2013 Combined Statistical Area Gross Product: Released Sep. 16, 2014 (cost, comparison, people)

[Trae713]

For Houston to have about four million less people than the Chicago CSA, the GDPs of both are pretty close

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Detroit and the Twins seem to be battling for the same spot post-recession.



If you go to 'interactive tables' on the right side of OP's link, it shows you the past years for every metro. You just have to hand select which metros you want to see and whether you only want totals or all the data. Though I don't think they have CSA data (or at least I didn't notice if there was).

http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?req...step=1&isuri=1

BEA doesn't calculate CSA GDP.

[18Montclair]

As a whole, I project the Bay Area's GDP to surpass $700B this year(2014)

As far as the Inner Bay Area, as I stated earlier, its astpounding how productive the area is.

San Francisco & San Jose MSAs
2013 Population: 6,435,917
2013 GDP: $585.101 Billion
2013 Per Capita GDP: $90,511

Chicago MSA
2013 Population: 9,537,289
2013 GDP: $590.248 Billion
Per Capita GDP: $61,880

San Jose Per Capita GDP: $102,530
San Francisco Per Capita GDP: $85,970

SF+San Mateo+Marin, when separated from the East Bay is most likely well over $100,000[/quote]

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Trae713

For Houston to have about four million less people than the Chicago CSA, the GDPs of both are pretty close

Yeah, Ive long been insisting that Houston was on its way to an eventual dual with SF for 3rd or maybe even 2nd and I still stand by that.

[Trafalgar Law]

2013 Combined Statistical Area(CSA) Gross Product
New York-Newark $1.683 Trillion (23.4 million people)
Los Angeles-Long Beach $999.661 Billion (18.4 million people)
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $664.687 Billion (8.4 million people)
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington $657.039 Billion (9.4 million people)
Chicago-Naperville $597.805 Billion (9.9 million people)
Houston-The Woodlands $517.367 Billion (6.5 million people)
Boston-Worcester-Providence $514.586 Billion (8.0 million people)
Dallas-Ft Worth $451.436 Billion (7.2 million people)
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden $429.838 Billion (7.1 million people)
Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs $314.759 Billion (6.1 million people)
Seattle-Tacoma $309.577 Billion (4.5 million people)
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Port St Lucie $297.071 Billion (6.4 million people)
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor $262.166 Billion (5.2 million people)
Minneapolis-St Paul $236.389 Billion (3.7 million people)
Denver-Aurora $209.648 Billion (3.4 million people)

2013 Metropolitan Area(MSA) Gross Product, $200 Billion+
New York $1.471 Trillion (19.8 million people)
Los Angeles $826.826 Billion (13.3 million people)
Chicago $590.248 Billion (9.5 million people)
Houston $517.367 Billion (6.3 million people)
Washington DC $463.925 Billion (6.0 million people)
Dallas $447.524 Billion (6.8 million people)
San Francisco $388.272 Billion (4.5 million people)
Philadelphia $383.401 Billion (6.0 million people)
Boston $370.769 Billion (4.6 million people)
Seattle $307.769 Billion (3.8 million people)
Atlanta $307.233 Billion (5.5 million people)
Miami $281.076 Billion (5.8 million people)
Minneapolis $227.793 Billion (3.4 million people)
Detroit $224.726 Billion (4.2 million people)
Phoenix $209.523 Billion (4.4 million people)

I added their populations next to their GDP's so that way we can see which places are hitting at what pace for their sizes. Three places stick out: Houston, San Francisco Bay Area, and Seattle as over-performers for their sizes. When 18Montclair made the GDP thread last year in September, at the time the Chicago MSA had a $121 Billion dollar lead on Houston. Today that is down to $73 Billion for MSA and $80 Billion from CSA (last year was $124 Billion for the 2011 data). Add in that it has 3.5 million less people as a MSA and 3.4 million less as a CSA and the gap becomes negligible. Chicagoland wont fall out of the top 5 CSA GDP's however, as Washington/Baltimore's entire growth has stalled (Washington + $3 Billion / Baltimore + $4 Billion). Chicagoland will continue closing the gap between it and Washington/Baltimore and re-surpass it, unless spending increases again, by 2020 (census year). Houston will surpass both by around that same time period (as it is + $100.6 Billion since 2008, only New York numerically gained more). As for the conversation for "the South" that routinely is brought up, I don't think there's a single question now. Houston is far ahead of the likes of Atlanta and Miami and decently ahead of Dallas too. In fact Atlanta's GDP is closer to the GDP difference between it and Houston ($203 Billion) than it is to Houston's total GDP, to put into perspective.

Fun fact, Seattle, Houston, and Bay Area have all surpassed the GDP's of three places larger than them by population (well two for Bay Area but those two are undeniably top five places, so evens out). Houston has surpassed the larger Philadelphia, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Boston. Seattle has surpassed the larger Detroit, Miami, and on the verge to with Atlanta. San Francisco Bay Area has surpassed Chicago and Washington/Baltimore.

[jdaelectro]

Seattle hits hard, geez.

Atlanta and Miami(especially) hit well below their weight. As diversified as Atlanta's economy is, I would have expected it to perform a lot better.

My second favorite city San Fran, is still up there. Just wish my favorite city(Miami) would start to diversify a little more,. . .maybe next time. Money is overrated anyways.

[Rhymes with Best Coast]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

As a whole, I project the Bay Area's GDP to surpass $700B this year(2014)

As far as the Inner Bay Area, as I stated earlier, its astpounding how productive the area is.

San Francisco & San Jose MSAs
2013 Population: 6,435,917
2013 GDP: $585.101 Billion
2013 Per Capita GDP: $90,511

Chicago MSA
2013 Population: 9,537,289
2013 GDP: $590.248 Billion
Per Capita GDP: $61,880

San Jose Per Capita GDP: $102,530
San Francisco Per Capita GDP: $85,970

SF+San Mateo+Marin, when separated from the East Bay is most likely well over $100,000

True. Even at $700 Billion, the Bay Area is locking horns with top 5-6 economies in the world.

Here are the top 20 according to the Brookings Institute (2012). SF doesn't show because they split SF/SJ, but we all know better.

1. Tokyo - $1520 billion
2. New York - $1210 billion
3. Los Angeles - $790 billion
4. Seoul - $774 billion
5. London - $731 billion
700 Billion Goes Here
6. Paris - $669 billion
7. Osaka - $655 billion
8. Chicago - $525 billion
9. Moscow - $520 billion
10 Shanghai - $517 billion
11. Sao Paulo - $473 billion
12. Rhine - Ruhr - $465 billion
13. Beijing - $427 billion
14. Washington - $415 billion
15. Mexico City - $411 billion
16. Houston - $400 billion
17. Dallas - $368 billion
18. Nagoya - $367 billion
19. Hong Kong - $350 billion
20. Buenos Aires - $348 billion

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Rhymes with Best Coast

True. Even at $700 Billion, the Bay Area is locking horns with top 5-6 economies in the world.

Here are the top 20 according to the Brookings Institute (2012). SF doesn't show because they split SF/SJ, but we know better.

Yeah, but you're not comparing apples to apples. The Bay Area isn't a metro area, at least not using that definition.

[Lets Eat Candy]

Please don't misquote the source. There are no CSA numbers, just MSA numbers. Please delete this thread.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Sorry, I forgot Boston, it averaged 1.7% over the last five years.

Nice.