Top 3 cities that are the biggest miss (salaries, income, states)

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by elchevere

SF’s metro is demonstrably bigger, yes….but I’ll be content putting up SF city only vs SD entire metro and still take SF city.

I do agree SD does compete more with Tampa, Denver and it is the superior city, metro or CSA for beaches and climate.

No gaslighting here. Just trying to point out what I perceive as shortcomings from an urban amenities perspective which is how I tend to grade cities ….and, yes, I would likely “outgrow” those other peer cities as well from an urban perspective.

I can totally understand you saying San Diego doesn't measure up to your urban expectations. That is completely fair and preference based. Per the context of this thread, I think it is unfair to say San Diego is a miss as a city by comparing it to urban areas that are in some cases more than twice it's urban size.

Does it still under perform when compared to urban areas of similar population size? That should be the measuring stick IMO.

[elchevere]

Originally Posted by mjlo

I can totally understand you saying San Diego doesn't measure up to your urban expectations. That is completely fair and preference based. Per the context of this thread, I think it is unfair to say San Diego is a miss as a city by comparing it to urban areas that are in some cases more than twice it's urban size.

Does it still under perform when compared to urban areas of similar population size? That should be the measuring stick IMO.

San Diego does underperform cities (going by city population definitions) that are smaller than its 1.4M own stated population definition. SF is, what, 900K and Miami is 460K.

Others keep on bringing up “but they are part of a much bigger MSA’s”….my argument to that is while Ft Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines or Boca are part of Miami’s MSA, I’m not having to leave the City of Miami boundaries to drive up there for better cuisine, nightlife, shopping, or other urban amenities. I do NOT have to leave my city boundaries—whereas I mentioned earlier I had to leave SD for NBA basketball, better shopping options 80 minutes away at So Coast Plaza, more nonstop and direct flights from much larger LAX 2+ hours away, concerts or acts in LA that bypass SD altogether, etc….to me, a major reason for living in an urban area is for convenience and amenities. Whereas I did not / do not have to leave SF or Miami for better and/or more urban amenities I did have to leave SD far more frequently (and I lived in downtown—near Little Italy, Seaport Village and The Gaslamp) .

Now if we are going to include the peer cities you mentioned I likely would opt for SD mostly for the climate—not necessarily urbanity. Not only top ten cities are hubs for legacy carriers (Charlotte, Denver) nor do only large cities or metros have more than 1 pro sports team, among other amenities. Let us also not forget that San Diegans and others like to point out that they share a very close border, and draw from, another decent sized city, Tijuana (and Baja); last check close to 2M population, or is it only allowed to bring that up when scoring points in favor of other selective arguments??

Again, no issue with SD from a laid back, beachy, more nature varied oriented city—my argument is from an urban/city perspective. Would love for SD to step up its urban game a little more though you do have plenty against growth (even downtown’s crown jewel, Petco Park, came close to not happening, as an example; residents did vote down a new football stadium that resulted in the Chargers leaving town and would’ve assured them a Super Bowl every 5-7 years; not sure where they stand on long stalled Convention Center expansion which could result in the City’s flagship event—Comic Con—moving to another city).

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by elchevere

Simple answer:

SF dining > SD
SFO hub airport for legacy carrier United
SF Union Square superior to SD shopping
Nightlife: SD better for younger; SF classier better for older/professionals
Jobs: Besides tech and biotech SF has more career path opportunities and corporate HQ (finance, consumer packaged goods)
SF better mass transit (BART, ferry systems connecting to other areas, etc)
3 metro pro teams (including 2 downtown)…
Parks: probably a tie

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is anything but a "simple answer" lol.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by elchevere

San Diego does underperform cities (going by city population definitions) that are smaller than its 1.4M own stated population definition. SF is, what, 900K and Miami is 460K.

City proper population holds zero real world relevance because it's a apples vs. orange vs. pear vs. grape comparison.

San Diego is the 8th "largest" city by using it's own political technicality, not real world function. Cities (SD being a prime example) annexed counties to increase population by adding geographic area while other didn't/haven't (SF or Miami).

Originally Posted by elchevere

Others keep on bringing up “but they are part of a much bigger MSA’s”….my argument to that is while Ft Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines or Boca are part of Miami’s MSA, I’m not having to leave the City of Miami to drive up there for better cuisine, nightlife, shopping, or other urban amenities. I do NOT have to leave my city boundaries—whereas I mentioned earlier I had to leave SD for NBA basketball, better shopping options 80 minutes away at So Coast Plaza, more nonstop and direct flights from much larger LAX 2+ hours away, concerts or acts in LA that bypass SD altogether, etc….to me, a major reason for living in an urban area is for convenience and amenities. Whereas I did not / do not have to leave SF or Miami for better and/or more urban amenities I did have to leave SD far more frequently (and I lived in downtown—near Little Italy, Seaport Village and The Gaslamp) .

