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.
All these cities have booming, San Francisco and Seattle are leading tech centers while Portland is growing quickly and Vancouver is becoming a globally renowned center for film, tourism, and the wealthy. Which City would you rather live in? Compare the similarities and differences of the cities. Which has a brighter future?
-Economy
-Public Transportation
-Urban Development
-Education
-Nature/Scenery
-Livability
-Attractions
-X-factors
I feel I can comment on this, I've been to all four and live in one of them.
-Economy SF/Seattle/Vancouver/Portland
-Public Transportation Vancouver (for the metro)/SF/Seattle-Portland tie.
-Urban Development Vancouver for all new development, SF for historical built form, Portland for creative re-use of what they've got
-Education SF/Vancouver/Seattle/Portland
-Nature/Scenery Vancouver/SF/Seattle/Portland
-Livability Vancouver, but it's expensive. Portland for value for money.
-Attractions SF/Seattle/Vancouver/Portland
-X-factors:
Vancouver has that true, grassroots, cultural environmentalism you don't see anywhere else, as well as being part of a more radically different country then I think West Coast Americans give it credit for considering they feel a kinship with its geography and architecture.
Portland has an amazing vibe that comes of being an epicentre of American youth culture and migration. It has a certain ethos of freedom that is really refreshing, and people here seem especially friendly compared to people in the other three cities, although there other people are not unfriendly.
SF has the nicest weather of the bunch.
Seattle has the most central location in the PNW. It's just a couple hours by train or highway to either Vancouver or Portland and only a short ferry ride from downtown to Victoria, which is better then even Vancouver can claim.
All these cities have booming, San Francisco and Seattle are leading tech centers while Portland is growing quickly and Vancouver is becoming a globally renowned center for film, tourism, and the wealthy. Which City would you rather live in? Compare the similarities and differences of the cities. Which has a brighter future?
-Economy
-Public Transportation
-Urban Development
-Education
-Nature/Scenery
-Livability
-Attractions
-X-factors
SF wins all of the criteria that are actually measurable by statistics. Economy, Public Transportation, Urban Development(if defined by population density and vibrancy) and Education.
As far as economic size, the Bay Area has a larger economy than the other 3 combined even though they have more people.
SF, Seattle and Portland CSAs and Vancouver CMA.
2012 Population
Seattle+Portland+Vancouver 9,855,956 San Francisco 8,370,967
Seattle 4,399,332
Portland 2,992,924
Vancouver 2,463,700
Here is GDP data using the 2011 growth rate for each:
2012 GDP San Francisco $630.675 Billion
Seattle+Portland+Vancouver $561.350 Billion
Seattle $275.411 Billion
Portland $174.469 Billion
Vancouver $111.470 Billion
Per Capita GDP, 2012
San Francisco $75,349
Seattle $62,607
Portland $58,311
Seattle+Portland+Vancouver $56,960
Vancouver $45,257
Nature/Scenery, Livability, Attractions and X-Factors are all subjective to personal opinion but I think most people will agree that SF has the best weather, is most popular among tourists, has the best food, art, shopping, entertainment & cultural options of all 4 and as far as x-factor, SF is definitely the most worldly and distinctive image and reputation.
But it is worth mentioning that all 4 are superb cities with very little to complain about.
I actually think Vancouver has SF beat on public transit for the metro. Skytrain carries around the same amount of people as BART and a higher % of people use it metro wide I think compared to the Bay Area.
Not a commentary of efficiency, but BART literally covers a much, much larger area.
And this is just 1 system from each city. BART isn't even the agency that carries the most passengers in the Bay Area, MUNI is and MUNI has 700,000 daily riders. AC Transit has 230,000 daily riders, MTA in San Jose has 170,000 daily riders etc. All told the region's ridership is around 1.7 Million daily.
, but BART literally covers a much, much larger area.
As it should considering how much larger the Bay Area is land-wise and population wise in comparison. Not sure what good Sky Train would be if it covered an area as large as BART does as it would be serving farms.
Quote:
And this is just 1 system from each city. BART isn't even the agency that carries the most passengers in the Bay Area, MUNI is and MUNI has 700,000 daily riders. AC Transit has 230,000 daily riders, MTA in San Jose has 170,000 daily riders etc. All told the region's ridership is around 1.7 Million daily.
Total ridership numbers are pretty irrelevant and bad measure when you're comparing a region of 8 million to 2.3 million.
I think something like just under 10% of the Bay Area CSA uses PT while around 17% of metro Vancouver does. Vancouver just has some really good regional planning compared to the Bay Area that I think has helped. For some reason Canada has highly used PT systems when you compare them to similar sized metro's in the US.
As it should considering how much larger the Bay Area is land-wise and population wise in comparison. Not sure what good Sky Train would be if it covered an area as large as BART does as it would be serving farms.
True, the Bay Area is significantly larger and more spread out.
It should also be pointed out that as we speak, BART construction to downtown San Jose is happening even as we speak, this means a person can literally take BART between all 3 of the Bay Area's big cities without even having to transfer on a single subway line about 50 miles long.
We should get some credit for trying.
Quote:
I think something like just under 10% of the Bay Area CSA uses PT while around 17% of metro Vancouver does.
That may be true, but most transit riders in the case of SF and Vancouver are probably workers commuting to and from work. Both Metro Areas are way more auto dependent as in most people travel by cars to all destinations.
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.
