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.
In physical size it's absolutely closer to SD whether in isolation or including the greater Bay Area.
not really, the Bay Area CSA is 3x larger in population than the San Diego MSA, even the 9-county region locals refer to as the Bay Area is 2x larger than the San Diego MSA. The Bay Area has many more wide reaching suburbs and sub regions-San Diego is far less spread out overall. San Jose to Santa Rosa is 100 miles. SD isnt like that.
As far as 'stature', San Francisco is closer to Los Angeles. San Diego has stature as well, of course, but it's not in the same tier as the other 2.
The Global City Ranking Model scores each metropolitan area worldwide according to its relative importance—with “100.0” as the highest score on a 0–100 scale.
The model uses forty regularly updated data sources to calculate importance, with economic output and impact comprising the largest part of each city’s score:
>50.00--Global Giant
One of the World's 5 Most Important Cities:
100.0 New York
79.8 Shanghai
74.7 Tokyo
69.2 London
50.4 Beijing
25.0-49.9 Global City
A city of global importance, with outsized impact on the world:
48.2 Paris 44.4 Los Angeles
43.6 Seoul
38.9 Hong Kong
38.2 Singapore 37.9 San Francisco Bay Area
37.7 Shenzhen
35.8 Guangzhou-Foshan
32.5 Moscow
30.4 Chicago
27.1 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
27.1 Washington
12.5-25.9 Major City
A city of very high importance, with significance impact outside of it's country:
24.0 Mumbai
23.8 Delhi-New Delhi
23.5 Istanbul
22.7 Jakarta
21.9 Bangkok
21.7 Mexico City
21.5 Sao Paulo
21.0 Toronto
21.0 Taipei
20.9 Dubai
20.8 Ranstand/Amsterdam
20.1 Boston
18.2 Chengdu
19.0 Madrid
18.6 Berlin
18.0 Chonqing
17.4 Sydney
16.7 Dallas-Fort Worth
16.4 Hangzhou
16.0 Brussels
15.5 Houston
15.3 Atlanta
15.3 Kuala Lumpur
15.0 Wuhan
15.0 Buenos Aires
14.8 Manila
14.7 Milan
14.7 Miami
14.2 Philadelphia
14.0 Nanjing
13.6 Rhine-Ruhr-Cologne
13.3 Seattle
12.8 Barcelona
12.6 Tianjin
12.6 Melbourne
12.5 Rhine-Main/Frankfurt
12.5 Rome
6.3-12.4 Almost Major City
A city that's almost a "Major City" but slightly deficient in some regard.
12.2 Nagoya
11.6 Changzhutan/Changsha
11.1 Vienna
10.8 Munich
10.5 Johannesburg-Pretoria
10.5 Xi'an
10.3 Busan
10.0 Qingdao
9.8 Santiago
9.8 Stockholm
9.8 Montreal
9.7 Cairo
9.7 Zurich
9.5 Dublin
9.2 Zhengzhou
9.2 Riyadh
9.1 Ningbo
9.1 Abu Dhabi
8.9 Rio de Janeiro
8.7 Phoenix
8.6 Detroit
8.5 Athens
8.5 Lisbon 8.4 San Diego
8.3 Vancouver
8.3 Lima
8.3 Prague
8.2 Ho Chi Minh City
8.2 Denver
8.1 Dalian
8.1 Shenyang
8.1 Minneapolis-St Paul
8.1 Xiamen
8.0 Warsaw
8.0 Tehran
7.9 Hefei
7.8 Ankara
7.7 Bogota
7.7 Hamburg
7.4 Kolkata
7.4 Geneva
7.3 Tel Aviv
7.2 Budapest
6.9 Jinan
6.9 Dhaka
6.9 Fuzhou
6.7 Brasilia
6.6 Brisbane
6.3 Kuwait City
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 11 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 979,465 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
You know, I had considered voting for San Diego in this poll, but in light of this new paradigm shifting data, I'll have to reconsider.
Didn't realize San Francisco was so much closer.
I’m a CPA with OCD, so small errors tend to stand out to me. It is crucial to show the most accurate figures. Besides, yours was merely a rounding error. Sort of reminds me of the comic where a lineman says to the quarterback during the big game, “Relax! Rounded to the nearest million, the stadium is completely empty!”
Rounded to the nearest 100 million there are actually no cities on earth!
Getting back to the topic at hand, anyone who knows anything about city statistics knows fully well that the SF UA figure is *highly* misleading and understated, as it is missing nearly 2 million *immediately and continuously connected* with SJ, which is listed as a separate UA. Never mind the dozen or so other urban areas orbiting around SF’s immediate gravity well, which represent another 2 million+. San Francisco is the bulwark of the Greater Bay Area and serves as the premiere business center for the entire west coast (the other, of course, being Los Angeles). Excluding SJ from SF’s UA is like selling a car without a transmission. It does not accurately reflect the full picture.
Should all of northern New Jersey be sliced off of NYC, in your mind, then? Newark, Jersey City at least have large, major business centers, and Paterson and Elizabeth are also large business centers as well, but what about all the other surrounding UA’s included in NYC like Princeton and New Brunswick (home to major universities), as well as Piscataway, Toms River, Lakewood, Strafford, Middletown, Mt. Olive Township, Plainfield, Montclair, and hundreds of other examples. I would say these are accurately grouped/included with the NYC UA because these towns and cities are all firmly locked in the orbit and sphere of influence of NYC.
