NYC, LA, Chicago to become NYC, SF, Houston? (compare, places, Los Angeles)

[theterribleone]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Economy isn't everything or else cities like Rome, Venice, Madrid wouldn't have prestige and iconism.. Houston completely lacks in terms of cultural legacy compared to the historic giants like NYC, Sf, Chicago, LA, and Boston which is why it will be hard for the upcoming city to simply topple over these cities. Maybe Chicago because it's not THAT well known around the world, but certainly not NYC, SF, and LA.

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Houston has slowed from the oil downturn. Not as much as D.C, but it isn't as redhot as it was in 2012-2013.

Fair enough, I admit I was looking at the labor statistics right now and they looked better on the surface.

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Lol, OP. Have you visited Los Angeles lately?

My favorite city. I know, just see all this action in the Bay Area and was wondering.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy205

You love to throw that in the air.

Why are you mad at him? Hes right.

Im house shopping down here right now and its great. Definately a buyers market. The sellers are much more willing to work with a potential buyer. Compare that to our house we sold in Dallas where you had to offer 10% over asking to even get a chance.

Houston is a boom bust city. Always has been. Things are a little better now because of the Medical industry and the city's efforts to diversify the economy. Oil still runs things around here and it always will. As such, the city will ride the highs and lows more so than most.

To answer the OP's question: The only way Houston passes Chicago is in city proper population. Its a long way off from having the cultural significance of Chicago or having a similar sized economy or having a similar sized metro area population. I can comfortably say that I feel Houston is more diverse than Chicago though.

As for SF to LA, thats an even further flung comparrison. SF wont match LA's prominance in our lifetime.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

Why are you mad at him? Hes right.

Im house shopping down here right now and its great. Definately a buyers market. The sellers are much more willing to work with a potential buyer. Compare that to our house we sold in Dallas where you had to offer 10% over asking to even get a chance.

Houston is a boom bust city. Always has been. Things are a little better now because of the Medical industry and the city's efforts to diversify the economy. Oil still runs things around here and it always will. As such, the city will ride the highs and lows more so than most.

To answer the OP's question: The only way Houston passes Chicago is in city proper population. Its a long way off from having the cultural significance of Chicago or having a similar sized economy or having a similar sized metro area population. I can comfortably say that I feel Houston is more diverse than Chicago though.

As for SF to LA, thats an even further flung comparrison. SF wont match LA's prominance in our lifetime.

There may be more supply of Houses in the Houston market right now but it is still "not" a buyers market yet...

HOUSTON — (July 15, 2015) — The Houston real estate market’s see-saw ride continued following May’s sales dip, with June sales volume up 4.1 percent and home prices setting new record highs. Only homes priced below $150,000 experienced a sales decline.
According to the latest monthly report prepared by the Houston Association of Realtors (HAR), June single-family home sales totaled 7,935 units—the highest one-month volume ever— compared to 7,621 a year earlier. The time it took to sell the average home reached a record low of 43 days.

HAR.com - MLS Press Release

[EricNorthman]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

The LA CSA has the largest numeric population growth in the U.S., year after year, for basically the past 50 years.

So no city in the U.S. has a chance in hell of catching up to LA. It will remain a solid #2, twice the size of any other U.S. metro (excepting NYC, of course), probably for all of our lifetimes.

It took about 30 seconds to disprove your statement. I don't know how to link to the census site but check out the numerical growth for the year 2013-2014 for Los Angeles CSA and Houston CSA.

Here are the numbers.

Houston CSA 156,735
Los Angeles CSA 143,2055

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by EricNorthman

It took about 30 seconds to disprove your statement. I don't know how to link to the census site but check out the numerical growth for the year 2013-2014 for Los Angeles CSA and Houston CSA.

Here are the numbers.

Houston CSA 156,735
Los Angeles CSA 143,2055

So Houston's CSA amassed 13,520 more residents in 2014 than LA's CSA did. Keep it up Houston! At that rate it will only be 877 years until your population exceeds LA's.

Not an exaggeration by the way, just did the math.

Los Angeles CSA Population in 2014: 18,550,288
Houston CSA Population in 2014: 6,686,318

EDIT: I decided to take pity on Houston and project its growth as a percentage of total population rather than projecting it linearly using that figure of 156,735 new residents a year. Even with that, it would be 65.9 years until its population exceeds LA's:

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by theterribleone

It seems Chicago and Los Angeles are just going along these days while San Francisco and Houston keep rising to new heights. Will these two cities eventually become the second and third cities in prestige, as well as culturally and economically?

Prestige:
San Francisco is already more prestigious than Los Angeles if we look at median home prices, median office rents, median incomes, educational attainment levels, high quality suburbs and school districts, a more upscale downtown. San Francisco has the 2nd largest concentration of Ivy League graduates, the most prestigious universities on the west coast,

Culturally:
San Francisco is at least just as culturally impactful as Los Angeles. People can point to Hollywood all they want, but no Hollywood entity is more used on a daily basis than Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. In fact, much of Hollywood is owned by New York parent companies-SFs media outlets arent controlled by out of towners-N-E-V-E-R. The Bay Area sets the trend far more than LA as far as politics, social movements, environmental awareness, hell, even food.

