living here.
So you wouldn't agree that Washington, DC is of greater national importance than Macon, Georgia?
Of course I would agree with that, because the two cities are not remotely comparable in size. No one would make that comparison. But between DC and other large, preeminent cities across the country, my argument is that DC's position as the seat of the federal government places it in a position that no other city is capable of competing with. It's not as if there is a strong federal government presence in Chicago that, through some growth strategy on the part of Chicago's leaders, could be expanded to the point that it eventually eclipses DC.
Quote:
I think DC can be fairly compared to other cities. The presence of the federal government makes it more important than any other city except New York.
In DC's case, its raison d'etre is solely to be the seat of federal power. It has always been that, and would not exist without it. By law, it is granted an extraordinary amount of power and influence, which no other city could ever rightfully possess. It's not like other sectors, such as finance, energy, IT or education, where cities compete with one another for company headquarters and Fortune 500 investments.
So on one hand, I agree with you, that DC stands with New York as the most powerful cities in the country. On the other hand, I don't find it particularly fair to compare DC to other cities who could not possibly acquire the advantage that DC has been bestowed with.
Then again, it's Friday, and I may just not be making any sense.
I don't get this line of thinking, although I see it a lot on here. If you take away the government, DC has no reason to exist. Heck, it *wouldn't* exist--it exists as a planned city designed to be the nation's capital. But you don't really hear things like that said about other cities, as in "take away the financial sector and New York ain't all that great" or "if it weren't for the energy industry, Houston wouldn't be that special". Well, of course--but those things *are* there, so what is the point in pontificating as to what kind of city XYZ place would be without its dominant industry?
Yeah, this is kind of a tricky one. I think the difference is that DC's power is really more an manifestation of the nation as whole, rather than the city itself. As America's power in the world fades, DC's power also fades. If the capital moved then DC's power would collapse over night.
Obviously, NYC gains enormously from being part of the US. NYC is the world's main financial/media "capital" because it's the US's financial/media capital.
But on the whole, New York's power is less dependent on the aggrregate power of the US. Its more like London, the UK's influence has waned over the past 60 years, but London has managed to reinvent itelf as one the world's 2 or 3 major global financial and cultural capitals.
I think it all goes back to the point that DC is unique and really has no basis for comparison.
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.
