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 market value of companies HQ'd in the Bay Area is nearly 5 trillion, most in the world for any metro. New York doesn't even match that. Moreover, its share of U.S. VC has increased from about 35% 15 years ago, to over 50% today. Economically, its far more important to the rest of the country and the world than DC, Chicago, or Toronto. More interesting question is economic significance of LA/Orange vs Bay Area.
I'm sure that makes the bay area much better place to live for doctors, editors, police officers and actuaries.
CSAs can become greatly distorted and undeniably inflate numbers.
Yes, and so can MSA, urban area, or city limits.
We get it. There is no perfect metro. But it's quite obvious why you favor one metric over the other; it makes "your" city look better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini
I know some don't like to hear that Milwaukee and Chicago are going to merge into one CSA,
No, they aren't. This makes no sense whatsoever.
There is very little commuting between these two cities, and not really any reason for commuting between the two, because the Midwest doesn't have major cost differentials between housing markets.
There's absolutely no incentive for supercommuting like in the Bay Area or DC. (and Milwaukee is super-far from Chicago, as far as Philly is from DC-Baltimore and much further than Sacramento is from the Bay Area, and even these areas aren't going to be merged into the CSA anytime soon).
Heck, even Philly isn't going to be part of the NYC CSA, even though Philly is closer to NYC than Milwaukee is to Chicago, even though the corridor between the two is completely built up, even though there are massive cost differentials, encouraging supercommuting, even though there's already fast/frequent rail transit between the two. It just isn't going to happen.
And if Milwaukee were the same "CSA" as Chicago, you could make the entire Bos-Wash corridor a "CSA" or the entire California coast. It makes no sense.
This. Pricing everyone out is not going to do anything to help the Bay Area.
Housing burden in SF is actually somewhat lower than in Chicago. Obviously people generally aren't being "priced out" if they're streaming into the Bay Area.
Housing burden in SF is actually somewhat lower than in Chicago. Obviously people generally aren't being "priced out" if they're streaming into the Bay Area.
Median Income in SF is like 80k and it takes an income of 160k to afford a house...People are being priced out of the Bay. Teachers, fire fighters, police. Basically anyone who doesn't have a high paying position in either tech or finance. The Bay's successes are undeniably causing issues regarding affordability, traffic, housing shortages, etc.
Regarding CSAs, as we've covered, you don't need people commuting from DT Milwaukee to DT Chicago. It needs to occur along the fringe (which it does).
Well thats funny because the Bay Area is the only US metropolis in this thread that has positive net domestic migration
Net Domestic Migration, 2010-2015
Bay Area CSA +52,019
Washington CSA...-19,241
Chicago CSA...-329,236
Why are people leaving Chicago in droves?
Positive net domestic migration yes, but that doesn't really answer the earlier poster's question of housing affordability, does it? I mean NYC and London also have net positive migration year over year too but that doesn't mean a middle class American or British family can remotely afford to own a property in those cities. Also, you can easily move to Bay as a doctor or artist or tech graduate with a startup gig, but that doesn't mean you will be able to afford to buy anything for you and your family anytime soon. I think we can all agree that a 23 year-old graduate rooming with 3 other techies in a $5000/month 3-bedroom apartment in Palo Alto is quite different from a middle income family wanting to raise kids in a decent neighborhood, when it pertains to housing affordability.
For nature: the San Francisco Bay Area by far. I've personally used its location in the smack-dab-middle of Big Sur, Mount Diablo, the Redwoods, the San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Ocean, the Sierra Nevadas for outdoors camping and hiking purposes. McKay Falls area in Big Sur is breathtaking and none of these other cities have anything close to as great as that, though the Greater Toronto Area is notable for immediate access to Niagara Falls (something I've done twice, never gets old).
