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.
Which of these 4 places can challenge Los Angeles the most? This is going off of the fact that Los Angeles is the second city on an overall basis between the United States and Canada after New York.
Chicago-Toronto-San Francisco-Washington D.C.
You can use city, MSA/CMA, CSA/Golden Horshoe, U.N. UA, so on. Compare them on which one is the closest to matching Los Angeles on an overall basis in as many facets as possible for cities to compare themselves with another city.
So things like diplomatic power and image, corporate power, influential leaders (can be political or private industry related), innovations, Nanotech, Biotech, General Medicine, college and university level, financial activities, tech industry, energy industry, influence upon governments of all levels (city -> county/borough -> state -> nationally), trade (shipping and trade), logistics and manufacturing, global connectives, brand creation and exportation and importation and infusion, real-estate market valuation, foreign investment and allure, tourism, media (of any kind), so on and so forth. You're free to add any additional categories, I'll leave that to others to do.
In addition to those aspects also compare them on city type of aspects in regards to the type of construction (and boom, if applies), office space expansion, food innovations, music innovations, festival-parade-event innovations and headliners, infill of residential, infrastructure at all levels (roads, rail transportation, others).
Once done with that then compare them on environments, as to what sort of people migrate to these places and which ones are closest to matching Los Angeles' vast diversity and diaspora of people. In this regard you can look to things like racial and ethnic diversity, languages that have influence over an area, social connections with overseas places, how hospitable an environment is for people of all backgrounds (this includes LGBT as well).
Other than that, if you want to you can compare them on what their popular image is like, what sort of nightlife each one has and which one comes closest to matching Los Angeles there, so on. You can compare them on architecture, shopping, urban environments, touristy amenities, general population amenities, climate, topography, wine countries, suburbs here but more emphasis to all the points ahead of this.
I think here on C-D people tend to downplay Toronto...maybe because it's a Canadian city? Unlike the other cities on this list that the OP provided, Toronto is unquestionably the alpha, global city of its country...and it's a noticeable downgrade to the runner up city, Montreal (or Vancouver). To me, this counts for a lot. A city that is around the same population size as Chicago, both city and MSA wise, has dominance over an entire country. Something like 1 in 4 Canadians live in Greater Toronto. So while it probably has the smallest GDP out of all the cities here cause, ya know, it's not in 'Murica, on all other criteria the OP is asking for, Toronto leads the pack, or is right there. Construction, finance, media, infrastructure, diplomatic power, diversity, you name it, Toronto's there. Biggest construction boom in North America outside of NYC (and maybe Miami). Financial capital of Canada, third in NA after NYC and Chicago. Huge media presence, third largest film industry after California and New York. Large and very prominent festivals. Very strong case as the most diverse city on the planet, ahead of Miami, LA and NYC. Hottest rapper in hip hop, at the moment. I can keep going. We here on C-D love to talk about cities that "punch above their weight", like the Bay, Houston, etc. Well, given its status as Canada's largest city by far, Toronto is one of those cities, too.
Overall, once we zoom out to the CSA level and include Baltimore and a ton of wealthy sprawlburb (terrible, **** measuring metric btw but I digress) though, DC ekes out a win here. To me, CSA DC is the best of both the Bay and Toronto. Wealthy and educated, like the Bay, while diverse and incredibly prominent, like Toronto. Combine that with a stable industry (government) that will, barring catastrophe, only continue to grow and the DC CSA, imo, has a very strong shot at 3rd or 2nd (already at 4, to me). So the overall winner, though I think Toronto is the true "city" winner.
I agree with this. Toronto, I should add, should be the choice of compromise if people can't choose between DC and SF.
Which of these 4 places can challenge Los Angeles the most? This is going off of the fact that Los Angeles is the second city on an overall basis between the United States and Canada after New York.
Chicago-Toronto-San Francisco-Washington D.C.
You can use city, MSA/CMA, CSA/Golden Horshoe, U.N. UA, so on. Compare them on which one is the closest to matching Los Angeles on an overall basis in as many facets as possible for cities to compare themselves with another city.
So things like diplomatic power and image, corporate power, influential leaders (can be political or private industry related), innovations, Nanotech, Biotech, General Medicine, college and university level, financial activities, tech industry, energy industry, influence upon governments of all levels (city -> county/borough -> state -> nationally), trade (shipping and trade), logistics and manufacturing, global connectives, brand creation and exportation and importation and infusion, real-estate market valuation, foreign investment and allure, tourism, media (of any kind), so on and so forth. You're free to add any additional categories, I'll leave that to others to do.
In addition to those aspects also compare them on city type of aspects in regards to the type of construction (and boom, if applies), office space expansion, food innovations, music innovations, festival-parade-event innovations and headliners, infill of residential, infrastructure at all levels (roads, rail transportation, others).
Once done with that then compare them on environments, as to what sort of people migrate to these places and which ones are closest to matching Los Angeles' vast diversity and diaspora of people. In this regard you can look to things like racial and ethnic diversity, languages that have influence over an area, social connections with overseas places, how hospitable an environment is for people of all backgrounds (this includes LGBT as well).
Other than that, if you want to you can compare them on what their popular image is like, what sort of nightlife each one has and which one comes closest to matching Los Angeles there, so on. You can compare them on architecture, shopping, urban environments, touristy amenities, general population amenities, climate, topography, wine countries, suburbs here but more emphasis to all the points ahead of this.
