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.
I don't typically find city proper population to be all that useful in metrics like these.
For example, Pittsburgh, PA has a 2018 estimated population of 301,048, and that figure has probably dropped to more like 300,500 in 2019 as we continue to bleed residents due to our death rate outpacing our birth rate, our low international immigration, and rising gentrification pricing out our disproportionately large African-American underclass to the suburbs.
Plano, TX has a 2018 estimated population of 288,062, and that figure has probably risen to more like 291,000 or so in 2019. Plano is a monster for a suburb.
In a few more years Plano will be "larger" than Pittsburgh. Which city is more dominant, more important, and more influential?
Two even more striking examples?
Mesa, AZ has a 2018 estimated population of 508,958 and is probably going to be over 515,000 soon.
Aurora, CO has a 2018 estimated population of 374,114 and is probably going to be over 400,000 soon.
Are Mesa, Aurora, or Plano more important/influential than Pittsburgh?
This is why I typically look to compare urbanized areas and/or MSA's in discussions like these. Pittsburgh has millions of people living in its suburbs and is still a dominant city despite being overtaken by so many Sunbelt boomtown suburbs.
For the purposes of this discussion I was looking at the entire Puget Sound area (Seattle, Tacoma, Redmond, Bellevue, Everett, etc.) vs. the entire Bay Area (San Francisco, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, Antioch, Marin County, San Jose, Fremont, Daly City, etc.) I think it will be at least several more generations before the Puget Sound Area could conceivably overtake the Bay Area in terms of influence/dominance.
Also, San Francisco is about to be overtaken by Charlotte in population and fall to 16th place. San Francisco was just the country's 12th largest city less than 5 years ago. That's some Detroit-style rank dropping. Instead of losing population like Detroit though, it's just because it's getting passed by all the sunbelt cities.
Unfortunately for Seattle, the highest rank it can hope to achieve in the near future is 17th. It's at 18th now.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj
Also, San Francisco is about to be overtaken by Charlotte in population and fall to 16th place. San Francisco was just the country's 12th largest city less than 5 years ago. That's some Detroit-style rank dropping. Instead of losing population like Detroit though, it's just because it's getting passed by all the sunbelt cities.
Unfortunately for Seattle, the highest rank it can hope to achieve in the near future is 17th. It's at 18th now.
City population rankings are pretty meaningless and not a good yardstick to measure any meaningful figure or impact on a national level. Charlotte has 875k into mostly suburban style development in a land area of 308 square miles. San Francisco packs 883k into dense urban grid in only 47 square miles in what is infinitely a much larger and ore impactful metro and CSA area. So Charlotte achieves a similar city population in more than six times the land area of San Francisco. In its own CSA San Jose tops San Francisco in city population. But even in California San Francisco doesn't really rank behind San Jose in any meaningful way as far metrics go.
If we only count municipal boundaries then San Antonio is on track to become three times bigger than Boston. However Boston's metro area is about double what San Antonio's is and Boston has adjacent cities with population densities much higher than any part of San Antonio. Metro/CSA show a much bigger and more clear picture of where these cities rank and what their tier level and impacts are.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 07-28-2019 at 06:41 AM..
Ehh, I doubt it. Comes down to a history. Maybe given another 100 years, Seattle might eclipse, and if it does, I can’t see why; the politics aren’t that different, the Bay Area is still an economic powerhouse, despite itself...and is still a major port with a population of ~9m around the Bay vs Seattle’s nearly 4m in its metro area.
The Bay Area's GDP is nearing $1 trillion, and grew 50% from 2012 to 2017, while Seattle grew less than 40%.
Seattle has a bright future, and its GDP growth will very likely be well above national average for awhile, but it lacks the startup environment of SF. The Bay Area raised $14 billion of VC last quarter, over 60% of which SF-based companies, while Seattle raised less than $1 billion. On top of this, 1/3rd of the equity value of U.S. stock markets is in Bay Area companies, more than even New York.
Now adays, I've seen from at least a few people on here that put San Francisco right after New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I even saw someone said San Francisco was more dominant than Chicago, and even crazier, said the city is on an even playing field or even more powerful than LA??
Is San Francisco really this economically powerful? I see that vacancy rates are still going down and rents (retail and residential) are still going up. San Francisco is geographically constrained, (not just in land area but by mountains as well) and there is some reluctance to build tall apartment buildings (I believe there is a 40 foot height limit outside of downtown).
Do you think Seattle could possibly come to surpass San Francisco in most aspects? Seattle has grown at such an incredibly fast rate that now its only about 130,000 behind San Francisco in population. Seattle's skyline is about equal with San Francisco's right now and Seattle is about 80% larger in area.
All things considered, what is your opinion?
Well first thing is you can't just consider S.F. city proper because on its own, its FAR smaller than Chicago, NY or L.A. but on a metro basis it has is top 6 MSA. On a CSA basis its top 5. Given the impact of Silicon Valley, tourism and seaport/airport (3 of them) connectivity, its a rival for Chicago and L.A. for sure and far ahead of Seattle. Metro Seattle has four big companies, Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing and Costco. That's not in the league of the other mentioned Metro areas.