For access to other North American cities: I personally don't like the Northeast Corridor all that much outside of Greater New York, although I maintain a neutral opinion of Washington DC and am very appreciative for the experience and time I've been allowed there (it was great, the area just isn't very "me" though). I would say with Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston all within 400-500 miles from it, that Washington's location with regard to access to other cities is exceptional. You don't even have to like all of those cities but them just being there increases the options and variety factor. Then there are the smaller but still notable areas like Richmond, the Virginia Beach-Norfolk area, Albany, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Hartford, Rochester, and some of the closer cities of the Southeastern United States. I give location with regard to city access to Washington. Then followed by Toronto, also a very nice location, between Montreal, New York, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, and Detroit all being in a moderate range from it, easy to like the location with regard to city access.
For access to overseas markets: Chicago is located near the center of the North American landmass. This makes getting to Europe or Asia a relatively easy affair. Unlike the Eastern cities where getting to Asia is a few hours longer (due to location) or the Western cities that have the same issue with regard to getting to Europe (due to location), Chicago is close to equilibrium on travel time to Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and Oceania. Not exactly equilibrium but about as fair as it gets when taking all 5 of those continents into account. In addition to its relatively great location to travel domestically via airport in the United States and the North American continent as a whole, including Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. In this regard, I give location to Chicago with respect to air travel both domestically and abroad.
- Climate:
If you prefer four (closer to mild) seasons, then Washington D.C.
If you can handle the heavier winters but very lax and accommodating summers, then Chicago or Toronto.
If you hate the four traditional seasons, hate uncomfortable extremes on both sides of the spectrum, or just never want to deal with "climate issues" then the San Francisco Bay Area.
For me personally, it would be the San Francisco Bay Area on climate.
- Topography
The San Francisco Bay Area by far on this one.
The city itself is naturally beautiful. The Twin Peaks are located right in the middle of the city and whether you go in the day or at night, the views are incredible. At night, specifically, you can see the light pollution of the entire city from the top of the Twin Peaks. You can see CBD San Francisco's skyline, both of the great bridges, other mountains encircling the area, and the best part is that you can see the light pollution curving and fully developed along the entire San Francisco Bay. You can see the San Jose area, you can see zero breaks in the lights from the city of San Francisco to San Jose and then to Oakland from the top of the Twin Peaks.
Then there are the nice countryside areas in North Bay; in Napa, in Sonoma, and in Marin. There are the Redwoods. There is the Pacific Ocean. There are bays, rivers, lakes, forests, and several other aspects all in one condensed area or just outside of it. Big Sur, the Sierra Nevadas, Lake Tahoe, among the like are all easily accessible.
After that is the Washington DC area for #2 on this subject (or Washington DC-Baltimore area if you want to use the expanded area). In just the DMV (meaning minus Baltimore) there are beaches on Chesapeake Bay that are a reasonable drive from the District and within the metropolitan boundary. There is the Shenandoah National Forest, the beautiful, lush, and very green mountain ranges, also within reasonable driving distance from the District itself. When you include the Baltimore component of the larger expanded area, it adds more frontage along the Chesapeake Bay and a different take to the waterfront integration than what you would find in the DMV side. Quite complimentary, honestly.
For third would be Toronto. Toronto can match Chicago on the lake. Each city has one of the Great Lakes, it is a matter of opinion which lake people think is more beautiful (I personally think Lake Michigan) but objectively they are even on the Great Lakes offerings. Where Toronto pulls away is the fact that it is not as flat as a pancake as Chicago. There are numerous ravines, bluffs, and hills in and surrounding the city of Toronto. The Niagara Falls are within a reasonable distance from the city as well. The Toronto Islands are a great asset, it gives you another type of vantage point to view the city and go out for recreation.
Last would be Chicago. I think Chicago's waterfront integration with Lake Michigan is better than Toronto's with Lake Ontario and I personally think Lake Michigan is the prettier of the two, the beaches in Chicago on a summer day are a beauty. That being said, the metropolitan area does have respectable tree coverage but outside of that it is as plain a geography as they come. The region does have rivers and lakes in the area in addition to Lake Michigan (like Lake Geneva). The Driftless area is a 2 hour drive from Chicago towards the northwest (near Madison), so hiking is available but it is a little bit further than a reasonable driving distance. Two hours isn't bad, but makes it hard to do just in the heat of the moment.