The South is growing up in an era of horrible infrastructure planning. Cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston, etc have far superior infrastructure. And even then, SF probably has a top 5 transit system in the country and I'd say globally for a city its size and in such a wealthy, developed country/area, it's one of the worst transit systems and pales even to systems in 3rd world countries.
So I'm not confident that the South, exploding in population *now*, will be able to handle all that growth efficiently.
Also, it really means something to have the aged, experienced, and knowledgeable human capital attracted to the older greats. The south is simply attracting a lot of people, but these are people that vote down higher taxes to fund quality of life enhancements that attract the elite or transit enhancements that naturally attract companies just as much as incentives do.
Speaking of, everyone likes to talk about how NY and CA are shedding jobs and are horrible business environments. But then why is that most companies are grown and based in cities in these states, and that when they move, it's typically due to insane incentives packages offered by Sunbelt states? If it's so horrible in CA, why does it take FL, GA, or TX offering sometimes tens of millions of dollars to lure these companies away?
I guess my point is, I don't see the South truly competing any time soon and I place only some value on sheer population growth. I'm from the south - it's an understatement to consider the whole sunbelt relatively backwards and certainly not an overstatement to call the entire sunbelt relatively under developed/under-industrialized for its population.
The two areas that truly matter the most in this country and always will are the Bos-Wash corridor and the West Coast. Portland will be immensely huge and important in our future, and Seattle is already there, and we haven't even gotten to CA. No explanation needed for BosWash.
This thread that I started is Los Angeles -> Chicago, Toronto, San Francisco, or Washington D.C.
What on Earth does the South have anything to do with this topic?
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,198,364 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by theterribleone
I agree with this. Toronto, I should add, should be the choice of compromise if people can't choose between DC and SF.
Yea, Toronto is so downplayed here on City-Data. It has the prominence of DC, the urbanscape of Chicago and the wealth of the Bay. The more I think about it, the more I feel Toronto is the number one challenger, two behind DC if we go CSA.
Yea, Toronto is so downplayed here on City-Data. It has the prominence of DC, the urbanscape of Chicago and the wealth of the Bay. The more I think about it, the more I feel Toronto is the number one challenger, two behind DC if we go CSA.
Toronto doesn't have a CSA.. I think the best comparison would be the Golden Horseshoe which would be about the same area as many of the largest U.S CSA's. In 2011 the horseshoe had 8.7 million.. In 2015 I don't think it would be that far below the D.C CSA of 9.5 million. One thing Toronto has over D.C is a more densely populated and cohesive urban area. Its more dense than the Bay area and probably similar in overall density to Chicago's MSA - but is growing faster and becoming more dense than Chicago.
As for Toronto being downplayed in here, I don't think its anything against the city other than its in another country.. Hey Toronto is the only city outside the U.S to have a MLB and NBA franchise so its probably the most 'American' foreign city outside the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocisful
None of them. Houston could though.
Interesting though Toronto is more populous than Houston across the board - city proper and metro and is a far more dense of an urban area. Houston has a strong GDP and healthy growth rate but the Greater Toronto area is growing at about the same rate as Houston metro and already has a strong head start in terms of size.
Toronto has already done two years ago what Houston hasn't yet - exceeded Chicago to become the 4th largest city proper in N.A.. in 4 to 5 years Toronto city proper should exceed 3 million.
I think you're right though - it would take a looooooong time for any of them (including Houston) to match L.A.. Its already been a megacity for decades.
This thread that I started is Los Angeles -> Chicago, Toronto, San Francisco, or Washington D.C.
What on Earth does the South have anything to do with this topic?
This guy started that that here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Bones
The population of a city/MSA may not count as much in the 21st century as it did in the 19th and the 20th.
The old Big Three (NYC, Chicago, and Philly, which was later replaced by LA) were "big" because of the wealth generated by manufacturing, which was labor intensive. NYC and SF are generating a lot of wealth via finance and tech, but these are not labor intensive industries. Google employs 55,000 and Goldman Sachs employs about 34,000 (these numbers includes overseas offices). These are small companies compared to giant corporations of the late 19th century and 20th century. Of course, finance and tech generate jobs outside of their immediate payroll, but these tend to be low-paying service jobs like bartenders and baristas. NYC may be the largest in the U.S. but its MSA is still 12th in the world, smaller than cities like Guangzhou, Karachi, Delhi, Mexico City, and Mumbai. These cities may not exactly be the most glamorous places in the world, but their main industries are much more labor intensive than NYC.
In the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised if Sun Belt cities begin to threaten to surpass the Big 3 in the next fifty years. Austin is growing at a rapid rate, for example. Despite their wealth, NYC and SF are growing at a relatively slow rate (percentage wise). However, the people moving to cities like NYC and SF are much more educated. Look at the employment statistics at the Ivies and other elite universities in the U.S. and notice where their grads are ending up. The majority end up in cities in NYC, SF, or DC. I think this might be the best way to answer OP's question
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
Yea, Toronto is so downplayed here on City-Data. It has the prominence of DC, the urbanscape of Chicago and the wealth of the Bay. The more I think about it, the more I feel Toronto is the number one challenger, two behind DC if we go CSA.
Agreed. Plus Toronto lacks some of the problems these other places do.
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.
Please stop.
