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.
Um, San Francisco(1850) is a younger incorporated city than Houston(1837)
Your right, but SF has been the more prominent city for longer. Houston is still relatively new and hasn't identified itself yet. Also, us being located in Texas is another huge negative against us since TX is like one of the most, if not the most hated state in America.
San Francisco is among the most influential cities in the world.
THE WORLD'S MOST WELL ROUNDED CITIES by GaWC released in 2004
Five levels of global city are identified. First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco. Finally, among 'all-rounders' there are seven incipient world cities identified in Table 11. In the second category of global niche cities, the three leading Pacific Asian cities are critical economic nodes in the world city network and there are also three critical nodes that are non-economic: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, DC. Thus a total of 18 cities are deemed to be global, actual or incipient.
The remaining world cities encompass articulator and niche cities. The former are focussed upon subnets and there are 13 distributed between the three non-economic spheres. Classic examples are Vienna at the centre of a UN agency subnet and Nairobi at the centre of a NGO subnet. There are 21niche world cities identified of which seven have important concentrations of economic activities and 14 concentrations of non-economic activities. Frankfurt is typical of the first group with its concentration of banks while Manila is typical of the second group with its concentration of NGOs.
These two sets of cities represent the upper echelons of the hierarchical tendencies in world city networks. To reiterate a point made in the introduction, they do not encompass all globalization processes, all cities
GLOBAL as so involved, but they are the key locales that network formation agents are using in their everyday activities that are creating world city networks. CITIES
Well rounded global
Very large contribution: London and New York Smaller contribution and with cultural bias: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco
ii Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto
Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
i Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo
ii Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington
WORLD CITIES
Subnet articulator cities
i Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna
ii Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa
Worldwide leading cities
i Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
ii Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basle, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, Mumbai, New Delhi, Shanghai
Um, San Francisco(1850) is a younger incorporated city than Houston(1837)
Houston was built basically from scratch in 1836 though, whereas SF had been an established settlement since 1776. 1850 was just when SF got incorporated as a US city (it already had 30,000 people at that point, thanks mostly to the gold rush)...it was Spanish and then Mexican land before that, of course.
also, population comparison:
1850
SF - 34,776
Houston - 2,396 1900
SF - 342,782
Houston - 44,633 1940
SF - 634,536
Houston - 384,514
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,850,422 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Houston was built basically from scratch in 1836 though, whereas SF had been an established settlement since 1776. 1850 was just when SF got incorporated as a US city (it already had 30,000 people at that point, thanks mostly to the gold rush)...it was Spanish and then Mexican land before that, of course.
also, population comparison:
1850
SF - 34,776
Houston - 2,396 1900
SF - 342,782
Houston - 44,633 1940
SF - 634,536
Houston - 384,514
Exactly.
But on this forum it doesn't really seem to matter what proofs people give -- GDP, population, types of industries or otherwise. Many of the others will continue to underrate Houston and try to minimize its importance simply because of it being in Texas/Sunbelt.
Houston was built basically from scratch in 1836 though, whereas SF had been an established settlement since 1776. 1850 was just when SF got incorporated as a US city (it already had 30,000 people at that point, thanks mostly to the gold rush)...it was Spanish and then Mexican land before that, of course.
also, population comparison:
1850
SF - 34,776
Houston - 2,396 1900
SF - 342,782
Houston - 44,633 1940
SF - 634,536
Houston - 384,514
Just pointing out that SF is not really older than Houston the way Boston is.
But on this forum it doesn't really seem to matter what proofs people give -- GDP, population, types of industries or otherwise. Many of the others will continue to underrate Houston and try to minimize its importance simply because of it being in Texas/Sunbelt.
I was responding to a Houston fan trying to minimize another city's importance.
After all, this thread is about comparing cities to each other.
I was responding to a Houston fan trying to minimize another city's importance.
After all, this thread is about comparing cities to each other.
I minimized no cities importance. Your the one who keeps overlooking the fact that Houston is a huge contributor and very important to American oil as well as other things.
I think you were, I was the one that brought up Houston being a newer city and you kind of did say Houston wasn't important minimizing it's power over energy and oil in the US.
I think you were, I was the one that brought up Houston being a newer city and you kind of did say Houston wasn't important minimizing it's power over energy and oil in the US.
Uh, I never said Houston isnt important.
But this is a comparison of what city we think is more important.
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.
