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.
Chicago is also about as close as you can get to being a mega city, without being a mega city.
As most know ... in a region and state not growing. It struggles to eventually get there. It is not blessed with a Sunbelt, West Coast or East Cast location. But sure looks Coastal.
May take yet a decade or two to officially get there. 1/2 million short yet on the metro measurement in 10-million needed. Unless you use the CSA measure US used only at 9.9-million then. Of course the way some drop it waaaay down. Good to see someone say it is close as if virtually there. But we know how it will yet be a struggle in its region and state.
GDP shows to be a pretty accurate indicator in terms of World Alpha status, because it’s actual real numbers that’s difficult to argue. Oxford Economics’s ranking of Global Cities comes close to the GDP rankings but with NYC and Tokyo switching places. All in all, LA is grossly underrated as an global economic superpower. And that’s not even mentioning its global cultural influence.
Raw GDP is an important component, but it is not enough by itself. LA’s strong suits compared to many other global cities are its large population with a high (compared to the world) average income, strong links to multiple countries through its immigrant community, major port, pop culture production, and good research universities. These are immense by themselves and it has all of these.
Where it is potentially lacking compared to many other global cities is that it is the seat of very few major corporate headquarters (it used to be a far larger locus, but the 90s and 00s saw a steady stream of loss) with many of the ones there being subsidiaries of corporations based elsewhere, and very few large governmental or non-governmental organizations or agencies with national or international operations.
I think one area where Los Angeles is sometimes overrated on by some people in terms of reach is how important those pop cultural products actually are. They are undoubtedly big business, but much more of the US’s media consumption is US-centric and/or centered on its own products than is elsewhere in the world which generally tend to ingest a lot more from more countries in addition to their domestic production. The other factor is that media production is by its nature trying to make its presence very visibly known so I think people tend to overemphasize its actual importance compared to other industries which are also just as if not more vital and influential.
Anyhow, LA is pretty neat. I can understand why people would find it the most fascinating of the three, though it isn’t for me.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-19-2019 at 08:37 AM..
I think one area where Los Angeles is sometimes overrated on by some people in terms of reach is how important those pop cultural products actually are. They are undoubtedly big business, but much more of the US’s media consumption is US-centric and/or centered on its own products than is elsewhere in the world which generally tend to ingest a lot more from more countries in addition to their domestic production. The other factor is that media production is by its nature trying to make its presence very visibly known so I think people tend to overemphasize its actual importance compared to other industries which are also just as if not more vital and influential.
.
It’s exactly the pervasiveness and ubiquity of the image/sound that’s the actual power, because we’re talking about culture and art, which is global connectivity that’s difficult to measure. If anything LA’s cultural products are underrated in this discussion about global power, because its true influence isn't economic. British comedy, Korean drama, Chinese soaps, and Japanese anime are internationally successful, but no where near the reach of American products which have become increasingly internationally focused. There is varying regional consumption, but it’s Hollywood that's arguably the one international constant among most developed countries. The world’s top 100 grossing films are Hollywood productions, heavily reliant on foreign receipts. Hollywood isn’t a domestic product anymore. It now measures dollars in terms of global box office and it’s been like that for a while now.
Chicago is also about as close as you can get to being a mega city, without being a mega city.
Yep, and as I said earlier on this thread, we are hoping and praying we'll stick strictly on the cusp.....being "just on the cusp" of megacities may well be the best location in the world. It is literally have your cake and eat it.
Raw GDP is an important component, but it is not enough by itself. LA’s strong suits compared to many other global cities are its large population with a high (compared to the world) average income, strong links to multiple countries through its immigrant community, major port, pop culture production, and good research universities. These are immense by themselves and it has all of these.
Where it is potentially lacking compared to many other global cities is that it is the seat of very few major corporate headquarters (it used to be a far larger locus, but the 90s and 00s saw a steady stream of loss) with many of the ones there being subsidiaries of corporations based elsewhere, and very few large governmental or non-governmental organizations or agencies with national or international operations.
I think one area where Los Angeles is sometimes overrated on by some people in terms of reach is how important those pop cultural products actually are. They are undoubtedly big business, but much more of the US’s media consumption is US-centric and/or centered on its own products than is elsewhere in the world which generally tend to ingest a lot more from more countries in addition to their domestic production. The other factor is that media production is by its nature trying to make its presence very visibly known so I think people tend to overemphasize its actual importance compared to other industries which are also just as if not more vital and influential.
Anyhow, LA is pretty neat. I can understand why people would find it the most fascinating of the three, though it isn’t for me.
another real strength for Los Angeles: if East Asia is the today's powerhouse, no city in the nation is tied into it as much as LA. In the wake of WWII, our world was truly the North Atlantic. And the US city (then, now, arguably forever) that was about that connection to Europe was New York. The Atlantic is a pond, the world revolved around "western civilization" (gee...I wonder what that was a code for) on two continents, Europe and North America.
Today, IMHO, LA is more favorable than New York's link to Europe in its connection with Asia. If both Latin America and East Asia are emerging (or more likely finishing up the job of emerging) then LA runs rings around NY.
