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 LA is California's #1 city in terms of size, GDP, etc., SF is the #1 showcase city. If I'm planning a trip to California and had to choose between the two, it's SF by far!! The only good thing that can be said about LA when compared to SF is that it's larger, and if that makes some of you people feel good, that's fine. But SF doesn't take a back seat to the endless sprawl and small CBD of LA. In many ways, SF is the #1 city in California!!
Exactly.
Los Angeles may be the largest city, but San Francisco is thought by more people to be California's BEST city.
NY is tough. I've seen many people choose Rochester, which is the State's second largest city after NYC. But I'd choose Syracuse or even Buffalo over Rochester.
This argument, as others said, doesn't really hold up. Just because you would plan a trip to SF over LA doesn't mean it is CA's #1 city. Someone planning a trip to FL might choose Orlando or Tampa over Miami because they're looking for a more family friendly destination or better beaches. There's no denying that Miami is FL's #1 city though. Or someone visiting Hawaii might visit Kauai or Maui for a more relaxing trip because that's what they're interested in. There's no denying that Honolulu is HI's #1 city.
So yes, LA is CA's #1 city. Largest in terms of basically everything. As for CBD, LA's is small for the size of LA, but if most other cities had the CBD of LA, it would be very impressive. LA city might be less dense than SF city, but Greater LA is denser than the SF Bay Area.
I'm sure many posters on here know my dislike for SF, but this is not an opinion based answer. SF is one of the most internationally recognized and most visited cities in the world with some of the top tourist attractions. The economy is strong, it's growing, it's a large metro, etc. But to place it above LA is just silly.
I feel like the only state that can actually have this debate is TX between Dallas and Houston as #1.
I have no dislike for San Francisco...i really love that place. Nonetheless, San Franciscans have an incredible discomfort about being number 2, and have quite of bit of delusions.
They really shouldn't care...but they do, and you can tell by the common vitriolic hate for LA that they spew. Why can't they be more like San Diegans in attitude while maintaining their cosmopolitan flair? Oh, alright...it's called LA.
Agree to disagree. I think we are looking at this from 2 different angles. To me, there has to be some measure of objectivity in picking a first and second city of anything. I think its different than asking whats your favorite city. You may be looking at it from the angle of what you thnk is the best city city. To me, first city does not mean that it has to be the best city. IMO, once all the metrics keep pointing to you as the big dog in the state, then you are the first city no matter what my particular preference may be.
Actually pontiac51 threw a huge wrench in your argument.
Furthermore, CSAs and MSAs are created by jobs and even back in 2000, the Bay Area was employing more Californians from outside its borders than the twice larger LA CSA, by a margin of 2 to 1( 100,000 vs 50,000)
Also, the Bay Area also has the majority of billion dollar corporations and majority of Fortune 500 companies in California, despite being less than half the population of LA.
In fact, the Bay Area is only rivaled by New York as far as globally relevant brands,
Actually pontiac51 threw a huge wrench in your argument.
Furthermore, CSAs and MSAs are created by jobs and even back in 2000, the Bay Area was employing more Californians from outside its borders than the twice larger LA CSA, by a margin of 2 to 1( 100,000 vs 50,000)
Also, the Bay Area also has the majority of billion dollar corporations and majority of Fortune 500 companies in California, despite being less than half the population of LA.
In fact, the Bay Area is only rivaled by New York as far as globally relevant brands,
iow, not cut and dry...
Actually, it is (cut and dry). Los Angeles is defacto America's second city, with Chicago a good third a while ago. So, meaning, that anywhere you put the LA metro (with the exception of NY state) it would be the prime.
We can make arguments for San Francisco.being a better more succesful city, but it still wouldnt be its main one.
Actually, it is (cut and dry). Los Angeles is defacto America's second city, with Chicago a good third a while ago. So, meaning, that anywhere you put the LA metro (with the exception of NY state) it would be the prime.
We can make arguments for San Francisco.being a better more succesful city, but it still wouldnt be its main one.
Nope. LA may be the largest city in California but the political and economic center of gravity of the state is actually San Francisco.
Nope. LA may be the largest city in California but the political and economic center of gravity of the state is actually San Francisco.
Greater LA's economic output is only surpassed by a few elite cities in the world, like NYC, London and Tokyo. This is on the global stage. Within the states it is second only to NYC.
San Francisco/Bay Area, places 7th within the U.S. Greater LA has more than twice the economic output, and SF Bay Area is below Dallas and only slightly ahead of Philadelphia. Again, San Francisco has a huge ego, and it certainly dominates many fields, but it doesnt make it close to being the center/prime in California. Perhaps if some wacks get their way and the state got split into two, but that isnt the reality.
As for politics...currently I think you are correct, as a lot of those in power within the state call NorCal home. Plus Sacramento is literally next door.
Greater LA's economic output is only surpassed by a few elite cities in the world, like NYC, London and Tokyo. This is on the global stage. Within the states it is second only to NYC.
San Francisco/Bay Area, places 7th within the U.S.
But when I say SF is the economic center of gravity of California, I am talking about the FACT that SF is the financial center of the state, the location of the biggest concentration of billion dollar companies, the most influential and most innovative titans of finance and tech are in the Bay, and SFs lead is actually expanding.
I have no dislike for San Francisco...i really love that place. Nonetheless, San Franciscans have an incredible discomfort about being number 2, and have quite of bit of delusions.
They really shouldn't care...but they do, and you can tell by the common vitriolic hate for LA that they spew. Why can't they be more like San Diegans in attitude while maintaining their cosmopolitan flair? Oh, alright...it's called LA.
It's weird and it extends beyond C-D. In the local media like on SFgate.com they get all butthurt when they aren't ranked #1 or as high as they think they should be for whatever random list/ranking.
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.
