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.
Because according to the conventional wisdom of this forum "you can't talk about San Francisco without also talking about its CSA", which is something like 12 counties. I haven't really figured out yet why no other metro is afforded this latitude, but I'm sure there's a good reason!
It couldn't just be that SF would get lumped to into peer group with Seattle, MSP, and perhaps even San Diego without adding a second, separate MSA.
Might have been interesting to see where Chicago would land if it was given Milwaukee, but apparently they don't warrant that kind of consideration.
Chicago's MSA and CSA are, pretty much, the same. Some day, I believe Milwaukee will become a part of Chicago's CSA, but that's a ways off. Anything goes, to get San Francisco to the top.
Chicago's MSA and CSA are, pretty much, the same. Some day, I believe Milwaukee will become a part of Chicago's CSA, but that's a ways off. Anything goes, to get San Francisco to the top.
Doesnt matter. Chicago-Milwaukee is a full 2 million more people than the Bay Area, yet the Bay Area GDP is still $200B+ more than Chicago-Milwakee.
I always find it interesting, that San Jose (which has its own MSA), always has to be lumped in with San Francisco, to pull San Francisco to heights it may not attain without the addition of San Jose's numbers. How about we just let San Francisco be compared, without the addition of San Jose's MSA??
LA's GDP figures includes San Bernardino which is separate MSA as well so the "adding additional MSA argument" doesn't really hold weight in this specific scenario.
The vast majority of CD understand SF is merely a principle component of a greater metroplex, not the sole economic engine of it's own region it so it's never going to economically rival LA on a city proper vs city proper basis. That being said, SF-Oakland-Berkley MSA is still the 9th largest economy on the planet even without SJ.
Greater Tokyo - $2.0 Trillion
NYC - $1.7 Trillion
Greater LA - $1.2 Trillion
Greater London - $1 Trillion (London proper is $633 Billion)
Seoul - $894 Billion
Paris - $774 Billion
Chicagoland - $689 Billion
Osaka-Kobe - $681 Billion
SF-Oakland - $548 Billion (SF comprises $290 Billion / Oakland comprises $226 Billion the remainder is Berkley)
Washington DC - $540 Billion
1. Tokyo
2. NYC
3. Seoul
4. London
5. Paris
6. Los Angeles
7. San Francisco Bay area
8. Shanghai
9. Hong Kong
10. Singapore/Beijing/DC/Chicago/Seattle due to Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing
San Francisco is nowhere near the 7th most important city in the world. It’s not even in the top 10. Hell, even in the US, it’s 4th or 5th.
LA's GDP figures includes San Bernardino which is separate MSA as well so the "adding additional MSA argument" doesn't really hold weight in this specific scenario.
The vast majority of CD understand SF is merely a principle component of a greater metroplex, not the sole economic engine of it's own region it so it's never going to economically rival LA on a city proper vs city proper basis. That being said, SF-Oakland-Berkley MSA is still the 9th largest economy on the planet even without SJ.
Greater Tokyo - $2.0 Trillion
NYC - $1.7 Trillion
Greater LA - $1.2 Trillion
Seoul - $894 Billion
Paris - $774 Billion
Chicago - $689 Billion
Osaka-Kobe - $681 Billion
London - $633 Billion
SF-Oakland - $548 Billion (SF comprises $290 Billion / Oakland comprises $226 Billion the remainder is Berkley)
Washington DC - $540 Billion
genuine question is that London just the 9 million "Greater London" or is it like the metro area of 16,000,000 that covers like Kent and Essex? because if so you aren't really doing apples to apples. because Greater London is more an an expansive city proper than a genuine metro area.
Based on a quick google that's the Greater London region not metro London.
genuine question is that London just the 9 million "Greater London" or is it like the metro area of 16,000,000 that covers like Kent and Essex? because if so you aren't really doing apples to apples. because Greater London is more an an expansive city proper than a genuine metro area.
Based on a quick google that's the Greater London region not metro London.
I meant to edit it.
Greater London (Kent, Essex, etc.) is ~$1 trillion, London proper is $633 Billion.
LA's GDP figures includes San Bernardino which is separate MSA as well so the "adding additional MSA argument" doesn't really hold weight in this specific scenario.
The vast majority of CD understand SF is merely a principle component of a greater metroplex, not the sole economic engine of it's own region it so it's never going to economically rival LA on a city proper vs city proper basis. That being said, SF-Oakland-Berkley MSA is still the 9th largest economy on the planet even without SJ.
Greater Tokyo - $2.0 Trillion
NYC - $1.7 Trillion
Greater LA - $1.2 Trillion
Seoul - $894 Billion
Paris - $774 Billion
Chicago - $689 Billion
Osaka-Kobe - $681 Billion
London - $633 Billion
SF-Oakland - $548 Billion (SF comprises $290 Billion / Oakland comprises $226 Billion the remainder is Berkeley)
Washington DC - $540 Billion
Exactly.
Im just saying. Wayyy too many tender feelings out there when it comes to SF.
Greater London (Kent, Essex, etc.) is ~$1 trillion, London proper is $633 Billion.
There is a general problem with comparing internationally that there isn’t a consistent definition of metro area.
London is a great example. Liverpool Street, Waterloo, Victoria And Euston Stations are filled with commuters every day from places with no official connection with London but would clearly be in an American MSA. Other places are grouped together based on governance not labor market.
American Metro’s tend to be very generous, and CSA’s humorous. (Although CSA’s were never meant to be interpreted as metro areas).
Even Toronto is like this. Oshawa or Kitchener is clearly Suburban Toronto but not in its CMA.
There is a general problem with comparing internationally that there isn’t a consistent definition of metro area.
London is a great example. Liverpool Street, Waterloo, Victoria And Euston Stations are filled with commuters every day from places with no official connection with London but would clearly be in an American MSA. Other places are grouped together based on governance not labor market.
American Metro’s tend to be very generous, and CSA’s humorous. (Although CSA’s were never meant to be interpreted as metro areas).
Even Toronto is like this. Oshawa or Kitchener is clearly Suburban Toronto but not in its CMA.
I totally get what you are saying
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.