Because in real life Miami is a 2x as large as San Diego and LA is 4x as large an no amount of "I have to leave the city proper" changes than. Urban amenities/infrastructure have zero correlation with "city proper population" because they don't start/stop at an arbitrary political boundaries. If city proper was the end all to be all Jacksonville, FL would be more built up than Miami.

I live in Gaslamp. SD has enough to do that 99.99% people are going to be perfectly content with living their lives in the city and I say this as a person who moved there from Tokyo, which along side NYC, London & Paris are unrivaled in the "things to do and see in my city" department.

[Veritas Vincit]

I think Elchevere has his preferences and that's his right obviously, but he needs to understand that these are not universally relevant things. Myself and a whole lot of people don't give a **** if they have an NBA team in the city or if there's a Fendi store in the city or if they live in an airline hub.


My point is that there's cities where you can find all of that, including one just up the highway from San Diego, and if you want it you can go there. The thing to consider is that perhaps if San Diego was to become more like L.A. to obtain all of those things it would cease being attractive to a lot of people currently living there or hoping to live there for their own reasons. The only way to 'perform' for a city is to suit Elchevere's preferences? I don't think so.

[elchevere]

That’s fair…had I not grown up in NYC metro, lived in SF, LA (2 hours+ away “just up the highway” or more, nearly always in traffic) and now Miami and did not have a basis of comparison such urban conveniences would likely not matter to me nor register as something I knowingly missed.

And regarding the other poster, SD in no way shape or form comes remotely close to the urbanity of NYC, London or Tokyo but if it satisfies their requirements that is all that matters.

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

I think Elchevere has his preferences and that's his right obviously, but he needs to understand that these are not universally relevant things. Myself and a whole lot of people don't give a **** if they have an NBA team in the city or if there's a Fendi store in the city or if they live in an airline hub.


My point is that there's cities where you can find all of that, including one just up the highway from San Diego, and if you want it you can go there. The thing to consider is that perhaps if San Diego was to become more like L.A. to obtain all of those things it would cease being attractive to a lot of people currently living there or hoping to live there for their own reasons. The only way to 'perform' for a city is to suit Elchevere's preferences? I don't think so.

[timberline742]

Visited San Diego for the first time this past spring, and yes, I was completely underwhelmed. I hoped for so much more. Buses worked pretty well though. I saw an okapi at the zoo, that was cool. Brewery scene which was so hyped was very medicore. Only other thing I liked was how the baseball park was in the city.

Indianapolis, although I haven't been for probably 8 years, I went somewhat frequently over two decades and it was always underwhelming.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by mjlo

I can totally understand you saying San Diego doesn't measure up to your urban expectations. That is completely fair and preference based. Per the context of this thread, I think it is unfair to say San Diego is a miss as a city by comparing it to urban areas that are in some cases more than twice it's urban size.

Does it still under perform when compared to urban areas of similar population size? That should be the measuring stick IMO.

When comparing UA populations, San Diego is closer to San Francisco or Seattle than Tampa or Denver.

Also, as an urban area, San Diego is denser than: Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, D.C., and Boston.


So using this yardstick, San Diego's peers are Seattle and SF.

Honestly, I think San Diego UA is much more of a competitor to SF (based on post-lockdown visits) than people give credit for-San Diego's metro is almost entirely comprised of the urban area, while SF metro is only about 65% urban area.

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by treemoni

If select midwestern cities got their ish together and could join forces with others in the region, the midwest would give the coastal areas a run for their money. The midwest has more land. Unfortunately, this is a pipe dream. Too many chiefs.....

This so much...most are fighting each other for scraps in order to try to regain some past glory. Those cities are revitalizing their downtown areas & such, but imagine if the Big Ten schools & their respective cities starting sharing information and resources rather than thinking football rivalries are real life?

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

When comparing UA populations, San Diego is closer to San Francisco or Seattle than Tampa or Denver.

Also, as an urban area, San Diego is denser than: Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, D.C., and Boston.


So using this yardstick, San Diego's peers are Seattle and SF.

Honestly, I think San Diego UA is much more of a competitor to SF (based on post-lockdown visits) than people give credit for-San Diego's metro is almost entirely comprised of the urban area, while SF metro is only about 65% urban area.

Seattle I can agree with. Agree on density as well. Pretty much all Socal/desert SW cities have more dense urbanized areas than their eastern counterparts.

I have a harder time with SF as a San Diego peer by urbanized standards. Mostly due to the fact that the entire area around the bay is urbanized but statistically separated. That gives San Francisco and artificially smaller urban population on paper. IMO the entire southern part around the bay/San Jose is really just an extension of SF. So when looking at San Francisco's It looks/operates/feels like a much larger region in my experiences.