So, really, we are unsure why the Census has decided to continue to piecemeal SF…
SF is just a premier heavyweight. History, locale, resources, tech, pop culture, arts, global banking and finance, travel/tourism, courts of law, international relations, corporate dominance, and a whole host of other factors have played into the prominence that SF commands today. The proper tier for SF is among the likes of LA, Chicago, DC, Boston.
The proper tier for SD is among the ranks of Baltimore, Portland, and perhaps as a stretch Tampa-St. Petersburg (SD assuredly outperforming Tampa Bay by healthy margins, across the board). Phoenix, Denver, Detroit, and Minneapolis-St. Paul could also be peers of SD, in some other respects, although they might seem less fitting than the former examples.
Seattle is probably somewhere between SF and SD in terms of its stature. That would actually be an interesting CD poll to run as well.
not really, the Bay Area CSA is 3x larger in population than the San Diego MSA, even the 9-county region locals refer to as the Bay Area is 2x larger than the San Diego MSA. The Bay Area has many more wide reaching suburbs and sub regions-San Diego is far less spread out overall. San Jose to Santa Rosa is 100 miles. SD isnt like that.
Yes really, the Bay Area's CSA is geographically larger than NYC's or Tokyo.
No one uses CSA as gage point for physical size of city(s). Thats what Urban Area is for, to which LA's is more than twice the size of SF/Oakland+SJ.
The SF MSA is completely messed up, and I’ve never understood why SJ isn’t included as these places are hardly their own islands, which puts it at around 7million with all of the practical, actual places around the bay that the Census bureau is so petulant to properly include. It’s an economic powerhouse much closer to LA than SD. It lacks the proportion of the economy that the military accounts for in SD/is much more diversified in its economy. SF is also a heavy hitter for global cities, again much more akin to LA. SD is really in its own league. It’s that fairly quiet place that’s much bigger than most lay people realize, and SD is perfectly happy with that. SF, like LA, relishes its national and global standing (for better and worse).
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by svelten
If you count the entire Bay Area it's third in the US in a lot of metrics related to economic weight, influence, certain industries and companies etc., outpacing the likes of even DC, Dallas, Houston etc. San Diego is iconic in many ways but it's just too far apart.
I kinda agree here, and tbh a lot of LA is just bloated population fluff with very little output. LA isn't even a top 10 MSA for Fortune 500's in the US.
SF MSA alone punches well above weight, and the entire Bay Area CSA is up in the top 4 in many metrics with NYC, LA, and DC. It leaves San Diego in the dust IMO.
I’m a CPA with OCD, so small errors tend to stand out to me. It is crucial to show the most accurate figures. Besides, yours was merely a rounding error. Sort of reminds me of the comic where a lineman says to the quarterback during the big game, “Relax! Rounded to the nearest million, the stadium is completely empty!”
Rounded to the nearest 100 million there are actually no cities on earth!
Getting back to the topic at hand, anyone who knows anything about city statistics knows fully well that the SF UA figure is *highly* misleading and understated, as it is missing nearly 2 million *immediately and continuously connected* with SJ, which is listed as a separate UA. Never mind the dozen or so other urban areas orbiting around SF’s immediate gravity well, which represent another 2 million+. San Francisco is the bulwark of the Greater Bay Area and serves as the premiere business center for the entire west coast (the other, of course, being Los Angeles). Excluding SJ from SF’s UA is like selling a car without a transmission. It does not accurately reflect the full picture.
Should all of northern New Jersey be sliced off of NYC, in your mind, then? Newark, Jersey City at least have large, major business centers, and Paterson and Elizabeth are also large business centers as well, but what about all the other surrounding UA’s included in NYC like Princeton and New Brunswick (home to major universities), as well as Piscataway, Toms River, Lakewood, Strafford, Middletown, Mt. Olive Township, Plainfield, Montclair, and hundreds of other examples. I would say these are accurately grouped/included with the NYC UA because these towns and cities are all firmly locked in the orbit and sphere of influence of NYC.
So, really, we are unsure why the Census has decided to continue to piecemeal SF…
SF is just a premier heavyweight. History, locale, resources, tech, pop culture, arts, global banking and finance, travel/tourism, courts of law, international relations, corporate dominance, and a whole host of other factors have played into the prominence that SF commands today. The proper tier for SF is among the likes of LA, Chicago, DC, Boston.
The proper tier for SD is among the ranks of Baltimore, Portland, and perhaps as a stretch Tampa-St. Petersburg (SD assuredly outperforming Tampa Bay by healthy margins, across the board). Phoenix, Denver, Detroit, and Minneapolis-St. Paul could also be peers of SD, in some other respects, although they might seem less fitting than the former examples.
Seattle is probably somewhere between SF and SD in terms of its stature. That would actually be an interesting CD poll to run as well.
When was it officially decided that San Francisco holds dominion over all of these cities "in its orbit?"
The fact that the flagship transit system for the area (BART) does not have "San Francisco" in the name suggests that it doesn't.
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.
