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.
Back to the topic. Someone did answer me about NJ because I've always wondered about there. There doesn't seem to be really a dominant city when you actually think about since North is centered around NYC and South is centered around Philly. Does Newark's size alone though make it the #1? Because it my mind it would have been JC with its proximity to NYC across the river and its own impressive skyline. But idk much about NJ.
See my pretty detailed post from earlier on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I don't think it's that difficult. Newark is number one due to its population and cultural relevance (Devils play there, Nets used to not so long ago, concerts are held at the Pru Center, college basketball teams play there, too), and also it's a transit hub. Airport, NJT, PATH, Amtrak. JC is great for PATH service and the tunnel but nothing beats Newark's transit options, IMO. I know people have a bad view of Newark, and it's mostly deserved, but it's still our first city, and JC is a close second. It may surpass Newark, but without having the cultural aspects that Newark has, I'm not sure if it truly can. And it might be hard for JC to get a sports team and the like considering it's already part of the NYC metro area and right across the river. It's easier for Newark to stand out a bit more than JC because at least it's like 10 miles inland rather than right there and was a much more important city years ago, before NYC became the true cultural powerhouse it is today, so at least it has that recognition. I doubt a venue like the Prudential Center would work in JC, and I doubt a sports team or anything similar will ever go there. I think JC will rise in popularity due to its location, and I think it will become more of a cool place to live and hang out in, more than anything. Jersey City has a better skyline, though, IMO - which has only been built up in the last decade or so so it's rather new. Back in the 90s and early 2000s JC looked like nothing from across the river while Newark's had its little skyline for years.
AC I guess is third. But a more distant third. Atlantic City is really on a downswing. High crime, many casinos are closing which means a loss of jobs for the area, making it a more depressed area and lacking a bit in cultural importance. AC has a nice skyline, IMO, and the boardwalk is still a classic but it needs to be saved before it can again become what it once was. Newark and JC at least are doing well, AC is just getting worse. I don't expect people not from NJ to know this though, which partly explains why so many are choosing Atlantic City.
That's not entirely true. Ann Arbor is the principal city of its own Metropolitan area, however Ann Arbor is part of the Combined Statistical Area of Detroit, but it still maintains a very separate identity from Detroit, and definitely doesn't fall under Detroit suburb from what I see.
Well it certainly existed as it's own entity before Metro Detroit became what it is. Based on commuting patterns Washtenaw County is an independent metro area. I would agree that it is. However still you won't find many metro areas of 350k people that are 15 minutes from Ikea and an airport that enplanes 30+ million people.
Even still I think it's illogical to say Ann Arbor would be Michigan's 2nd city. It has notoriety because of an iconic university. Outside of that it's culture and mind set is very much in lock step with Southeastern Michigan. Whereas Grand Rapids who's urban area alone is almost twice the size of metro AA, anchors the western half of the state. It could not stand in more contrast to the eastern side of Michigan.
At the moment, probably not. Silicon Valley is the most powerful economic engine in the world at this time.
LA has stagnated in entertainment and aerospace while the Bay Area has continuously reinvented itself over and over again, changing the world in the process.
As Ive stated before, you win through disruption.
I think there is a confusion between momentum and preeminence.
San Francisco has one, momentum currently and no one with a sane head would ever deny that, however that does not put San Francisco in a preeminent place in California or the United States. It is one of the top 5 places in the country, again no one with a sane head would deny that but it is not California's premier city nor on the level of New York and Los Angeles nationally.
Those two definitely exceed it. Your current momentum is impressive but you have a large deficit to overcome and that wont be happening in the span of the next 3-5 years, so this discussion is moot because Los Angeles is ahead and will stay ahead well into the foreseeable future. My guess is that Los Angeles will always stay ahead, I cant imagine the San Francisco Bay Area's current boom going on for a prolonged period of several decades, the area has a history for booms and busts, which doesn't make envisioning a potential take over of Los Angeles any easier.