- Economy
By size it is the San Francisco Bay Area #1, the Washington DC-Baltimore area as #2, the Chicagoland area as #3, and Greater Toronto Area for #4.
I'm not sure about the health of the economy and how the four compare there since I don't look at unemployment rates often. I would imagine the San Francisco Bay Area takes that too.
In terms of importance and influence of the economy over the world: oh absolutely the San Francisco Bay Area. No doubt. The San Francisco Bay Area is an economical prodigy, a once a generation type of boomtown, in my opinion. Just happy to be alive to see it. I would imagine people thought the same or at least similar with 1920s New York, 1980s Los Angeles, and 1890s and 1990s Chicago.
- Costs and expenses
Greater Chicago is without a shred of doubt the least expensive with regard to real-estate, that goes for both purchasing and renting. Followed by the Washington DC area (or the Washington DC-Baltimore area) after that. Toronto is very expensive, not as much as the San Francisco Bay Area but more expensive, by a noticeable margin over the other two. Finally, the San Francisco Bay Area's housing costs are the highest of the four, by quite a large margin I would imagine.
Don't know how they compare on taxes since I've only lived in two of the four or how they compare on other expenses.
- Public education (K-12) and higher education (colleges and universities)
Don't know about K-12 on how all four compare but what I do know is that Chicago is deserving of being last on K-12. I know everyone always complains that their city's inner-city school districts suck and are unacceptable, but I cannot imagine all too many of them (if any of them) being more rock bottom than that of Chicago's. Just awful. Horrible look for the city. Among the worst for high school dropouts. The school districts get much better in the suburbs and of course the city is home to many great private schools too. The metropolitan area is very populous, so obviously you'll still have dozens of schools that are "among America's absolute best" but you'll have even more that are either not noteworthy or flatly unacceptable altogether. Washington's inner-city schools are also bad, though like Chicago it gets much better in the suburbs or at private school level. I would say inner city Washington schools are a peg better than inner city Chicago ones. Don't know about San Francisco or Toronto, but seriously, I'd have a heart attack if any of these had worse inner city schools than Chicago.
On colleges and universities, actually all four are very strong here. All four have two colleges and/or universities that are elite and top tier. I give it to the San Francisco Bay Area overall because of what it signifies, which is one of the top 5 private schools on Earth (Stanford) and the top public school on Earth (University of California - Berkeley). Chicago is very strong in higher education and just by a smidgen comes behind the San Francisco Bay Area here (in my opinion) as both the University of Chicago and Northwestern University are magnificent schools. From top to bottom, excellent institutions for research, academics, alumni networking, so on. Toronto has the University of Toronto, which is on equal footing with the best the other cities have to offer. The Washington DC-Baltimore area is also very heavy and excellent; Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University are both powerhouses in their respective disciplines (political science and international relations / medicine for both research and treatment).
Toronto handedly. Best, most aesthetically pleasing, most updated and upgraded infrastructure of the four.
- Airport (international and domestic)
You can go a different route with this one as well.
By total passenger volume and enplanements it would be Chicago, then San Francisco, then Toronto, then Washington.
By international service destinations (excluding American ones for Toronto and Canadian ones for Chicago/San Francisco/Washington to make it fair) it would be Toronto first, then Chicago, then a wash between San Francisco and Washington DC.
Toronto has direct service destinations to all 6 inhabitable continents on Earth. That is a very big deal, only half-a-dozen cities worldwide have that capability within their grasp.
That being said, all four are amazing and all four have multiple airports, which make it better and easier to deal with.
- Urban offerings
I would say a tie on this one for the most part, however if pressed, with the edge to Chicago for the size, scale, and intensity in the core. All of them are superb and exemplary urban environments in a continent that largely doesn't give an eff about urbanism.