Not knowing if this is still true (and I didn't bother to google), but I am aware that at LA at least did become the chief entry point to the US, replacing New York.
another real strength for Los Angeles: if East Asia is the today's powerhouse, no city in the nation is tied into it as much as LA. In the wake of WWII, our world was truly the North Atlantic. And the US city (then, now, arguably forever) that was about that connection to Europe was New York. The Atlantic is a pond, the world revolved around "western civilization" (gee...I wonder what that was a code for) on two continents, Europe and North America.
Today, IMHO, LA is more favorable than New York's link to Europe in its connection with Asia. If both Latin America and East Asia are emerging (or more likely finishing up the job of emerging) then LA runs rings around NY.
Not knowing if this is still true (and I didn't bother to google), but I am aware that at LA at least did become the chief entry point to the US, replacing New York.
True about the East Asia, though not so true about Latin America outside of most of Mexico. NYC's actually closer to most of Latin America aside from Mexico and shares timezones / is closer in timezone than most parts of Latin America aside from Mexico. That is to say, the more southerly location of Los Angeles compared to NYC isn't as large as the more westerly location compared to NYC for most of Latin America. Somewhat similarly the case for Chicago.
Anyhow, the next century is the Canadian Century! Chicago's got some good Great Lakes brethren in Canada.
I disagree that there is a particularly strong East Coast bias so much as there is one towards more urban, walkable areas
Both can be true; you're either not paying attention or being willfully dismissive if you think there isn't an East Coast bias on here. Both are true to different degrees, and that's the weird thing here: plenty of LA is urban and walkable...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtran103
The most economically powerful cities in the world (by measure of GDP) are:
GDP shows to be a pretty accurate indicator in terms of World Alpha status, because it’s actual real numbers that’s difficult to argue. Oxford Economics’s ranking of Global Cities comes close to the GDP rankings but with NYC and Tokyo switching places. All in all, LA is grossly underrated as an global economic superpower. And that’s not even mentioning its global cultural influence.
Both can be true; you're either not paying attention or being willfully dismissive if you think there isn't an East Coast bias on here. Both are true to different degrees, and that's the weird thing here: plenty of LA is urban and walkable...
100%...
The East Coast Bias isn’t a thing. It’s just that the past matters in these discussions.
It’s just that people when judging a Cities importance don’t really judge be economy alone. They judge by some importance vs time function.
That’s why if you say Rome is a world class city people would probably nod along but people would probably scoff at Denver being the same despite the latter having a bigger economy.
Sure LA has been hugely influential but for only like 75 years so they don’t put it on the level of London whose cultural inertia of being a world leading metropolis for 300 years puts it a tier ahead. After all LA is 1/2 way around the world from London but is an English speaking city.
Both can be true; you're either not paying attention or being willfully dismissive if you think there isn't an East Coast bias on here. Both are true to different degrees, and that's the weird thing here: plenty of LA is urban and walkable...
100%...
I don't think that's actually true in the aggregate. There's plenty of shade being thrown around for most places and there are some posters who are particularly actively against one city or another, but it's usually dependent on specific users who have a particular bete noire. I'm usually on the side that LA is a lot more urban and walkable than most people credit it for, but I think more posters have gradually come around on that in some senses.
LA not being very urban or walkable is more of a legacy of its past without people knowing the significant changes that have happened over the past couple decades. It's been hard to shed that reputation both within this forum and among the general public, and this includes people living in Southern California. Is LA tops for urban, walkable neighborhoods? No, I think that would be a really difficult argument to make. Is it top ten? Yea, I'd argue for that depending on certain weighting of criteria and would argue it'll be top five for the US within less than a decade within most criteria.
It’s exactly the pervasiveness and ubiquity of the image/sound that’s the actual power, because we’re talking about culture and art, which is global connectivity that’s difficult to measure. If anything LA’s cultural products are underrated in this discussion about global power, because its true influence isn't economic. British comedy, Korean drama, Chinese soaps, and Japanese anime are internationally successful, but no where near the reach of American products which have become increasingly internationally focused. There is varying regional consumption, but it’s Hollywood that's arguably the one international constant among most developed countries. The world’s top 100 grossing films are Hollywood productions, heavily reliant on foreign receipts. Hollywood isn’t a domestic product anymore. It now measures dollars in terms of global box office and it’s been like that for a while now.
I think maybe what I wrote is too easy to misinterpret. I did write that it's a big business and that the media influence is a strong component for LA's argument for a global city. LA is the largest node for film and tv production in terms of value and its exports. Talking about other domestic markets and their more cosmopolitan media mix isn't saying that they export more, but that they usually have fairly large consumption of domestic products and a wider range of sources, often regional, that are not American. The industry does bring in a lot of money, but if you look through data from the BEA and what sectors of the economy generate in revenue and in export value, our entertainment media is actually a pretty small amount and is far from being the largest industry. Would I argue that its value is greater than just simple gross revenue? Yes, I would, but that's also partly from how relatively small those numbers as an economic sector.
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.
