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 was comparing LA to NYC and I stand by what I said. LA is unmistakingly third rate compared to NYC in every single way. Comparing LA to NYC is the same as comparing NYS to CA, illogical and stupid. Just look at their GDP, LA is half of NYC and its closer to D.C. than it is to NYC.
Sorry that it has to be our country's second city, I know it must be a real chore for LA to try and be presentable but thank goodness that CA had a golden egg in its basket with SF. Even without finance and media NYC is still very powerful. You can't do it like we do, when LA gets to our level for tech, tourism, banking, branding, etc then I would have "some" respect for LA's offerings
Nitpicking the own industries you are good at for qualifiers that you are better than other cities is about the dumbest thing you can do. That is why most people revert to GDP as a marker, as it is industry blind. You also realize there is nothing more subject to boom/bust cycles historically than the financial industry...right? And there would be no need for the derivatives without raw material...SF or Tokyo could make the same argument towards you in tech and make NYC look pathetic. Of course that isn't correct, but neither is your analysis.
Also what does "you can't do it like we do" ? Is that from a rap song?
Anyway, you are never going to create a good tier because the entire tier qualifiers are subjective, and most of us agree there are more important things than solely GDP. It's just what are those other things which creates the issue. It's completely unscientific.
The Bay area is powerful, but like it or not the Bay area is NOT a city, so for the likes of me I dunno why people are ranking it with cities like Chicago.
Chicago is Chicago, LA is LA, NY is NY, Philly is Philly. The Bay is San Jose (The Largest city) plus SF-Oakland (the Largest metro), Plus Santa Rosa, plus Vallejo, plus Santa Cruz, Plus Napa.
Although they are all smooched together, they are NOT SF. SF is a city of 800K and a metro of 4M. The City of Chicago is three times as large as SF, and the metro is twice as large.
It is only when you combine those 6 metropolitan areas around the Bay do you even come near the population of Chicago's metro area.
San Francisco metro ranking is solely based on the fact that 25% of the work force of San Jose and several other smaller cities " don't commute into the core city of San Francisco " meaning that you can be " border to border" and still not be considered being in the same " Metro"...
As long as the world understands and acknowledges that it is indeed FACT, without any excuses or obfuscation, that an area SMALLER than the Chicago MSA (9581 sq miles) or Houston MSA (10,062 sq miles), designated as the SJ-SF-Oak CSA (6,984 sq miles) aka the Bay Area has more GDP output, more fortune 500 companies, higher income, better schools, and is more educated.
I think we have no problems.
Everything else is just semantics.
FYI: No where does it officially state that MSA = Metropolitan Area. Both the MSA and CSA have problems trying to define a Metropolitan Area, to outright state MSA = Metropolitan Area is a plain lie and you know it, however everything I have stated above are verifiable FACTS.
Go and get them Rhymes With Best Coast......................
San Francisco metro ranking is solely based on the fact that 25% of the work force of San Jose and several other smaller cities " don't commute into the core city of San Francisco " meaning that you can be " border to border" and still not be considered being in the same " Metro"...
its not just SF, that is how all metros in the US are categorized. Border to border means nothing.
Almost every city vs. city thread eventually ends up with someone suggesting a tier system. The only city that truly has a tier is mighty NY. The others cities fall into every known category to man. Most notably, tier 2 you see LA and Chicago. But I often see DC, SF, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta and Houston tossed around by various posters. Outside of NY, how can we determine which tier everyone fits in? How do we determine the other heavyweights in their region like Seattle, Denver, Miami and Detroit? Do we use the following criteria:
GDP
Metro Size
Quality of Life
Resources (e.g. government, technology, petroleum, research facilities)
Global presence
Historical relevance
Cost of Living
Geographic location
Please help ...
Its interesting how coasters ignore cost of living or belittle it when raving about their great cities. I believe a city which is unaffordable to live in isnt a great city, it might be a good tourist attraction, but appealing to the elite economically is a form of bias or exclusionaryism. I am not arguing COL is the only consideration as they will assume, but I am saying it matters and is too important to ignore when arguing for a city being great
Its interesting how coasters ignore cost of living or belittle it when raving about their great cities. I believe a city which is unaffordable to live in isnt a great city, it might be a good tourist attraction, but appealing to the elite economically is a form of bias or exclusionaryism. I am not arguing COL is the only consideration as they will assume, but I am saying it matters and is too important to ignore when arguing for a city being great
Though there is an argument that these amentities that make for great tourist attraction also afford a great lifestyle. This lifestyle isnt always cheap
Also for better or worse even within an individual city/metro the better places cost more and just viewing the average COL of city X and city Y dont even begin to tell a real story; not dimishing this but COL while important I dont personally find as being the greatest delineator on ranking/scoring cities outside of find one that may be less expensive
Though there is an argument that these amentities that make for great tourist attraction also afford a great lifestyle. This lifestyle isnt always cheap
Also for better or worse even within an individual city/metro the better places cost more and just viewing the average COL of city X and city Y dont even begin to tell a real story; not dimishing this but COL while important I dont personally find as being the greatest delineator on ranking/scoring cities outside of find one that may be less expensive
I've seen the Philly historic attractions long ago and do not miss them in my daily life. Maybe rubbing elbows with them is important to some but not I. Who said COL tells the whole story? I said arguments which ignore it or elitist and exclusionary in bragging about a city. How much of Houston or Dallas have you seen? Do you have cred about them to have an informed view?
I've seen the Philly historic attractions long ago and do not miss them in my daily life. Maybe rubbing elbows with them is important to some but not I. Who said COL tells the whole story? I said arguments which ignore it or elitist and exclusionary in bragging about a city. How much of Houston or Dallas have you seen? Do you have cred about them to have an informed view?
Houston been to ~30-35 times (a family member who lived quite a while in the Woodlands; have spent much time at the TMC over the years for work) over the last 18 years or so. DFW probably 12 or so times
Lastly what did my post have to do with Philly or Houston or DFW in which you responded to.
I dont think COL is high on the list of what defines a great city; you choose to feel otherwise
And my reference is to a multitude of amentities and city heritage and less so any specific attraction/place
And lastly on COL - if one would chart COL to city prominence there is a rather direct correlation; and for a city you reference as the prominence has increased so has the COL on average. I also feel COL average is not always a great barometer. For example to live Katy (a more desireable place the COL is much higher) versus the 8th ward in Houston (forget the name of the area). Prices are also rising in the loop as the desireability and qualitiy offerings of urban living increase in this space.
I dont think it is any elitism; perosnally I have lived in two (actually 3 as NYC too) other places with higher COL when compared Phiolly and prefer Philly to SF and DC personally
Last edited by kidphilly; 04-02-2012 at 02:09 PM..
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.
