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.
Maybe Monty is right about California and the cities.
I am not talking about suburban cities like Irvine, as myself and others have said we organize our communities differently here. But I am talking about cities which are outside of the orbit of NYC, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Some of our more distant cities, Rochester, Syracuse and Scranton for instance, have problems and have seen better days. What I do not know is what CA cities such as Sacramento, Stockton and Bakersfield are like to compare. Do they also have problems?
I do agree with Monty about the 3 NE states and the small town and villages.
Syracuse is not "distant." It is in the dead center of the state. Not sure what you meant by that?
And so the answer is, California has more cities with 100,000+ people that are desirable, have great schools, low crime and excellent quality of life than NJ/NY/PA.
Period. End of Story.
Irvine- 46sqmi 209K pop (A giganti suburb just east of LA)
The NJ gold Coast- 36sq 650K pop (Highly desirable urban/suburban real estate just west of NYC)
From Jersey City/Hoboken to Englewood Cliffs/Fort Lee. You can compare that to Oakland if you want.
Don't limit yourself to the 30-50 square miles cities/suburbs of CA to the 1-15 square mile cities/suburbs in the north east (or in this case, NJ). Be fair.
Okay, whatever. No chance Pennsylvania will EVER be a "better" state than California first off, whether it annexes Jersey AND NYC or not. Having Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NYC, Buffalo, and all of Jersey together in one large, dreary, Northeastern state is still not going to match the Golden State. 2nd, It would probably go the other way around, as in Pennsylvania and Jersey would be absorbed by the big daddy, New York IF there were any ridiculous chance of the 3 forming 1 big state, and THAT state STILL wouldn't match California...
Seeing that this is just about an opinion, and me being a Pennsylvanian, I would say yes. Pennsylvania will always be better than any other state. (But that's just because I'm from here)
For me, no; you could include PA, NJ, and NY into one state but they'd never have California's geography, climate, culture, etc. These things are the main draw for me.
^This. Pennsylvania will gain beaches, NYC, Niagara Falls, Finger Lakes, Jersey Shore, Atlantic City, and Adirondacks but IMO it won't be a "greater state" than California. As 41s2k stated, California has a very unique geography, climate, and culture that draws many people there. No offense, but many areas of Upstate NY are economically depressed, so economic wise I don't think Pennsylvania would gain much from NY other than some nature and NYC.
Fair is admitting that while the Northeast has nicer small towns and villages, California has far better cities with 100,000+ population.
I wont hold my breath waiting for agreement. LOL
Los Angels isn't better than NYC
San Francisco isn't better than Philly
San Diego isn't better than Philly or NYC
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.