- Architectural style
I am not a fan of any of the four architecturally, not a fan of North America in general with regard to architecture outside of 2-3 places.
I would say Chicago first overall. I'm actually not impressed with the Loop, it looks like it needs a severe powerwash, lots of buildings look outdated and obsolete and actually look their age. They don't look good when sitting next to more modern stuff from post-2000. Needless to say, CBD highrises and skyscrapers were the ugliest built from 1960 to 1980 and it shows in Chicago, Toronto, and San Francisco's skylines. That being said, all three cities make up for their CBDs misfortunes with their neighborhoods and the hope that the current infill (which are more aesthetically pleasing) age well decades into the future, unlike that 1960-1980 type of stuff.
Washington D.C.'s older and more historic neighborhoods in Northwest and Southwest are excellent. They make up for the blandapolluza going on in areas like NoMA and especially outside the district in the DMV in Fairfax, Arlington, Silver Spring, and Bethesda.
Eh, I'll leave architecture alone. Like I said, if I want to see stuff that really impresses me, I would pick a different continent not named North America. Not trying to say that North America is ugly but it ain't no architectural powerhouse either.
- Public Transport (buses, inner city rail, commuter rail, tramways)
I would say Washington first, then Chicago very close afterwards, then Toronto, and then San Francisco. That same order on the rail transit.
I'm not well versed on buses but I've come to really appreciate them over the years, they were a mode of transit that I openly mocked earlier on in my posting history on this forum. That was ignorance. Buses are great transport utilities for areas where driving is either hostile, unaccommodating, or lacking in rail transport. I'd be interested in seeing how all four areas' bus systems stack up.
- Amenities
Probably a tie, if anything, the slightest of nudges towards the San Francisco Bay Area's direction for offering outdoor recreational amenities not as abundantly available in the other three. In addition to wine country.
On city offerings, these cities are probably on par at the end of the day. Of the important things you could possibly want, you can find it in all four. These are some large metropolises, each well on their way towards becoming megacities
- Diversity
For foreign born, Toronto by a long way.
For racial diversity, probably Washington DC by a long way (great mix of whites, blacks, Asians, and Latinos)
For ethnic diversity, probably the San Francisco Bay Area. Large numbers of overseas nationalities that come from a widespread of continents across the globe.
For historical diversity and immigration, easily Chicago.
- Culinary scene
Oh, I don't even know where to start with this or how to rank them. I've been one very satisfied and happy person with all four.
If I had to say subjectively, I have to say Chicago. For me, personally, it is telling that everytime I visit the United States, I always stop in Chicago. I always plan an 8 hour minimum stop there to pick up food to bring back with me to London or where ever I am heading. I love Chicago's food scene, love its pizzas, love its hotdogs, love the gyros, the city has great foodie culture.
Objectively I would say the San Francisco Bay Area though. It has an exceptional and innovative food scene, among the best in all of North America, but what really puts it over the top is how exceptional the wine selection and beverage selection is to compliment and go with the food. The region is a powerhouse (for North America) on wine production.
I would say all four are among the best North America has to offer foodies, especially those that treasure variety.
- Music scene
This one is very subjective, for me personally it is Toronto by far. Then Chicago, I guess.
- Political scene (type of politics and mindset)
Another subjective one that every person has to answer for themselves as it pertains to them. Well, when it comes to American politics, I am an Independent by party affiliation and a Centrist by political ideology. My ideal candidate for president had he run for office? Michael Bloomberg. Most of my political view (though not all) are well represented with Bloomberg's values.
I don't know which city is right for me, I feel like none of them, with regard to politics, but if anyone has an idea, I'd be curious to know which place is the best for a centrist/independent.
- Neighborhoods (historic, ethnic, affluent, middle-class, so on)
Tie. Maybe edge to Chicago.
- Suburbs
Let me start off by saying this; I think all four have elite suburbs, among the best in the continent by a good long way.