Now adays, I've seen from at least a few people on here that put San Francisco right after New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I even saw someone said San Francisco was more dominant than Chicago, and even crazier, said the city is on an even playing field or even more powerful than LA??
Is San Francisco really this economically powerful? I see that vacancy rates are still going down and rents (retail and residential) are still going up. San Francisco is geographically constrained, (not just in land area but by mountains as well) and there is some reluctance to build tall apartment buildings (I believe there is a 40 foot height limit outside of downtown).
Do you think Seattle could possibly come to surpass San Francisco in most aspects? Seattle has grown at such an incredibly fast rate that now its only about 130,000 behind San Francisco in population. Seattle's skyline is about equal with San Francisco's right now and Seattle is about 80% larger in area.
All things considered, what is your opinion?
As a city, remote possibility. As a region, no way. The Bay area including SV is just an economic monster that seems to just keep growing bigger. Seattle is on a nice growth path but will never catch SV.
It IS likely that Seattle's city proper will become larger than San Francisco's. It IS likely that Seattle's skyline will outgrow San Francisco's.
On a metro area level, though, as well as on a GDP level and international prominence level I just don't see it.
There are a few San Francisco members on here who are a bit unrealistic, though, in thinking it's a rival of NYC. NYC is unparalleled in this country. Then it's L.A. Then Chicago. Then probably DC. If anything DC might continue its rise and overpower Chicago in the coming years to be third-most-important MSA.
I could see valid arguments for San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia to all duke it out to be the 5th-most-important/dominant MSA in the country. I view Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle (and a few others) to be the next level down from there.
D.C's not surpassing Chicagoland. D/FW is more of threat at 7.5million MSA and a more diverse economy than D.C. S.F. and D.C. issues are cost related. Its why the Bay area and California in general has seen an exodus this century, mainly to Texas. D.C. must contend with Philly and Pittsburgh and to a lesser extent the Carolinas and Atlanta which all are growing well. You also see the Feds trying to decentralize agency expansion due to costs and also because members of Congress see such a strategy as a way to bring growth to their districts.
I don't typically find city proper population to be all that useful in metrics like these.
For example, Pittsburgh, PA has a 2018 estimated population of 301,048, and that figure has probably dropped to more like 300,500 in 2019 as we continue to bleed residents due to our death rate outpacing our birth rate, our low international immigration, and rising gentrification pricing out our disproportionately large African-American underclass to the suburbs.
Plano, TX has a 2018 estimated population of 288,062, and that figure has probably risen to more like 291,000 or so in 2019. Plano is a monster for a suburb.
In a few more years Plano will be "larger" than Pittsburgh. Which city is more dominant, more important, and more influential?
Two even more striking examples?
Mesa, AZ has a 2018 estimated population of 508,958 and is probably going to be over 515,000 soon.
Aurora, CO has a 2018 estimated population of 374,114 and is probably going to be over 400,000 soon.
Are Mesa, Aurora, or Plano more important/influential than Pittsburgh?
This is why I typically look to compare urbanized areas and/or MSA's in discussions like these. Pittsburgh has millions of people living in its suburbs and is still a dominant city despite being overtaken by so many Sunbelt boomtown suburbs.
For the purposes of this discussion I was looking at the entire Puget Sound area (Seattle, Tacoma, Redmond, Bellevue, Everett, etc.) vs. the entire Bay Area (San Francisco, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, Antioch, Marin County, San Jose, Fremont, Daly City, etc.) I think it will be at least several more generations before the Puget Sound Area could conceivably overtake the Bay Area in terms of influence/dominance.
Mesa isn't but Plano has become a huge regional corporate hub with the likes of the following there:
Dr. Pepper HQ
Hewlett Packard, formerly Ross Perot's EDS campus
Toyota - moved from California - 2million square foot campus
NTT Data
JPMChase - brand new campus adding a fourth building for 2020, increasing to over 12,000 employees.
Liberty Mutual - 4,000 employees.
Penneys headquarters
Capital One Bank - eight building campus
Frito Lay HQ
FNMA
The Bay Area's GDP is nearing $1 trillion, and grew 50% from 2012 to 2017, while Seattle grew less than 40%.
Seattle has a bright future, and its GDP growth will very likely be well above national average for awhile, but it lacks the startup environment of SF. The Bay Area raised $14 billion of VC last quarter, over 60% of which SF-based companies, while Seattle raised less than $1 billion. On top of this, 1/3rd of the equity value of U.S. stock markets is in Bay Area companies, more than even New York.
Wow, less than $1billion!? Austin, which is less than have the MSA of Seattle raised $1.2 billion last year.
Seattle does pretty well in a different indicator...creating the world's largest companies.
This isn't a coincidence. Nobody has ever hired 50,000 people (or done it twice) for a tech HQ in the SF area. SF is good for growing top companies obviously, but housing prices etc. make scaling up a challenge. At minimum they tend to develop large secondary HQs, and they do it when they're a fraction of the size Amazon is in Seattle.
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.
