San Francisco surpassing L.A in Global Influence? (crime rate, state, largest)
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.
Montclair has used no facts. Every time facts get presented; he gets all drama queen and starts posting random subjective non-sequiturs.
Then you haven't been reading the thread. LA, objectively, is vastly more important globally than SF, as this thread proves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Correct. He has posted nothing factual that objectively shows SF's importance as greater relative to that of LA.
And cars and food have a bigger influence in people's lives that smart phone apps. Therefore, using your complete non-logic, Detroit>Bay Area and Central Valley>Bay Area.
Fresno is the most important city on earth using your non-logic, as its the center of the most fertile land on earth, and there's nothing more important to human existence than food and water.
Non-Logic. Read the poll. The poll is actually two ways . Future or presently. If your thinking Future wise "SF is Becoming more globally influentially" or Presently " Los Angeles is Still more globally influential. I'm thinking Future wise.
The fact you mention Fresno, Detriot, and Central Valley in your post is your Non-logic because it has nothing to do with this thread good job
SF Brags about Technology, L.A. will brag about Hollywood and if not that its the Shipping port in the harbor area.
Yes, tech is becoming a bigger part of ppl's lives; it's changing or taking over industries (including energy, healthcare, finance, entertainment, automobiles, media, etc.). SF and the Bay Area is the world's center of all that; it'll never be as big as LA due to NIMBYs and geographical limitations, but it will be more influential
LA, imo, for its size, doesn't really have great influence the rest of the world; despite all the stereotypes, LA is just an ordinary city--or more properly, a federation of mid-sized cities--with a jumble of industries that happens to be very large. LA used to have influence through entertainment and the aerospace/military industry, but both industries have significantly waned in LA
Idk if this has already been discussed in this thread, but LA's industrial dominance might take a significant hit once the Panama Canal expansion is done. Ports across the east coast are gearing up to expand (in Philadelphia, the next mayoring is stating 10,000 new blue collar jobs at the port will be created with Philly going from the 25th largest port to the 12th, we shall see..) to take on the new capacity of the canal. I saw that LA is turning around and investing over $5Bn into their two ports. It will be interesting how things play out. When looking at the combined numbers of the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, it is the 9th busiest container port in the world.
Idk if this has already been discussed in this thread, but LA's industrial dominance might take a significant hit once the Panama Canal expansion is done. Ports across the east coast are gearing up to expand (in Philadelphia, the next mayoring is stating 10,000 new blue collar jobs at the port will be created with Philly going from the 25th largest port to the 12th, we shall see..) to take on the new capacity of the canal. I saw that LA is turning around and investing over $5Bn into their two ports. It will be interesting how things play out. When looking at the combined numbers of the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, it is the 9th busiest container port in the world.
LA/LB ports still are oriented towards Asia, while East Coast ports are more oriented towards Europe, so LA/LB will always be extremely important.
The Panama Canal improvements will help the East Coast ports but LA/LB will probably remain #1, because they're simply closer to China.
Are you serious dude? ROFL . In terms of what exactly? Sprawlness? LA-1,302 km² Tokyo - 2,188 km² ????
In terms of polycentricity and size, I find it to be a pretty apt comparison. Los Angeles certainly has neighborhoods that are more suburban than what you'd find in Tokyo, but slowly but surely that is changing as LA already sprawled to its geographical limits decades ago, and pretty much every new project now is dense multifamily infill.
Honestly its NIMBYism that is holding the city back and preventing LA from growing taller, denser, and "Tokyofying" as fast it naturally would. Hopefully a lot of that will change when the current zoning rewrite is finished, as developers will be able to build taller by right and not get held up in so many BS CEQA lawsuits.
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.
. Read the poll. The poll is actually two ways . Future or presently. If your thinking Future wise "SF is Becoming more globally influentially" or Presently " Los Angeles is Still more globally influential. I'm thinking Future wise. 