Economically:
The Bay Area is already the tech epicenter of the world, the premier financial center and banking center of the west, the largest concentration of F500 HQs, probably the most watched local economy in the nation outside of New York as the Bay Area is the only place that has trillions of dollars of market capitalization after New York. Nowhere else besides NY and SF achieve and surpass $1T in market cap.

So while LA is larger, that clearly has no bearing on being more prestigious or more culturally and economically relevant in 2015 as the Bay Area takes it to the mat in all 3 categories.

I dont see how much longer the flimsy arguments you guys put out to stave off the advancing Bay Area juggernaut will hold water.

Best wishes to LA tho.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Prestige:
San Francisco is already more prestigious than Los Angeles if we look at median home prices, median office rents, median incomes, educational attainment levels, high quality suburbs and school districts, a more upscale downtown. San Francisco has the 2nd largest concentration of Ivy League graduates, the most prestigious universities on the west coast,

Culturally:
San Francisco is at least just as culturally impactful as Los Angeles. People can point to Hollywood all they want, but no Hollywood entity is more used on a daily basis than Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. In fact, much of Hollywood is owned by New York parent companies-SFs media outlets arent controlled by out of towners-N-E-V-E-R. The Bay Area sets the trend far more than LA as far as politics, social movements, environmental awareness, hell, even food.

Economically:
The Bay Area is already the tech epicenter of the world, the premier financial center and banking center of the west, the largest concentration of F500 HQs, probably the most watched local economy in the nation outside of New York as the Bay Area is the only place that has trillions of dollars of market capitalization after New York. Nowhere else besides NY and SF achieve and surpass $1T in market cap.

So while LA is larger, that clearly has no bearing on being more prestigious or more culturally and economically relevant in 2015 as the Bay Area takes it to the mat in all 3 categories.

I dont see how much longer the flimsy arguments you guys put out to stave off the advancing Bay Area juggernaut will hold water.

Best wishes to LA tho.

Culturally, SF is nowhere near LA. Tech and social media is awesome, but at the end of the day, they're just platforms. People aren't culturally in awe of just Twitter itself--not to the extent of WHO's on Twitter. Nicki Minaj vs Taylor Swift? Headlines and hits and money. That's LAs domain, not SFs. If this was high school, SF is the rich nerd with emo friends. LA is the jock with the hot girls. Extend that analogy all you want, or outright reject it, but bottomline, SF isn't in the same league with LA when it comes to culture. Economically, you have a very strong argument, prestige wise, less so, but culturally, hell no.

[EricNorthman]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

So Houston's CSA amassed 13,520 more residents in 2014 than LA's CSA did. Keep it up Houston! At that rate it will only be 877 years until your population exceeds LA's.

Not an exaggeration by the way, just did the math.

Los Angeles CSA Population in 2014: 18,550,288
Houston CSA Population in 2014: 6,686,318

EDIT: I decided to take pity on Houston and project its growth as a percentage of total population rather than projecting it linearly using that figure of 156,735 new residents a year. Even with that, it would be 65.9 years until its population exceeds LA's:

Thanks for doing the math. I didn't mean to imply that Houston would overtake Los Angeles. I only wanted to prove that NOLA101 was giving bad info out (again).

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

Culturally, SF is nowhere near LA.

Culturally, San Francisco goes toe-to-toe with Los Angeles. You point out pop culture. Okay(Blank Stare), but that's shallow and unimportant if we're being honest, no? LA's social media DOES NOT EXIST compared to the Bay Area. How idiotic to even insinuate anything to the contrary.

Billions of people around the world communicate using Bay Area based social media, please stop.

And what's up with your obsession with Taylor Swift?

[Calisonn]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Prestige:
San Francisco is already more prestigious than Los Angeles if we look at median home prices, median office rents, median incomes, educational attainment levels, high quality suburbs and school districts, a more upscale downtown. San Francisco has the 2nd largest concentration of Ivy League graduates, the most prestigious universities on the west coast,

Culturally:
San Francisco is at least just as culturally impactful as Los Angeles. People can point to Hollywood all they want, but no Hollywood entity is more used on a daily basis than Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. In fact, much of Hollywood is owned by New York parent companies-SFs media outlets arent controlled by out of towners-N-E-V-E-R. The Bay Area sets the trend far more than LA as far as politics, social movements, environmental awareness, hell, even food.

Economically:
The Bay Area is already the tech epicenter of the world, the premier financial center and banking center of the west, the largest concentration of F500 HQs, probably the most watched local economy in the nation outside of New York as the Bay Area is the only place that has trillions of dollars of market capitalization after New York. Nowhere else besides NY and SF achieve and surpass $1T in market cap.

So while LA is larger, that clearly has no bearing on being more prestigious or more culturally and economically relevant in 2015 as the Bay Area takes it to the mat in all 3 categories.

I dont see how much longer the flimsy arguments you guys put out to stave off the advancing Bay Area juggernaut will hold water.

Best wishes to LA tho.

I 100% agree, when will people finally realize LA plays second fiddle to the Bay Area?