Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-11-2013, 11:09 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,156 posts, read 5,561,445 times
Reputation: 3594

Advertisements

After reading all this, I'm more convinced they both blow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2013, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,655 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
checkup's point is actually quite solid-the Bay Area really has no peer in its population range anywhere in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:35 AM
 
2,598 posts, read 4,924,801 times
Reputation: 2275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
I said exactly this about Chicago, so I don't understand your rant.

I am from Houston, have lived in Dallas and have family and friends in Atlanta and the climber/wannabe attitude is palpable.
Not buying it. If people want to be in one city so badly, they can move. In the REAL world, this is not all consuming like it is on this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,655 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
-yes, the presence of Silicon Valley and SJ help SF's prestige/impact, etc., but NYC is also helped by rich suburbs and vacation spots in Long Island, and all the hedge funds and rich neighborhoods up north, well into CT.
We dont do so badly in regards to having a few rich people here and there either. LOL

Wealth-X ranking of World Metro Areas by individuals worth $30 Million+, 2012
1-New York 7,580
2-London 6,015
3-Tokyo 5,440
4-San Francisco 4,590
5-Los Angeles 4,520
6-Hong Kong 3,205
7-Osaka 2,970
8-Paris 2,860
9-Chicago 2,615
10-Mexico City 2,585
11-Washington DC 2,395
12-Houston 2,295
13-Beijing 2,285
14-Mumbai 2,105
15-Dallas 2,020
16-Delhi 1,945
17-Sao Paulo 1,880
18-Zurich 1,805
19-Toronto 1,765
20-Rio de Janeiro 1,740
21-Munich 1,670
22-Dusseldorf 1,420
23-Shanghai 1,415
24-Sydney 1,405
25-Hamburg 1,370
26-Geneva 1,360
27-Singapore 1,345
28-Frankfurt 1,220
29-Melbourne 1,150
30-Rome 1,130

The Wealth Report | My Knight Frank
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by NowInWI View Post
Not buying it. If people want to be in one city so badly, they can move. In the REAL world, this is not all consuming like it is on this forum.
Right, I moved. But it took years to build my savings and my professional credentials to the point where I could. People I know have moved to better places, too. It takes a lot, though. Houston was cheap to live...as I suspect it is in WI, too. People who "just move" often fail.

It's not easy to chase a dream of living in NYC, SF or LA. The job markets in the leading industries are hyper-competitive and experience gained from places like Dallas or Houston doesn't go a long way in those cities. COL is high, too, and the pace, cultural differences and lack of a professional network intimidates a lot of people.

I know your response will be that you have no desire to do so, but ask yourself how long your savings and patience would last if you "just moved" to NYC or SF?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:48 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
Right, I moved. But it took years to build my savings and my professional credentials to the point where I could. People I know have moved to better places, too. It takes a lot, though. Houston was cheap to live...as I suspect it is in WI, too. People who "just move" often fail.

It's not easy to chase a dream of living in NYC, SF or LA. The job markets in the leading industries are hyper-competitive and experience gained from places like Dallas or Houston doesn't go a long way in those cities. COL is high, too, and the pace, cultural differences and lack of a professional network intimidates a lot of people.

I know your response will be that you have no desire to do so, but ask yourself how long your savings and patience would last if you "just moved" to NYC or SF?
A lot of people do that also, I moved to SF without a job, as well as Chicago, I found them in both, in the middle of a recession no less. My gf moved to NYC without a job. Plenty of people move to cities without stuff lined up. It's called taking a risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post

-Even if CityData compares the two cities more than the "general public" or ppl in the "everyday world", you think CityData reflects some innate Bay Area bias? I doubt it. More to the point, ppl in the everyday world aren't constantly comparing cities; CityData does and it's chosen the SF v NYC comparison time and again
No but city data has a density and skyline bias, for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:57 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
-don't think LA is thought of as second after NYC. Within CA, they're regarded as peers and rivals, NoCal centered around SF and SoCal centered around LA. And they're thought of in this regard even tho LA is much much larger in every regard

-I think that's my point; SF (city proper) is so highly regarded despite not having a huge GDP without SJ. Also, it's really the area between SF and SV where a lot of the household tech companies are located (i.e., Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View)

-Have you been the financial district of SF? It's a major business city. Tons of finance, law, and consulting firms, and now huge tech companies.

-I personally don't really compare them; I'm commenting on how the mere fact that they're compared all the time says something about SF
holy delusion batman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
Yes, SF and/or SJ and everywhere in NoCal is booming like crazy right now. Look it up. Unemployment is well below the nat'l average and dropping like a rock. The influx of new talented ppl in tech, finance, and law as well as skyrocketing salaries and stock values are raising housing demands to new heights. Also, those tech companies are mostly not in SJ; they're in the SV area in between the two cities. And many startups are now in SF

It's LA that is really hurting right now; they and inner CA are bringing down the state
You must have a different definition of booming. Unless unemployment is sub 3-4% you aren't booming. People are still leaving SF b/c of rising costs and lack of jobs. It's still better than 9.6% unemployment you had in 2011. But 6.5% isn't "booming", maybe if this was Europe. Late 90s, SF was booming. Mid 2000s, SF was booming. Alameda is still over 8% unemployment, is that booming? The Bay Area has the worst average income to cost of living of the top 12 metropolitan areas in the country.
well, hate to break it to you but Bay Area CSA is picking up Stockton into your CSA, boosting up your population and decreasing your precious per capita income. I'm sure in the future people will probably tout the total CSA population then give a per capita based on MSA data... as you have shown you can't get your numbers right already in this thread.

Last edited by grapico; 03-12-2013 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:59 AM
 
14,798 posts, read 17,680,532 times
Reputation: 9251
I prefer Brooklyn to SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
A lot of people do that also, I moved to SF without a job, as well as Chicago, I found them in both, in the middle of a recession no less. My gf moved to NYC without a job. Plenty of people move to cities without stuff lined up. It's called taking a risk.
Yes, I moved to SF without a job, too, about a year and a half ago, so things were still pretty tough. My point was not to say it can't be done. My point was to say it is intimidating for many in inexpensive cities to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top