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.
While I am inclined to agree, I think it could also fall outside of the top 5 given how
1) Decentralized the Bay Area is, almost giving the appearance it isn't one metro. In other words, there's no 'center'
2) Boston, Houston, and Dallas all have more populated metros. Even in California, San-Bernardino Riverside have more populated MSA's
3) In terms of media markets, Dallas and Philadelphia are both larger.
You've got to look at the Bay Area as a whole. Think about it - even the San Francisco 49ers play in Santa Clara, which according to your artificial separation of the SF and SJ metro areas would be in a different metro. The Bay Area is one metro for all intents and purposes and it has about 8 million people, making it a larger metro than Houston, Dallas, etc. and putting it in the top 5 in CSA populations.
Finance/banking
Tech
Biotech/life sciences
even energy to a lesser extent (PG&E, Chevron, world leader in green energy/technology development and implementation, even with big names like Google and Tesla jumping on that bandwagon)
And is a huge hub for conglomerates and big corporations
Also plays a large role in the entertainment industry (Pixar, Dreamworks Animation, Lucasfilm, etc and is important and easy filming location as it is near LA and has its own infrastructure for production)
SF has 3 of the most important research universities in the world, let alone the country (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF), among a whole host of other colleges
SF is one of the nation's strongest and most important immigration hubs and is a melting pot of cultures, helping both to define what it is to be American (i.e. trendsetter) and helping those new to America to acclimate and contribute.
The Bay Area is the country's #2 for housing the nation's most important and influential business leaders behind NYC.
San Francisco is also pretty important politically, as the seat of the Ninth Circuit, the producer of CA's politicians (CA governor and Lt governor, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, etc etc), and is the seat of the Twelfth District of the Federal Reserve (just counting it as part of govt) which covers all western states from AZ to WA to AK and HI.
San Francisco is also one of the most culturally important cities in the world, instigating/leading whole social movements and acting as the center of many shifts in human thought and persuasion. For many groups of people, it might be THE most important city in the world (gay rights activists, environmentalists, US preservationists, what remains of hippies, homeless people lol, etc)
Finally, SF is a co-anchor of the entire Western Coast of the United States of America with LA and shares that title with nobody else. Not Vancouver. Not Seattle. Certainly not Portland. It has a huge port and is one of the top tourist destinations not only in America, but in the world.
I would argue that SF is a strong contender with Chicago and DC for #3, #4, or #5 most important in this country. In fact, I would be so bold as to say LA, SF, Chicago, and DC all vie for #2-5. There is no #6 or above for any of these cities, and frankly, there never will be for these cities. Even though Chicago is "waning" arguably in some circles (though I really don't think so), it won't be "overtaken" as a top 5 by any of these newer sunbelt cities, or by Boston, Seattle, or Philadelphia (certainly not the latter). NYC will always be #1, and #2-5 could go to any of those cities I mentioned depending on how you look at it.
Last edited by anonelitist; 03-20-2015 at 02:59 PM..
Finance/banking
Tech
Biotech/life sciences
even energy to a lesser extent (PG&E, Chevron, world leader in green energy/technology development and implementation, even with big names like Google and Tesla jumping on that bandwagon)
And is a huge hub for conglomerates and big corporations
Also plays a large role in the entertainment industry (Pixar, Dreamworks Animation, Lucasfilm, etc and is important and easy filming location as it is near LA and has its own infrastructure for production)
SF has 3 of the most important research universities in the world, let alone the country (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF), among a whole host of other colleges
SF is one of the nation's strongest and most important immigration hubs and is a melting pot of cultures, helping both to define what it is to be American (i.e. trendsetter) and helping those new to America to acclimate and contribute.
The Bay Area is the country's #2 for housing the nation's most important and influential business leaders behind NYC.
