Which of these 4 places can challenge Los Angeles the most? Chicago-Toronto-San Francisco-Washington D.C. (population, metropolitan)
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.
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
Geography also played a big part in terms of why the top cities are where they are. Think in terms of access/proximity to water in regards to harbors.
Great argument. DF is just simply too big and important, even if it does punch below its weight (like Los Angeles). Though I still think DC and Toronto are not that far behind from it. A lot of what applies to DF applies to Toronto, minus the government stuff. Plus, DF isn't a true primate city like say Paris. Monterrey is fairly large and economically important to Mexico as well, while Guadalajara is a solid third city. So yea, city wise as far as population, infrastructure, amenities, cultural offerings, etc, nothing touches DF except NYC. I even think Los Angeles is behind here. But economic, political and cultural influence metro wise? DF is still number 2 on sheer size, but LA as you said is right there, and I think Toronto and DC are right behind LA...like 3b instead of 4.
Unfortunately the biggest differences between Mexico City and a city in the United States and Canada is that no city in United States or Canada can actually say they own every major industry in that country's economy, in addition to being the seat of government, in addition to being the diplomatic center of the country either.
For as great as New York is, even it doesn't have that sort of control over America, and that's a good thing -- its why America is so successful, as its been able to develop other specific cities necessary for large segments of the economy. For example, New York is United States' Financial Capital but the San Francisco Bay Area is the Tech Capital, Houston is the Energy Capital, Los Angeles is the Entertainment Capital, Chicago is the Logistics Center, Boston is the higher Education and Healthcare/Medicine Capital, Washington D.C. is the political and administrative Capital of the United States, so on and so forth.
The only thing Mexico City doesn't control in Mexico is something that is out of its hands entirely due to location and geography and that is seaports.
In contrast Toronto is neither the capital of Canada nor does it cast a cultural, social, political, or economical shadow on all of Canada. Quebec for instance, is completely culturally independent of Toronto, its also economically independent, and operates its own media and culture, hell, its not even apart of the same cultural sphere (Anglosphere versus Francosphere).
None of this applies to Mexico, as none of Monterrey, Guadalajara, nor Puebla, despite all being very nice cities (of some notable size too), can economically, socially, culturally, historically, through media, through diplomacy, through logistics one-up Mexico City. This is why Mexico City is a Primate-City in Mexico, whereas neither the United States nor Canada have a Primate-City, but rather a "premier city." Mexico City is the center of civilization for a country of 122 million people. It regulates and often enforces all rules in the book in Mexico and the way of life for an entire country. Toronto simply does not. Neither does anywhere in the United States, other than the District of Columbia, which itself receives ample outside influences from other cities and states in America.
In contrast Toronto is neither the capital of Canada nor does it cast a cultural, social, political, or economical shadow on all of Canada. Quebec for instance, is completely culturally independent of Toronto, its also economically independent, and operates its own media and culture, hell, its not even apart of the same cultural sphere (Anglosphere versus Francosphere).
.
This is not an entirely correct observation imo.. For the most part it is but Toronto is a media hub in the country so there is going to be some influence in Quebec. Vice versa - even though I live in Anglo Canada and obviously Toronto will be more influential than Montreal (the Francophone cultural hub of Canada) this is not to say Montreal or QC has zero influence on us culturally and there is a complete cultural divide.
In economic terms - interprovincial trade in Canada is huge so there is going to be a massive flow of goods and services.. For example, The YYZ-YOW-YUL air corridor is the busiest in Canada. If you count the number of Air Canada, WestJet and Porter flights between YYZ and YUL its almost jaw dropping.
I'm not saying Toronto is as important to Canada as Mexico City is to Mexico - but any city that anchors a region that accounts for almost 1/4th of a nations GDP and that is its Financial nerve centre by far, would qualify as being somewhat as the heart of a nation.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,187,739 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
This is not entirely correct.. For the most part it is but Toronto is a media hub in the country so there is going to be some influence in Quebec. Vice versa - even though I live in Anglo Canada, obviously Toronto will be more influential than Montreal (the Francophone cultural hub of Canada) but this is not to say Montreal or QC has zero influence on us culturally and there is a complete cultural divide.
In economic terms - interprovincial trade in Canada is huge so there is going to be a massive flow of goods and services.. For example, The YYZ-YOW-YUL air corridor is the busiest in Canada. If you count the number of Air Canada, WestJet and Porter flights between YYZ and YUL its almost jaw dropping.
I'm not saying Toronto is as important to Canada as Mexico City is to Mexico - but any city that anchors a region that accounts for almost 1/4th of a nations GDP and that is its Financial nerve centre by far, would qualify as being somewhat as the heart of a nation.
This. I'm arguing that Toronto, while not as vital as DF is to Mexico, is still more vital than NYC or even DC is to the USA. The US simply has more eggs in different baskets. As such, Toronto's higher preeminence relative to the other US cities listed here counts for a lot, hence why it's my true pick to "challenge" Los Angeles.
If we are talking about metro areas here, there is no way any of these cities challenge LA anytime soon with regard to size or economic output. Metro wise, LA has about twice as many residents as the other "contenders" aside from Chicago. There is no way they are closing that gap in 5, 10, or even 20 years. I don't even particularly like LA, but its next closest competitor is Chicago, and LA is growing more quickly than Chicago.
I think a more interesting discussion is in 20 years which area will be #3 after NYC and LA. Since Chicago is not growing as quickly as the other cities mentioned, will one (or more) of them be able to overtake Chicago?
Most of the Bay Area, while expensive relative to the rest of the country is quite expensive, Palo Alto is much more expensive than the the majority of the Bay Area.
If we are talking about metro areas here, there is no way any of these cities challenge LA anytime soon with regard to size or economic output. Metro wise, LA has about twice as many residents as the other "contenders" aside from Chicago. There is no way they are closing that gap in 5, 10, or even 20 years. I don't even particularly like LA, but its next closest competitor is Chicago, and LA is growing more quickly than Chicago.
I think a more interesting discussion is in 20 years which area will be #3 after NYC and LA. Since Chicago is not growing as quickly as the other cities mentioned, will one (or more) of them be able to overtake Chicago?
I take it you are not a fan of the CSA or the Greater Golden Horseshoe school of measuring a region.. FYI regarding the Golden Horseshoe - by 2016 it is expected to have 9.3 million, in 2021 10.4 million, in 2026 11.1 million, in 2031, 11.9 million and in 2036 12.7 million - in not too much more of an area than Chicagoland so just something to noodle over.
I agree that to take on L.A by any of these regions would realistically take more than 25 years but the point of the thread is to look at the number one contender over time. In terms of growth Chicago is lagging behind all the other urban areas mentioned in this poll and has been for quite some time so if things continue over the next 20 years as they have in the last than Chicago's claim to number 1 contender is increasingly becoming a shaky proposition (already signs of this as detailed ad-nauseam in this thread). As it sits today Chicago would be in the front but the others are gaining and gaining pretty quickly.. 10-20 years isn't a long time.
LOL and the Bay Area is not SF Bay area is already the 2nd city of this country and a case can be made for LA, however all it has to argue is a GDP and population.
Are you trolling? The Bay Area is undoubtedly behind NYC, LA, Chicago (slightly), and arguably the DMV
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.
SF Bay area is already the 2nd city of this country and a case can be made for LA, however all it has to argue is a GDP and population.
