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.
Which set do I prefer?
Definately the west coast cities. Been to all the cities and lived in 3 of the six. The 3 western cities are so so different from each other more so than the east coast cities. Yet I love the vibe of each of the western cities over the east cities.
Los Angeles
Seattle
SanFrancisco
Boston
Philadelphia
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA - $881.297 Billion
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA - $544.969 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA - $254.393 Billion
total: $1.681 trillion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA - $881.297 Billion
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA - $544.969 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA - $254.393 Billion
total: $1.681 trillion
Thanks for posting that. It gives a good comparison for the size of the economies. And yes, the 3 west coast cities have a combined larger population as well as economy than the 3 east coast cities.
The NYC CSA is not included. It's important to note that.
Also, simple math gives us the combined GDPs per capita:
3 west coast cities: $56,983
3 east coast cities: $60,521
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 10-09-2011 at 08:56 AM..
Yippee for Cali! Thanks for stating the glaringly obvious - you can't take NYC out of the East Coast, it's right in the middle of the region being 'compared' and you basically have to in order to make this kind of comparison work on Cali's behalf. In a hypothetical world where New York City doesn't actually exist, Philadelphia's MSA/CSA would extend quite a bit further north and absorb much of Jersey. California has no such problem since their MSA/CSA regions don't run into each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Thanks for posting that. It gives a good comparison for the size of the economies. And yes, the 3 west coast cities have a combined larger population as well as economy than the 3 east coast cities.
The NYC CSA is not included. It's important to note that.
The NYC CSA is not included. It's important to note that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub King
Yippee for Cali! Thanks for stating the glaringly obvious - you can't take NYC out of the East Coast, it's right in the middle of the region being 'compared' and you basically have to in order to make this kind of comparison work on Cali's behalf. In a hypothetical world where New York City doesn't actually exist, Philadelphia's MSA/CSA would extend quite a bit further north and absorb much of Jersey. California has no such problem since their MSA/CSA regions don't run into each other.
Obviously the Bos-Wash corridor is the most populated in the US in the real world, we all know that already. It has larger population, GDP, etc compared to the west coast. But the criteria for the thread is to NOT include NYC, so why exactly would anyone In this thread count it (YOU even made the thread BigCityDreamer, why complain)? What you think combing SF/Seattle/LA makes sense? It's screwed up too: no Portland, Sacramento, Fresno, Reno, Stockton, Las Vegas, San Diego, etc. And i have no idea what you mean about metros "running into each other" Dub King. Do you mean adjacent metros? Yes we have that here too of course, it's not unique to the east coast . The Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Salinas, and Fresno metros, with a combined populating of over 5.4 million people, all border the Bay Area metro, for example (with another 150,000+ in adjacent and mostly rural counties to the north of the Bay). That doesn't compete with NYC obviously, but neither poll choice REALLY makes much sense is what i'm getting at.
That's the main point, the poll makes no sense. I do think the boundaries of California MSA/CSA'a are more distinct, but I'm not willing to argue the point because there is ambiguity and room for argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Obviously the Bos-Wash corridor is the most populated in the US in the real world, we all know that already. It has larger population, GDP, etc compared to the west coast. But the criteria for the thread is to NOT include NYC, so why exactly would anyone In this thread count it (YOU even made the thread BigCityDreamer, why complain)? What you think combing SF/Seattle/LA makes sense? It's screwed up too: no Portland, Sacramento, Fresno, Reno, Stockton, Las Vegas, San Diego, etc. And i have no idea what you mean about metros "running into each other" Dub King. Do you mean adjacent metros? Yes we have that here too of course, it's not unique to the east coast . The Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Salinas, and Fresno metros, with a combined populating of over 5.4 million people, all border the Bay Area metro, for example (with another 150,000+ in adjacent and mostly rural counties to the north of the Bay). That doesn't compete with NYC obviously, but neither poll choice REALLY makes much sense is what i'm getting at.
This is one of the dumbest questions I've seen on CD
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.
. The Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Salinas, and Fresno metros, with a combined populating of over 5.4 million people, all border the Bay Area metro, for example (with another 150,000+ in adjacent and mostly rural counties to the north of the Bay). That doesn't compete with NYC obviously, but neither poll choice REALLY makes much sense is what i'm getting at.
