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.
That's a bit myopic. It's also disingenuous to the core. You know New York is #1, and L.A. is #2 and Chicago is # 3... so why say 'in no particular order'? D.C., Philly, Boston, Dallas, Houston and S.F. all have reasons to claim #4, depending on some mix of size, influence, GDP, urban development, and location. D.C. and S.F certainly don't have a 'lock' on fourth place. The very measures by which the argument for D.C. or S.F. might be made - money and power - are exactly why Philly and Boston are better cities... they are older and more mature and rather 'over' themselves in a way their little brothers are not... yet.
That's a bit myopic. It's also disingenuous to the core. You know New York is #1, and L.A. is #2 and Chicago is # 3... so why say 'in no particular order'? D.C., Philly, Boston, Dallas, Houston and S.F. all have reasons to claim #4, depending on some mix of size, influence, GDP, urban development, and location. D.C. and S.F certainly don't have a 'lock' on fourth place. The very measures by which the argument for D.C. or S.F. might be made - money and power - are exactly why Philly and Boston are better cities... they are older and more mature and rather 'over' themselves in a way their little brothers are not... yet.
I don't agree that LA is a lock for #2. Globally, yes, it definitely is, and in the entertainment business and tourism.. sure. But overall I'm not sure it's all that much superior to Chicago.
San Francisco is really the only West Coast city that can compete with the East Coast by our standards, which is why their global status to me puts them ahead of both Philadelphia and Boston currently but definitely not when Philadelphia was at its peak, that's for sure.
I just don't like how so many people say NYC, Chicago, LA, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, and then try to say Sf Bay Area as if a giant metro is one city, or Dallas/Houston, or even I've seen them say DC/Baltimore, as if Baltimore gives a crap about DC or is a part of their metro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX
Yes but look how many cities are close together in the Northeast compared to Texas. Regardless Houston is still 4th largest.
Because of land area. Otherwise it would be more like the population of San Francisco, if even, at 135 square miles.
Either way, that was my point. Philadelphia proper was part of an area that was basically almost nothing but dense, urban, vibrant cities or municipalities that were completely independent of Philadelphia, which makes its metro far superior to pretty much any other metro in the US when it was at its previous peak.
I just don't like how so many people say NYC, Chicago, LA, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, and then try to say Sf Bay Area as if a giant metro is one city, or Dallas/Houston, or even I've seen them say DC/Baltimore, as if Baltimore gives a crap about DC or is a part of their metro.
Do you have any idea how many people in Baltimore work in D.C.? Next year when the new commuter rates are updated for MSA's lines, whether people in each MSA like it or not, the D.C. and Baltimore area will become one MSA. It's going to happen. They are one CSA based on the 2000 census but, they will become one MSA next year with over 8 million people.
San Francisco and Oakland make up one MSA and D.C. and Baltimore will too starting next year. When people say bay area, they are including San Jose which is in the CSA but not the MSA of San Fran.
Do you have any idea how many people in Baltimore work in D.C.? Next year when the new commuter rates are updated for MSA's lines, whether people in each MSA like it or not, the D.C. and Baltimore area will become one MSA. It's going to happen. They are one CSA based on the 2000 census but, they will become one MSA next year with over 8 million people.
San Francisco and Oakland make up one MSA and D.C. and Baltimore will too starting next year. When people say bay area, they are including San Jose which is in the CSA but not the MSA of San Fran.
Give it a rest...its NOT gonna happen. Baltimore and DC hopefully will NEVER become on MSA. DC just want to use Baltimore of boost it's numbers.
I don't agree that LA is a lock for #2. Globally, yes, it definitely is, and in the entertainment business and tourism.. sure. But overall I'm not sure it's all that much superior to Chicago.
San Francisco is really the only West Coast city that can compete with the East Coast by our standards, which is why their global status to me puts them ahead of both Philadelphia and Boston currently but definitely not when Philadelphia was at its peak, that's for sure.
I just don't like how so many people say NYC, Chicago, LA, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, and then try to say Sf Bay Area as if a giant metro is one city, or Dallas/Houston, or even I've seen them say DC/Baltimore, as if Baltimore gives a crap about DC or is a part of their metro.
Because of land area. Otherwise it would be more like the population of San Francisco, if even, at 135 square miles.
Either way, that was my point. Philadelphia proper was part of an area that was basically almost nothing but dense, urban, vibrant cities or municipalities that were completely independent of Philadelphia, which makes its metro far superior to pretty much any other metro in the US when it was at its previous peak.
Trust me, DC is considered 'out of town' to most people in Baltimore.
Give it a rest...its NOT gonna happen. Baltimore and DC are on area, It's two completely different areas that happen to be 40 miles apart. DC just want to use Baltimore to inflate it's number. You know good & well that Baltimore is completely separate.
For that to happen 25% of the Baltimore(city) workforce would have to commute to the DC area in order for both areas to combined into one MSA. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
DC and Baltimore feel like two separate areas that are just close to one another. I never use Baltimore for DC's stats and I dont agree with using either MSA or CSA to describe DC. The DC area is the DC metro, Winchester metro, and Lexington Park metro all combined with a population of 6 million. Without the Baltimore metro, the DC/Winchester/Lexington Park area have a GDP larger than the 7.6 million strong Boston metro, DC is still the 5th largest economy in the U.S.
For that to happen 25% of the Baltimore(city) workforce would have to commute the DC area to combined into one MSA. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
If that's what it takes, then it will probably never happen.
For that to happen 25% of the Baltimore(city) workforce would have to commute to the DC area in order for both areas to combined into one MSA. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
not just commute to the DC area, but commute to the core counties in the DC area. I agree, I don't see that happening.
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.
