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.
Now what are YOU talking about? He clearly said less developed LA....
Ah see in regards to Boston (read LA from the next line); that said Boston is 14K ppsm and the loop is 6k ppsm still not even close to comparable. Anyone who ever been to either place would never call the loop comparable to Boston in this regard; they are night and day in this regard. Houston is less dense in the loop than would be the inner suburbs of Boston; now density isnt everything but with regards to the city experience they are absolutely cats and dogs in this regard.
It looks like DC and the SF Bay Area are more reliably showing us as 4 and 5, regardless of order. Do most agree with that? There's no right answer, just an interesting idea for a thread.
I think this is correct. I would call it in foavor of San Francisco, because of its international travel reputation, high tech, economic output and the fact that its not in NYC's shadow like the rest of Bos-Wash.
Ah see in regards to Boston (read LA from the next line); that said Boston is 14K ppsm and the loop is 6k ppsm still not even close to comparable. Anyone who ever been to either place would never call the loop comparable to Boston in this regard; they are night and day in this regard. Houston is less dense in the loop than would be the inner suburbs of Boston; now density isnt everything but with regards to the city experience they are absolutely cats and dogs in this regard.
If anything Houston is more similar to San Diego than LA. Even then SD is much more densely populated in its core.
If you took Boston's equivalent of "inside the loop", it probably has triple to quadruple the density - and that is being generous to Houston.
I think this is correct. I would call it in foavor of San Francisco, because of its international travel reputation, high tech, economic output and the fact that its not in NYC's shadow like the rest of Bos-Wash.
Yes I think it is San Francisco (and if going by region, the Bay Area easily IMO).
If anything Houston is more similar to San Diego than LA. Even then SD is much more densely populated in its core.
If you took Boston's equivalent of "inside the loop", it probably has triple to quadruple the density - and that is being generous to Houston.
It should be noted that the inner loop in Houston is not the densest part. That's the Southwest, with the apartments and single family homes on tiny lots. Give the Inner Loop five to ten more years though because there is so much infill going on currently.
I think this is correct. I would call it in foavor of San Francisco, because of its international travel reputation, high tech, economic output and the fact that its not in NYC's shadow like the rest of Bos-Wash.
If you think Boston is overshawdowed by New York, your clearly not informed enough about these cities to make a judgement.
D.C., SF, Boston, Houston, and Dallas should be the only choices
I have to disagree on the bold ones.
Boston has an incredible density of universities (great ones) and is way up there in medical research, financial services, and tech, but it is not big enough and is more "the capital of the New England region."
Houston is moving along fast. In fact, it's a major player in medical research and the biggest player in the energy sector. However, if you look at educational rankings of important cities, a smaller percentage of the population is college educated. (I think Seattle, which isn't even in consideration here, has a proportionately high density of college graduates).
Dallas is another fast-growing metro, because companies see it as a good place to do business. It is a financial center and, well, the airport is enormous. However, it's a regional city, fighting over that distinction with Houston.
The historical validity of cities (Philadelphia and Boston) isn't as significant here. When I was a little kid, Chicago was considered the "Second City" and then came my hometown of LA. I think there is no question now that the LA-hubbed So Cal metroplex is more of a powerhouse than Chicagoland.
I think this is correct. I would call it in foavor of San Francisco, because of its international travel reputation, high tech, economic output and the fact that its not in NYC's shadow like the rest of Bos-Wash.
Isn't the Bay Area, to some extent, in the shadow of LA? I mean the distance from DC to NYC is 220 miles, while LA-SF is 380 miles.
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.
