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.
SF s weather is debatable--some ppl prefer 4 seasons/warmth. Also, I wouldn't consider Houston ugly by any stretch of the imagination. Not post card picturesque, outside of skyscrapers and bayous, but definitely not ugly.
You're wasting your time arguing that point. People on City Data are attached to their narrow ideas of beauty and they aren't letting them go.
SF's economy is more sustainable to the future, anyway you look at it. A hub of cleantech (and even a pretty big hub of energy/O&G as it is now, obviously no Houston), but also a large banking/financial sector that is more varied in its focus, large corporate hub (for which Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta also are, but not so much Houston which is way more one-dimensional), and obviously the universal hub of the tech sector and the world #2 for biotech.
It's got the university backing. It's "coastal." It's interesting. It has all the ingredients to sustain its importance for the remainder of its history. It's much moreso an Asian gateway, and still retains lots of connections to Latin America (not as much as Houston does, but I'd rather be Asian-focused if only for the sheer numbers). Houston will need more of a transformation to remain relevant if major changes come to the energy/oil sectors.
Arguably, the Bay Area economy is more important than Chicago's, and larger already. LA's, definitely a large notch up in size (given the large difference in population), but not necessarily "more important", as that can be pretty subjective and relevancy to today's world is an important category...LA's per capita GDP is not super impressive, it's merely a much larger city with a larger corresponding economy.
If one *had to* put money on either area's (SF's or Houston's) economy still growing and serving as a major global force in 20 years, and only one was going to make this cut and the other economy were surely going to fail and dry up a little, I'd put all my money on SF's. It's been around/been more important for longer, and it will stay around.
LA has the third largest GMP in the world, after Tokyo and NYC. It's influence and economy is far more impressive than San Francisco's. Not to mention, LA still is a major gateway to Asia but ALSO has a larger connection to Latin America than San Francisco does.
You're still mixing facts (LA's economy is much larger than SF's) with conjecture (LA's economy is far more "impressive" and its influence far greater than SF's).
Anyway, back to SF vs Houston (you were the one that initially brought up LA's economy (and Chicago's), SF has the far greater Asian connection than Houston (one that actually rivals LA's, Seattle's, Vancouver's, and New York's), and a still pretty strong connection to Latin America - probably a stronger connection to Latin America than Houston has to Asia.
SF with tech/more diversified economy and superior status as a global gateway, not to mention longer history operating as an important city/economy gives credence to its ability to outlast Houston, if one of the two cities is to ever go down.
Houston weather in the summer, early fall and late spring makes me want to move to Alaska. The heat and humidity is horrible.. I couldn't do it. Houston has awesome winter weather but the rest of the year is god awful but thats just my opinion.. I like Northern California's climate way better, the advantage Houston has over SF is cost of living thou.
People seem to think energy industry only means oil, as if these large energy companies don't have their hands in alternative and green energy already. And not just the large ones either.
I agree with this. Exxon and other oil and energy companies are not just going to sit back and do nothing over the coming decades. They will definitely be aggressive at taking advantage of alternative and green energy to stay on top. They just have so much money and so many resources to stay a major player in wherever the energy sector moves into. Houston will experience a slowdown but it won't be as catastrophic as some of you are predicting.
Also many of you are ignoring the medical/healthcare sector which is a huge employer in Houston. Oil and gas is king here but the medical field is a giant here too.
Damn. Chicago and LA took a beating in that article. But it's a good one.
I voted Houston. Cheaper and more accessable, plus the energy boom is more stable. The Bay Area is popular now but wait until the bubble explodes. Then it will be hell up there.
^^^As if Houston hasn't been absolutely rocked by fluctuations in the oil markets or energy sectors. Enron? (that one company gave the whole city a beating in the early 2000s) The late 80s? (arguably worse effect on Houston than the 1st tech bubble burst).
Also, valuations might be out of whack, but most aren't forecasting another 2000 for the Bay Area. The Bay Area is more diversified than Houston. Both are prone to cycles, but so are all major world economies as all major economies are dominant global leaders in some sector or another, and all sectors go through cycles.
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.