Not at all familiar with Iowa City, what exactly is there and what's the draw?
Agree on Green Bay. The city does a magnificent job catering to the NFL crowd since Green Bay is such a tiny city, but aside from that there is little that sets Green Bay apart, and it's definitely limited if you aren't into the NFL scene. Madison seems much more varied, is much larger, and has a more diverse group of people.
Iowa City is a Big Ten town (U of Iowa).
But I think you hit the nail on the head for why Madison is, hand down, the "beta" city of Wisconsin. It has twice the population of Green Bay (the next biggest city) and the university influence gives it a much more diverse social scene. Green Bay's population skews older, and can't seem to shed the 1950s-in-a-snowglobe mentality of its older residents, which makes it hard for anything that's not Packers related to really take off up there.
I think there is a confusion between momentum and preeminence.
San Francisco has one, momentum currently and no one with a sane head would ever deny that, however that does not put San Francisco in a preeminent place in California or the United States. It is one of the top 5 places in the country, again no one with a sane head would deny that but it is not California's premier city nor on the level of New York and Los Angeles nationally.
Those two definitely exceed it. Your current momentum is impressive but you have a large deficit to overcome and that wont be happening in the span of the next 3-5 years, so this discussion is moot because Los Angeles is ahead and will stay ahead well into the foreseeable future. My guess is that Los Angeles will always stay ahead, I cant imagine the San Francisco Bay Area's current boom going on for a prolonged period of several decades, the area has a history for booms and busts, which doesn't make envisioning a potential take over of Los Angeles any easier.
There is zero confusion on my part. The Bay Area is clearly the leader in California when it comes to dominance in finance and .
technology-the two most important economic sectors at this time. LA should be number 1 in both by virtue of it's size, but it's NOT-and that's pretty massive.
The Bay Area employs TWICE as many Californians from outside it's borders than Los Angeles.
That's^ how MSAs are created by the way.
So let's see. The Bay Area controls finance, tech, jobs and also the dialogue in the state capital.
What exactly does LA control by contrast that directly affects the lives of Californians outside of it's CSA borders?
There is zero confusion on my part. The Bay Area is clearly the leader in California when it comes to dominance in finance and .
technology-the two most important economic sectors at this time.
So what makes finance and technology the most important factions of an economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
LA should be number 1 in both by virtue of it's size, but it's NOT-and that's pretty massive.
Yeah, well its not, and that hasn't prevented it from having the larger economy. An economy built off imports and exports by the way, so it is deeply engaged in international commerce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
The Bay Area employs TWICE as many Californians from outside it's borders than Los Angeles.
Yeah and I'm willing to bet the grand majority of those "employed" outside of Bay Area borders are people from Modesto, Salinas, or Ukiah -- all of which are bound to be added to the Bay Area CSA eventually soon enough as it is. Plus the recession destroyed the economies in the Central Valley, just look at Stockton and Modesto, some of the highest unemployment rates in the entire state. I think Modesto the highest, so is it really shocking to see people commuting to the Bay Area for work when that is the only option available to them for employment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
That's^ how MSAs are created by the way.
CSAs too. 15% for CSAs and 25% for automatic MSA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
So let's see. The Bay Area controls finance, tech, jobs and also the dialogue in the state capital.
Los Angeles controls trade, manufacturing, energy (for CA), commerce, and entertainment (thus creating an image for itself and California at-large; cultural importation and exportation, if you will).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
What exactly does LA control by contrast that directly affects the lives of Californians outside of it's CSA borders?
Creativity. Los Angeles controls creativity and lets see what we've gained as a human population out of it;
The city that redesigned the concept of seaport, the film and television industries (by importing or exporting Soviet Montage, German Expressionism, Italian Neo-Realism, Spaghetti Westerns (which caught on like fire in Spain), Blockbusters, Golden Era, so on), the Internet (yeah, that thing we're using right now).