San Francisco is also pretty important politically, as the seat of the Ninth Circuit, the producer of CA's politicians (CA governor and Lt governor, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, etc etc), and is the seat of the Twelfth District of the Federal Reserve (just counting it as part of govt) which covers all western states from AZ to WA to AK and HI.
San Francisco is also one of the most culturally important cities in the world, instigating/leading whole social movements and acting as the center of many shifts in human thought and persuasion. For many groups of people, it might be THE most important city in the world (gay rights activists, environmentalists, US preservationists, what remains of hippies, homeless people lol, etc)
Finally, SF is a co-anchor of the entire Western Coast of the United States of America with LA and shares that title with nobody else. Not Vancouver. Not Seattle. Certainly not Portland. It has a huge port and is one of the top tourist destinations not only in America, but in the world.
I would argue that SF is a strong contender with Chicago and DC for #3, #4, or #5 most important in this country. In fact, I would be so bold as to say LA, SF, Chicago, and DC all vie for #2-5. There is no #6 or above for any of these cities, and frankly, there never will be for these cities. Even though Chicago is "waning" arguably in some circles (though I really don't think so), it won't be "overtaken" as a top 5 by any of these newer sunbelt cities, or by Boston, Seattle, or Philadelphia (certainly not the latter). NYC will always be #1, and #2-5 could go to any of those cities I mentioned depending on how you look at it.
Other than maybe DC I just don't see how LA could be anything but #2 when taking everything in to account, so I respectfully disagree.
Without question top 5 and I would say top 3 or maybe 4. NYC, LA, SF Bay & DC pretty equal to me. I know some might say Chicaco but I don't think it has much influence outside of the Midwest. Bay Area is the technology center of THE WORLD!
In this order for the top 5 is #1 NYC, #2 LA, & then this is where it gets fuzzy, so I would say DC & SF are tied for #3, & then Chicago at #5. I know some might say that Chicago at #5 is a disgrace but to be honest it has fallen behind other major cities in the US & I personally believe DC & SF edge out Chicago
My question is if people perceive Chicago as somewhat 'falling off', what has LA done (or avoided) in recent history to avoid this same criticism? I think the roll both SF & DC have been on of late when compared to Chicago has more to do with Chicago's [perceived] fall from grace than any actual (or significant) decline on Chicago's part. I think the same can be said of LA. So I think the general question is that since it appears to be a forgone conclusion that SF & DC have been the biggest movers in recent history among this upper echelon (excluding NYC), is it enough to throw the 2 - 5 spots into flux? Or has this hot streak merely clouded judgement? Personally I'm on the fence about this, I can definitely see a case to be made that these spots are up in the air - but at the same time, traditionally it feels very strange that a possibility exists where LA & Chicago can somehow be usurped of their top 3 spots. One possible factor of this for traditionalists is that subconsciously it makes it harder to process due to the perceived size of SF & DC versus LA & CHI, especially in city proper terms.
My question is if people perceive Chicago as somewhat 'falling off', what has LA done (or avoided) in recent history to avoid this same criticism? I think the roll both SF & DC have been on of late when compared to Chicago has more to do with Chicago's [perceived] fall from grace than any actual (or significant) decline on Chicago's part. I think the same can be said of LA. So I think the general question is that since it appears to be a forgone conclusion that SF & DC have been the biggest movers in recent history among this upper echelon (excluding NYC), is it enough to throw the 2 - 5 spots into flux? Or has this hot streak merely clouded judgement? Personally I'm on the fence about this, I can definitely see a case to be made that these spots are up in the air - but at the same time, traditionally it feels very strange that a possibility exists where LA & Chicago can somehow be usurped of their top 3 spots. One possible factor of this for traditionalists is that subconsciously it makes it harder to process due to the perceived size of SF & DC versus LA & CHI, especially in city proper terms.
It takes a lot more effort to make an argument for any city to dethrone Los Angeles as the #2, the gap as of now is pretty clear and wide IMO, LA is soundly #2, it's the #3-5 slots that are not as clear.
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.
