More World Class: San Francisco vs D.C. (compared, America, population)
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.
In the present moment, San Francisco. I think that within 10 to 15 years that Washington D.C. would pull even with San Francisco (by city propers), the DMV is already on par with San Francisco/Oakland, and Washington DC-Baltimore is already on par with the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the city-propers themselves, San Francisco versus Washington D.C. where the biggest gap between them are today. Washington operates as the more pro-growth of the two though, which will help it pull even in coming years/decades. The city of San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area hurts itself with respect to housing and infrastructure, which in itself puts a little bit of a cap on its true potential and upside. In fact, those two things are the reason why the San Francisco Bay Area has slowed down in the last 1-2 years, not because its economy is hurting, it is not because it is still booming but because the supply of housing needed to house newcomers just isn't there. Nor is the adequate infrastructure required to move people around more effectively. The region needs to address these but the region has struggled when doing so due to the conflicting perspectives among those that live there and those that head the city and regions development.
The thing with San Francisco is that it has had more time to internalize and draw out its own features. For instance, when you look at the culinary scene in the San Francisco Bay Area, mission-style burritos were invented and have gained widespread appeal across America. The region is one of the foremost producers of wine in all of America. The region is one of the major epicenters for the culinary concept that's widely regarded as "California Fusion." In contrast, Washington D.C. and the DMV in general is a relative upstart in the culinary world. It's actually quite amazing how quickly its food scene has improved, a meteoritic rise but it still lacks the inventive culture that San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area have had for decades now. In the present, you could argue that even in its own CSA that Baltimore has the more distinct and inventive culinary scene, even if it is less diverse with global ethnic options.
San Francisco is also a good bit more built up than Washington right in the core. For one, it is physically smaller than Washington, at 49 square miles, but has around 200,000 more people. It's urban form and density feels more tight-knit than Washington's. This is one area that I see Washington D.C. gaining ground on San Francisco, as Washington is more pro-growth and infill and redevelopment will come to define the city. Until very recently, even in its own CSA, Baltimore had the more intense urban form just 10-15 years ago. Washington has pulled even with Baltimore and in the present is in the process of leaving Baltimore in the rearview mirror there, but still has a few miles to go before it can pull within San Francisco's range with regard to built-up urban form.
Aside from those tidbits, the two regions are, relatively speaking, roughly on par. San Francisco is a bit more walkable, whereas Washington has a bit more utilized and comprehensive transit network. Both are incredibly cosmopolitan and are able to draw from each part of the world, Washington is more balanced when looking at each of the world's realms as a whole, whereas San Francisco is irrefutably more foreign-born as a whole.
Both cities have a set network of performing arts and cultural institutions that you can and probably should take advantage of when you're in either of them. Both areas have a nice stock and collection of suburbs as well. Both cities have architectural forms that make them distinct from the rest of the country and given them some semblance of an identity.
Most of the other things are largely just subjective or out of a city's control, like location or weather. Not like a place can control that, so I don't even take those into account when discussing world class but the general mindset is that the San Francisco Bay Area's scenery is more magnificent, whereas Washington's location is more loaded.
The thing that separates the two a little bit is that the DMV was in a period of stasis around the beginning to middle of the 20th century and was not able to internalize and proficiently develop a strong local culture. It lost ground to San Francisco then due to the aforementioned stasis because San Francisco kept adding on to its social and cultural arsenal then whereas the city of Washington went through periods of relative inactivity. This gap will be bridged and is already in the process of doing so.
Both are roughly the same tier but the advantage goes to San Francisco. It has, to my knowledge, never had a period of stasis, which has allowed it to go on and develop a stronger sense of place and localized culture. San Francisco, historically, has gone through periods of ups and downs, but never stasis, as far as I know. San Francisco was afforded a period of internalization that Washington until the more recent 20-30 years never had the opportunity to have.
Also, because this topic is a discussion for world class, you have to take into account the appeal either city has overseas. That's important because the planet has 7,400,000,000 people and only 330,000,000 of that lives in the United States. Meaning about 7.1 billion people out of the total 7.4 billion people on Earth are living in a country not known as the United States. Both cities are seen as options for people overseas. When you do surveys that include thousands of people from dozens of countries across the globe, both cities are well represented and to some extent, well liked by foreigners that view them both as options. This is a plus for both cities and serves as the foundational pillar to what makes them world class.
