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 think San Diego is similar in this regard. The most woke liberal places in the County are also the places strongly against any measures that could possibly introduce less desirable people (middle class...how revolting...)
I feel it is more a class issue than a political positioning issue.
You can be liberal and woke. But Austin is notorious liberal-fake woke. They seem to lose some of their most "would be called woke" city council members to other cities. Not sure why.
Fake woke. Oh my what to do. Reverse racism. Gotta suck for those wokers and I laugh at them. Get woke go broke. In lesser words suck it up butter cups. Get a job on your skill vs your skin color. I'm AI and I DESPISE this garbage. It's cheap and makes us look weak.
Do you really want Govt to control your lives with handouts? What a life? Good lord. I hate the Rez and what it has done to my people. Free money doesn't mean freedom.
I feel it is more a class issue than a political positioning issue.
Liberals seem to believe or present themselves as defenders of historically disadvantaged/disenfranchised groups (poor, minorities, etc.), but it's ironic how many woke liberals wouldn't dream of supporting affordable housing in their neighborhood.
In San Diego, the suburban city of Encinitas is probably the most liberal/hippie/woke city. It's also one of the least diverse and its residents are intent on keeping it a wealthy, white enclave by not permitting new housing geared to working class folks. It's astonishing that, while every other community in San Diego County has diversified intensely over the past few decades, places like Encinitas (pop. 60,000) are somehow 78% white, non-hispanic. Hell, even "Klantee" (Santee), which literally had multiple instances of KKK hood appearances during this pandemic is considerably more diverse. Wealthy liberal enclaves do their best to keep out or push out undesirables. This isn't new information.
San Diego, I think. Both seem pretty good overall, but I like the beach and San Diego seems in some ways to be the bigger city / metropolitan area. San Diego also has some wonderful offerings with Balboa Park and the San Diego zoos and a decent number of interesting neighborhoods. There's also good access to Los Angeles and Tijuana which are both fun. One thing I dislike about San Diego is how the freeways criss-cross so much of the city.
Never been to Austin, so in reality I can't say, but I have been to San Diego and was blown away by how beautiful the city/metro is. From the weather, to the cleanliness, to the natural beauty, restaurants, shops, etc. It is probably the best combination of tropical/urban city I've seen. If it wasn't on the West Coast so far from family, I'd move there in a heartbeat.
No offense, but I don't see Austin being better, so my vote goes to San Diego.
San Diego, I think. Both seem pretty good overall, but I like the beach and San Diego seems in some ways to be the bigger city / metropolitan area. San Diego also has some wonderful offerings with Balboa Park and the San Diego zoos and a decent number of interesting neighborhoods. There's also good access to Los Angeles and Tijuana which are both fun. One thing I dislike about San Diego is how the freeways criss-cross so much of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone
Never been to Austin, so in reality I can't say, but I have been to San Diego and was blown away by how beautiful the city/metro is. From the weather, to the cleanliness, to the natural beauty, restaurants, shops, etc. It is probably the best combination of tropical/urban city I've seen. If it wasn't on the West Coast so far from family, I'd move there in a heartbeat.
No offense, but I don't see Austin being better, so my vote goes to San Diego.
I don’t think the OP is comparing these cities to each other but to their respective class in their state, as in which metro serves a better third positioning in their respective states compared to their more dominant cities such as LA, SF and DFW, Houston
I don’t think the OP is comparing these cities to each other but to their respective class in their state, as in which metro serves a better third positioning in their respective states compared to their more dominant cities such as LA, SF and DFW, Houston
Gotcha. I was guilty of not reading the OP, lol. Although the question in the OP isn't worded well. I'm not sure if he is asking which of the these cities is a better 3rd city; if so, that would still end up being a SD vs Austin comparison since these are the 2 cities specified.
To use a slightly different way to compare them indirectly, SD seems to be more of a "major city" than Austin. For decades SD supported 2 professional sports teams (just lost the Chargers). It is also more of an older and more established city. Whereas Austin is a younger city.
I guess both have only minor competition for #3 in their states. With Oakland (assuming it's not considered with SF as part of the Bay Area) and maybe San Antonio.
You are looking at it in terms of GDP they are looking at it in terms of population.
Austin kills SA in terms of economy.
SA is the 2nd biggest city by population, Dallas is 3rd, Austin is 4th.
SA is the 3rd biggest MSA by population, Austin is 4th.
There isn't an economic view that would put SA over Austin.
There isn't a population count that puts Austin ahead of SA.
You shouldn't be surprised that they are saying SA if they are looking at it from a population point of view.
But from a population point of view the same posters would laugh at you when population doesn't work for their chosen cities. Example SF is the 12th city in the US, after Phoenix and Boston by the exact same metric they are using to put SA over Austin.
Fort Worth and Dallas are forever one entity, the same way that Minneapolis St Paul or SF -Oakland are inseparably one metro. FW counts as the largest MSA in Texas, Houston second, SA and Austin can duke it out for 3rd depending on what metric you use.
San Antonio has three industries that are larger than Austin's biggest which is it's Tech sector. San Antonio also has more F500, larger corporate base and bigger private companies that are F500 in size. San Antonio also has a more diversified economy than Austin.
What inflates Austin's GDP is the price of Real estate and COL. You are comparing cities that have totally different COL/ Real estate prices which effects GDP figures and in my opinion doesn't give an accurate size of economic strength.
This is why I don't think GDP totals can give an accurate comparison at least for what city has more industry and larger economy.
Austin's COL and sky high Real estate prices give it an advantage and inflated profile but it doesn't equate to a bigger economy than San Antonio.
Based on San Antonio's conservative GDP total for a metro it's size I wonder how much of the U.S. dept of defense GDP is actually tallied towards S.A.'s total GDP figure, considering $50 billion annually is a huge chunk of $129 billion which is S.A.'s total GMP/GDP.
(Billions towards GDP annually for key industries) I compiled this data from local economic websites for S.A. and Austin.
Haven't been to either but to me, Austin stands out more as the third city in its state (and it really is third in just about every way except population IMO) than San Diego. San Diego is overshadowed geographically by LA to an extent as well as economically by the Bay Area somewhat in one of its key industries, biopharma. Even educationally it does well as UCSD is clearly a top public university and USD ranks well also, but UCLA and USC in LA and Berkeley and Stanford pack more powerful punches as highly-recognized public/private power couples as far as universities go. I think it clearly dominates only one important area within its state, that being the military--which is no doubt important, but it doesn't really significantly raise the city's profile on a national level which tends to be the case for just about all military-heavy cities.
Austin on the other hand has the benefit of not being in the same geographical region as Houston and DFW and, from where I stand, it seems to be associated with the Hill Country more than San Antonio, which is also within the region. It also dominates high-profile, high-growth corners of the tech sector within Texas (manufacturing, computer systems, semiconductors), is the state capital, and home to the state's flagship and highest-ranked public university. Culturally, it also managed to carve out a distinct niche within its state with live music and its hippy/counterculture scene and even managed to create nationally renowned festivals that embody elements of that culture (SXSW and ACL).
I'm not saying Austin is the "superiror" third city in its state over San Diego, but there's no doubt that in terms of notoriety and name recognition, it has managed to essentially get on Houston's and Dallas's level within the past two decades or so even though I'd put it in the same tier of cities in Texas with San Antonio and Fort Worth (but it ranks first within said tier). I wouldn't say the same of San Diego even though it has no others within its tier in California.
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.