I think a third control the Bay has is self absorbed sense of worth which is amazing in that it bests Hollywood in this regard.
I once read on here where the Bay area was the pivotal catalyst in the Egyptian revolution, I imagine this only to be the tip of the iceberg as its not as well known that most (nearly all) major events take place after the pivotal individuals responsible ate Rice-a-roni and more recently took uber instead of a cab
Not to say SF is certainly #1, but just want to point out that:
1) Yes Port of LB/LA is largest in NA and likely to stay that way, but Port of Oakland is also one of the largest ports in America, plus there is Port of Richmond that handles oil imports/exports (there are 5 big refineries there...as there are also big refineries down in LA)
So yes, LA is #1 there in America and certainly CA, but it's not like it's alone in the state - the Bay Area is still one of the most important (probably top 5 or 6) in the country
2) Energy - LA controls nothing in NorCal. The state's largest energy provider is PG&E, which is based in SF (remember that movie Erin Brockovich about a SoCal girl on a mission? That was PG&E). The Bay Area is also arguably the seat of greentech/cleantech jobs in this country. And speaking of manufacturing, Tesla's plant/HQ is also in the Bay Area, as are a whole host of other battery manufacturers and Solar companies.
Also keep in mind on the fossil fuel front, both cities have that going on. The Getty's called both cities home (and still do...I believe most of the Getty's are in Pacific Heights now) and ran Occidental out of LA. Meanwhile, Chevron is based in the Bay Area.
3) Entertainment - obviously LA is to entertainment as the Bay Area is to tech. But just as LA has a lot going on in tech, the Bay Area has a lot going on in entertainment. Outside of the classical kind (I think if you want ballet/opera that kind of thing, SF is definitely more of a scene), the Bay Area is home to large entertainment names, like George Lucas/Lucasfilm/LucasArts, Pixar, Dreamworks Animation, etc etc. SF itself has one of the largest theater districts in the country, easily top 4 behind NYC, LA, and Chicago. Lots of "people of the arts" north of LA, too.
4) Cultural importation - I'm pretty sure LA is not a clear #1 in the country there, at least depending on how you look at it. Whole movements have come out of SF, which has also shaped the world with its free spirit and politics. LA just happens to produce movies that depict things going on elsewhere...so what?
5) Creativity - to me the tech industry is quite creative. I never really considered LA to be all that "creative". Boston and SF, yes. I guess we just have different definitions.
There are very few things that LA completely and totally owns in CA - the Bay Area is always doing its part to keep up. Simultaneously, there are very few things that the Bay Area totally owns as LA does its part to keep up.
Los Angeles controls trade, manufacturing,
energy (for CA), commerce, and
entertainment (thus creating an image for
itself and California at-large; cultural
importation and exportation, if you will).
Trade? You mean the ports? Sure, LA wins that.
Manufacturing? Manufacturing GDP, 2013
SF & SJ MSAs(Pop 6.5 million) $89 Billion
Los Angeles MSA(Pop 13 million) $78 Billion
Energy? Not really.
Chevron is HQed in the Bay, PG&E, the state's largest public utility, is HQed in SF, and the Bay Area is a leader in developing renewable energy.
Entertainment? Uh okay, but your reasoning is very weak. lol.
I think a third control the Bay has is self absorbed sense of worth which is amazing in that it bests Hollywood in this regard.
I once read on here where the Bay area was the pivotal catalyst in the Egyptian revolution, I imagine this only to be the tip of the iceberg as its not as well known that most (nearly all) major events take place after the pivotal individuals responsible ate Rice-a-roni and more recently took uber instead of a cab
Lol I know what you're getting at, I think 18Montclair dug himself in a hole and is just going down with the ship, I admire him for never backing down, but I think this conversation has reached a point of entertainment and nothing else. There are states where there's no clear cut #1 city, California isn't one of them, this thread should be reverted back to those states.
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.