One thing to note is that San Francisco is just as much of a force of nature in the private sector economy as Washington, it's counterpart, is in the public sector of the economy.
Both cities are the same tier, along with Chicago and Toronto as well, among North American cities. All four are in the same general tier but I would say in the here and now, the present moment, that San Francisco owns the advantage (over Washington D.C. that is). That can and will change, as Washington internalizes and develops, which can and likely will bridge the gap between the two but right now, yeah. Also, all world class cities have world class airport facilities. That is not an optional feature, you really need this to connect your city with the world. In the case of San Francisco and Washington, as well as Chicago and Toronto too for that matter, all four have outstanding facilities. All four have multiple facilities, which all world class cities do, other than city-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, all world class cities have two or more commercial airport facilities, with one of them almost always having a global reach on continents across the planet's landmass.
So when you look at service destinations and the foreign airliners that set-up shop in these cities, it's a good showing there between the two. Both are strong.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-22-2017 at 03:56 PM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215
San Francisco. Although it is better than it once was, DC's crime rate is too high to be world class.
Not really, chop off EOTR DC (which most visitors don't go to) and the city becomes remarkable safe with regards to percentage crime rate. If you took the data from West of the Anacostia River, it's probably one of the safer major cities in the country.
I wouldn't call them equal in mass transit. I think DC is the clear winner there.
Yea, I wouldn't say that matchup is particularly close. If the op switched nightlife (pretty close) and mass transit (obviously goes to DC), then it's pretty accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Not really, chop off EOTR DC (which most visitors don't go to) and the city becomes remarkable safe with regards to percentage crime rate. If you took the data from West of the Anacostia River, it's probably one of the safer major cities in the country.
Lop off the most violent parts of any city and you'll have one of the safer major cities in the country. Most cities have their crime concentrated in specific parts.
Not really, chop off EOTR DC (which most visitors don't go to) and the city becomes remarkable safe with regards to percentage crime rate. If you took the data from West of the Anacostia River, it's probably one of the safer major cities in the country.
Believe it or not, some gentrified DC neighborhood have fairly high crime rates. Columbia Heights and Adams Morgan come to mind.
I really can't pick a winner. I like SF more but to objectively say "more world class" i cannot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
I have been told by black Bay Area natives that this is the case, but to each their own.
Yes, my black friends who have a lot of experience in this (lol) have specifically said DC is far better. But that's just the opinion of several people I know, hardly quantifiable or scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy
I wouldn't call them equal in mass transit. I think DC is the clear winner there.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
In the present moment, San Francisco. I think that within 10 to 15 years that Washington D.C. would pull even with San Francisco (by city propers), the DMV is already on par with San Francisco/Oakland, and Washington DC-Baltimore is already on par with the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the city-propers themselves, San Francisco versus Washington D.C. where the biggest gap between them are today.
Without a doubt. If the comparison is focused on the cities themselves this is SF by far. But for the urban area they are very even.
In the present moment, San Francisco. I think that within 10 to 15 years that Washington D.C. would pull even with San Francisco (by city propers), the DMV is already on par with San Francisco/Oakland, and Washington DC-Baltimore is already on par with the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the city-propers themselves, San Francisco versus Washington D.C. where the biggest gap between them are today. Washington operates as the more pro-growth of the two though, which will help it pull even in coming years/decades. The city of San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area hurts itself with respect to housing and infrastructure, which in itself puts a little bit of a cap on its true potential and upside. In fact, those two things are the reason why the San Francisco Bay Area has slowed down in the last 1-2 years, not because its economy is hurting, it is not because it is still booming but because the supply of housing needed to house newcomers just isn't there. Nor is the adequate infrastructure required to move people around more effectively. The region needs to address these but the region has struggled when doing so due to the conflicting perspectives among those that live there and those that head the city and regions development.
