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.
Not to nitpick but tell me again what you can do within 100 miles of DFW relative to LA SF NYC or Philly
And irrlevant how The main stay of culture, media, finance, technology, population, government policy, world poilicy things to do
And more irrelevant how being the most efficent in GDP output, income please explain metro I am ALLL EARS
TX has a good economy but absolutely PALES incomparison to the east or west coast counterparts this is not to be harsh but honestly sit the F down until you are even remotely on the playing field (dude seriously stop reading your own press and actually look at reality, on the west coast the top TX city would be number 3 on the east coast barely number 4; stop posting absurd non realistic crap quite honestly; you lose quite a bit of credibility the numbers are not even close)
Again please explain beyond a BLIND love of texas and how they even REMOTELY compare, as I am very interested to hear ONE SINGLE articulate argument
There is nothing in this context that the East or West coast does not dominate
Largest GMP Cities in the United States:
1 New York Metropolitan Area $1,280,517
2 Los Angeles Metropolitan Area $735,743
3 Chicago Metropolitan Area $532,331
4 Washington Metropolitan Area $425,167 5 Greater Houston $384,603
6 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington $374,081
7 Delaware Valley (Philadelphia) $346,932
8 San Francisco Bay Area $325,927
9 Greater Boston $313,690
10 Atlanta Metropolitan Area $272,362
Texas stacks up pretty well I must say, but yeah...we can't compare to the West or East Coast.
1 New York Metropolitan Area $1,280,517
2 Los Angeles Metropolitan Area $735,743
3 Chicago Metropolitan Area $532,331
4 Washington Metropolitan Area $425,167 5 Greater Houston $384,603 6 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington $374,081
7 Delaware Valley (Philadelphia) $346,932
8 San Francisco Bay Area $325,927
9 Greater Boston $313,690
10 Atlanta Metropolitan Area $272,362
Texas stacks up pretty well I must say, but yeah...we can't compare to the West or East Coast.
That isnt CSA and even Philly has an additional 100 billion not included in the CSA within 40 miles of city hall
Objectively looking at Texas it will be stong into the foreseeable future. The Texas Trangle will be huge, I can see it easily supporting 30 million people, not the whole state, but that region. Although thats a big geographic area.....still.
Today it is what 16 million 30 Million is a long way off...
I think Greenville SC has the best location. It is close to the mountains and not too far from the ocean and the beautiful city of Charleston SC. The weather is mild and there is a CREEK with a waterfall! right in the middle of downtown. But please don't move there - they are experiencing growing pains.
I would never consider a big ciy the best location. Too many people, too much traffic.
Last edited by creeksitter; 12-29-2011 at 07:00 AM..
Reason: .
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,880,875 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
That isnt CSA and even Philly has an additional 100 billion not included in the CSA within 40 miles of city hall
I agree with you on most subjects, and particularly with Texas homerism and this new found enthusiasm for all things Texas, but I think you may be overstating things a bit yourself here. Houston and Dallas ARE comparable to D.C., Philly, Boston or San Francisco -- CSA or MSA -- ECONOMICALLY. I'm not sure they compare at cultural or historical levels of significance simply BECAUSE they are so new to the scene, but even that's debatable.
Cleveland was once called the "Best Location in the Nation" because it was within 500 miles of 60% of the population of the US and Canada, its proximity to natural resources like Oil and minerals, and the availability of shipping lanes and railroads. From a geographic and economic standpoint which city do you think can claim this title today?
Prior to the global economy, Cleveland would have had a good case to make. In today's world, global connection is everything. This means there are pockets of "best locations:" the Bos-Wash metros have the best connections with Europe, the west coast metros with Asia and Miami, DFW and Houston with Latin America. The title of "best location" could rotate as the health of their respective global partners waxes and wanes.
The Texas argument continues, I see. Texas's economy, while more diversified than in decades past, is still energy-driven. Anyone remember the 80s when oil dropped to $10/bbl and Houston was the foreclosure capital of the nation after two decades of boom? People who say things like this can "never happen again" are neither students of economics nor history, as there is always a cycle. Despite the governor claiming the economy is the best in the US, the state is ranked 28th in unemployment: Unemployment Rates for States. Not what I call an economic miracle.
That's the negative. On the positive, the state has two large and wealthy metros still with lot of unrealized potential. Latin America has plenty of room for growth, and Texas is a major gateway. I give Houston the advantage over DFW, as it has the second largest US port in terms of tonnage, receiving goods from not only Latin America but also Europe and Asia via the Panama Canal. This has Houston well-positoned as a distributor to the central US.
People seem to either over- or under-weigh the importance of Texas. To do either is short-sighted, IMO.
The Texas argument continues, I see. Texas's economy, while more diversified than in decades past, is still energy-driven. Anyone remember the 80s when oil dropped to $10/bbl and Houston was the foreclosure capital of the nation after two decades of boom? People who say things like this can "never happen again" are neither students of economics nor history, as there is always a cycle.
I agree with you on most subjects, and particularly with Texas homerism and this new found enthusiasm for all things Texas, but I think you may be overstating things a bit yourself here. Houston and Dallas ARE comparable to D.C., Philly, Boston or San Francisco -- CSA or MSA -- ECONOMICALLY. I'm not sure they compare at cultural or historical levels of significance simply BECAUSE they are so new to the scene, but even that's debatable.
On the CSA level I think they compare to Philly not DC, Boston or the Bay
Though they are very large and strong economies
The point was made earlier that they are the strongest economies in the country.
While certain measures may support strength on size and scale, no
My reply was on the East coast either DFW or Housto would be barely 4 (meaning just ahead of Philly and behind NYC, DC, and Boston on the CSA level) and #3 on the west coast. I stand by these points
Last edited by Pine to Vine; 12-29-2011 at 03:32 PM..
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.
