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.
I am very dismayed to see that this thread has turned into a Los Angeles vs San Francisco thread...you know, there are 49 other states waiting to be discussed.
This excuse doesnt work because SF is considerably more expensive than LA.
I can't recall the source for the statistic, but I remember reading that, adjusted for COL, LA is the poorest city in the country with 1/4 of the population living in poverty. So yes, I imagine a lot of those people have left to places live LV, Phoenix, TX, etc. That would explain the loss in population.
I am very dismayed to see that this thread has turned into a Los Angeles vs San Francisco thread...you know, there are 49 other states waiting to be discussed.
To be fair Houston and Dallas hijacked the thread a couple pages back.
Don't worry...eventually reality will set in, and San Franciscans will accept being numero dos.
Something which Chicago used to proudly proclaim.back in the day as America's Second City. I guess "California's Second City" doesn't have a nice ring to it for San Franciscans. Aha
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a 1A and 1B situation and someone always has to lose and finish second. That is how life works. In the case with Texas, that would be Dallas. It finishes second. I don't know how in the green Earth you people with a straight face are even debating the richer, more cosmopolitan, more productive, more prominent, more linked, better culinary scene, better cultural institutions, better educational facilities, better located (to access the world), the focal point of the state's entire industry city (Houston) is second. I mean the city's purchasing power is greater than Dallas' and it is a slightly smaller area by population. Though the door for debate is more open with this one than the California scenario. By the way, this doesn't mean that Dallas is a bad place or inferior to Houston, it is not, they are equals as a city overall but only one of them are their state's premier city and that is Houston (by a small bit).
In regards to California, there is no 1A and 1B situation there either. Los Angeles is the premier city of the state.
London is the premier city of the United Kingdom. Paris is the premier city of France. Tokyo is the premier city of Japan. New York is the premier city of the United States. Moscow is the premier city of Russia. Sao Paulo is the premier city of Brazil. Seoul is the premier city of South Korea. Barcelona is the premier city of Catalonia. Mumbai is the premier city of Maharashtra. Just like Los Angeles is the premier city of California and Houston is the premier city of Texas.
So far amazingly good. I haven't seen a person try to persuade others that Orlando is the premier city of Florida yet.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 04-18-2015 at 05:42 PM..
On the Houston v. Dallas debate, I have to go with Houston (Dallas as the second city). I've always looked at The US as having three symbolic mega-regional capitals: NY, CHI, and LA. Houston is the only city I see anywhere in the country that seems to be emerging as a fourth.
As far as my home state is concerned, St Paul is the obvious second city if we're looking only at the city level. At the metro level, there is certainly some competition between Duluth and Rochester. Duluth is larger and is making some progress after decades of decline. However, Rochester has become an economic powerhouse among smaller regional cities. I'd still go with Duluth, but probably not for long.
LA is far superior to San Francisco. Growing up all I knew of LA was that it was a cool city, with cool beaches, cool people, and cool lifestyle. Growing up all I heard of San Francisco was that it has a cool bridge, Full house was set there, the 49ers and Rice-A-Roni. But now I am more knowledgeable of what these cities really have to offer, and I believe LA is still ahead of San Francisco. I don't need to say why, because they have already been listed, In fact I'm Planning my third trip to LA right now, SF, I will go to sometime in the future.
Hey at least you live in California and not in Oklahoma or KS because no city is cool over here, none.
In regards to California, there is no 1A and 1B situation there either.
Youre right. In 2015, LA and SF are actually TIED if we are being honest.
Quote:
Los Angeles is the premier city of the state.
Southern California for sure.
North of the Kern County line however, LA is NOT the premier city.
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.