The thing with San Francisco is that it has had more time to internalize and draw out its own features. For instance, when you look at the culinary scene in the San Francisco Bay Area, mission-style burritos were invented and have gained widespread appeal across America. The region is one of the foremost producers of wine in all of America. The region is one of the major epicenters for the culinary concept that's widely regarded as "California Fusion." In contrast, Washington D.C. and the DMV in general is a relative upstart in the culinary world. It's actually quite amazing how quickly its food scene has improved, a meteoritic rise but it still lacks the inventive culture that San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area have had for decades now. In the present, you could argue that even in its own CSA that Baltimore has the more distinct and inventive culinary scene, even if it is less diverse with global ethnic options.
San Francisco is also a good bit more built up than Washington right in the core. For one, it is physically smaller than Washington, at 49 square miles, but has around 200,000 more people. It's urban form and density feels more tight-knit than Washington's. This is one area that I see Washington D.C. gaining ground on San Francisco, as Washington is more pro-growth and infill and redevelopment will come to define the city. Until very recently, even in its own CSA, Baltimore had the more intense urban form just 10-15 years ago. Washington has pulled even with Baltimore and in the present is in the process of leaving Baltimore in the rearview mirror there, but still has a few miles to go before it can pull within San Francisco's range with regard to built-up urban form.
Aside from those tidbits, the two regions are, relatively speaking, roughly on par. San Francisco is a bit more walkable, whereas Washington has a bit more utilized and comprehensive transit network. Both are incredibly cosmopolitan and are able to draw from each part of the world, Washington is more balanced when looking at each of the world's realms as a whole, whereas San Francisco is irrefutably more foreign-born as a whole.
Both cities have a set network of performing arts and cultural institutions that you can and probably should take advantage of when you're in either of them. Both areas have a nice stock and collection of suburbs as well. Both cities have architectural forms that make them distinct from the rest of the country and given them some semblance of an identity.
Most of the other things are largely just subjective or out of a city's control, like location or weather. Not like a place can control that, so I don't even take those into account when discussing world class but the general mindset is that the San Francisco Bay Area's scenery is more magnificent, whereas Washington's location is more loaded.
The thing that separates the two a little bit is that the DMV was in a period of stasis around the beginning to middle of the 20th century and was not able to internalize and proficiently develop a strong local culture. It lost ground to San Francisco then due to the aforementioned stasis because San Francisco kept adding on to its social and cultural arsenal then whereas the city of Washington went through periods of relative inactivity. This gap will be bridged and is already in the process of doing so.
Both are roughly the same tier but the advantage goes to San Francisco. It has, to my knowledge, never had a period of stasis, which has allowed it to go on and develop a stronger sense of place and localized culture. San Francisco, historically, has gone through periods of ups and downs, but never stasis, as far as I know. San Francisco was afforded a period of internalization that Washington until the more recent 20-30 years never had the opportunity to have.
Also, because this topic is a discussion for world class, you have to take into account the appeal either city has overseas. That's important because the planet has 7,400,000,000 people and only 330,000,000 of that lives in the United States. Meaning about 7.1 billion people out of the total 7.4 billion people on Earth are living in a country not known as the United States. Both cities are seen as options for people overseas. When you do surveys that include thousands of people from dozens of countries across the globe, both cities are well represented and to some extent, well liked by foreigners that view them both as options. This is a plus for both cities and serves as the foundational pillar to what makes them world class.
One thing to note is that San Francisco is just as much of a force of nature in the private sector economy as Washington, it's counterpart, is in the public sector of the economy.
Both cities are the same tier, along with Chicago and Toronto as well, among North American cities. All four are in the same general tier but I would say in the here and now, the present moment, that San Francisco owns the advantage (over Washington D.C. that is). That can and will change, as Washington internalizes and develops, which can and likely will bridge the gap between the two but right now, yeah. Also, all world class cities have world class airport facilities. That is not an optional feature, you really need this to connect your city with the world. In the case of San Francisco and Washington, as well as Chicago and Toronto too for that matter, all four have outstanding facilities. All four have multiple facilities, which all world class cities do, other than city-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, all world class cities have two or more commercial airport facilities, with one of them almost always having a global reach on continents across the planet's landmass.
So when you look at service destinations and the foreign airliners that set-up shop in these cities, it's a good showing there between the two. Both are strong.
You compared the Washington DC- Baltimore CSA to the San Francisco Bay Area but the Bay Area is a metropolitan region not a CSA.
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.
. It's simply a nightlife district so you get a younger crowd for much of nights and weekends.