That said, the San Francisco Bay Area. When you combine that natural environment with the proximity to that city, with that weather, you tend to get places like Sausalito, which are absolutely incredible in every way (minus the $4.50 a gallon gas prices).
The San Francisco Bay Area's suburbs can reach a level the others cannot with regard to natural environment, which makes living in a bedroom community quite different than places that cannot offer the same natural advantages.
- Entertainment (sports themes, major conventions, themeparks, waterparks, so on)
Probably a tie, possibly a slight edge to Chicago since its sports teams have long legacies (some for over 100 years), iconic venues, having the themeparks, and having the piers and boardwalks along Lake Michigan.
- Nightlife scene
This one is subjective.
Personally I've taken to Toronto's nightlife far more. The people, attitude, culture, music selections are all way more my preference than the other cities. That being said, I also value long operating hours, not because I'm a party-goer extraordinaire but because late operating hours give me the flexibility to see and experience other things in the city before making my way to the nightlife without having to worry about bars and stuff closing at 2 AM.
So from a longevity standpoint of operating hours, the answer is Chicago but again, I've taken to liking Toronto significantly more than Chicago here. Much much more.
- Image as a city
San Francisco. It has the overall best reputation.
I don't watch television but last month I visited America for over 30 days and during off hours when we chilled in the hotel room, we turned the TV on and regardless of what we watched, whether it was Stephen A. Smith and Max Kellerman (sports) or Erin Burnett, Andersen Cooper, or even the presidential candidates all we would see and hear about is the gun violence and murders in Chicago. Like literally everywhere in the news. That city seriously needs to clean up sooner rather than later, the longer it waits, the more damage its reputation takes.
In terms of power and authority, Washington's image worldwide is solidified in that.
- Safety
Toronto, of course.
- History
I don't know. Someone else probably has a better idea (someone that is more interested in history than me)
- Level of Customer Service
I hate the level of customer service in Chicago, especially at the airports there. The TSA are awful, always angry sounding. I would say any of the other three over Chicago here.
Beyond the airport, I cannot tell the difference in quality customer service between the four but I made it a criteria point because I was interested in hearing what others have to say on it.
- User friendliness (the city is easy to get around, easy to understand, things come easy here)
Chicago.
Very easy city to switch your mode of transit at a moments notice. I would say the city is equally accommodating for drivers as it is for transit takers, or cab riders, or bikers, or walkers. It is a great mix of all modes. In my opinion, maybe the best in North America.
- Cultural institutions and performing arts
Theaters: Chicago
Street art: Toronto
Museums: Washington D.C.
Iconic Structure: San Francisco
Art Galleries: San Francisco
Symphony Orchestra: Chicago
Improv: Chicago
I don't know about ballet, exhibitions, or the like.
- City parks, public spaces, and greenbelts
City parks: Washington. Most of the city is a city in a park.
Public spaces: Chicago and San Francisco (like squares, vista points, congregation areas for lots of people)
Greenbelts: Toronto, the city is entrenched by greenbelts that surround it.
If I left out a criteria point, then feel free to add it in here.
Which one would be the preferred choice (to live)?
Toronto.
I've already lived in Chicago and Washington and while I've never lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I've been there a lot to visit family and have stayed extensively there.
Not only would Toronto be a new environment and country altogether for me, but I genuinely like its culture, music scene, annual events, and physical urban form more than the others. I hate the weather but honestly, as I get older, I am learning that a great city is great regardless of its weather. Plus it is something a place cannot control, so I can give it a pass.
Which one is the preferred choice (to visit)?
Like I mentioned earlier, you can take 4 slips of paper and write each of the 4 city's name on a slip and put it into a box or hat or something and ask me to draw. I could live with visiting any of the 4 if I drew their name randomly from a hat. I've enjoyed visiting all four places a lot. Lots of fun, lots to do and experience in all four.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-07-2016 at 05:24 PM..
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.
