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.
You cannot put San Francisco below Chicago when silicon valley is almost solely responsible for whatever is left of America's reputation as an innovative country. The national conversation is religiously all about Apple, Google, Facebook, whatever..
sure you can-- it's AT LEAST a tier below Chicago. You're kidding yourself if you think San Francisco is the equal of Chicago. Add the entire Bay Area and you're still way behind.
ranking it with Detroit, Seattle, Denver and MSP is not ranking it low.
That is where it should be.
It is bigger in population than all of these, but in GDP for example it is in the same ballpark. Closer to these than to Boston, Philly, Houston, DFW
GDP Greater Houston $384,603
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington $374,081
Philadelphia $346,932
San Francisco Bay Area $325,927
Greater Boston $313,690
Atlanta Metropolitan Area $272,362
South Florida Metropolitan Area (Miami) $257,560
Seattle Metropolitan Area $231,221
Minneapolis – Saint Paul $199,596
Metro Detroit $197,773
Phoenix Metropolitan Area $190,601
San Diego Metropolitan Area $171,568
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA $168,517
Denver Metropolitan Area $157,567
Phoenix is below Detroit, Seattle and MSP and just a little over Denver.
Folks like to put Chicago in the same tier with L.A. (many rank it higher), but I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that it's a full tier above the Bay Area, frankly.
Those "folks" include most urban experts since majority of professional rankings put Chicago on the same level or higher than LA (GaWC and Foreign Policy being the most prominent ones).
The reality is that beyond a certain threshold, there are diminishing returns as to how much more important a city can get with additional population growth (particularly when that growth is concentrated at the CSA level). I would put that threshold at 9 to 12m (metro). Some of the most important cities in the world hover around there -- London, Paris, Moscow. Would you say that LA is more important than these cities? The same logic applies to Chicago.
I prefer FP as well because it takes into account cultural components. You can not talk about importance without taking into account cultural relevance and things like education. The FP list looks very sensible.
Not to say that size is irrelevant. There are obvious limitations that come with small size. That's why I have a hard time seeing cities like Zurich and Geneva at the top of these lists. When you visit them you certainly don't feel like you are in a global, world class city. But once you get up to the 9-10m level it's basically a wash IMO.
I agree. GaWC would be better if they didn't emphasis things so strongly.
For example instead of looking at airports in terms of transactions they should probably look at foreign travelers as well. There is little reason for hub airports like Denver, DFW and ATL to rank higher than NYC, DC, SF and LA. Also airport systems should be considered as people in DC, NY, SF, LA have access to multiple airports. Philly too, although not in metro have access to a variety.
The big flaw in FP is that they narrowed down the cities too early, and should have at least analysed Philadelphia, Seattle and DFW. I think those would have made the list over some of the foreign cities that was chosen.
ranking it with Detroit, Seattle, Denver and MSP is not ranking it low.
That is where it should be.
It is bigger in population than all of these, but in GDP for example it is in the same ballpark. Closer to these than to Boston, Philly, Houston, DFW
GDP Greater Houston $384,603 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington $374,081 Philadelphia $346,932 San Francisco Bay Area $325,927 Greater Boston $313,690
Atlanta Metropolitan Area $272,362 South Florida Metropolitan Area (Miami) $257,560 Seattle Metropolitan Area $231,221
Minneapolis – Saint Paul $199,596 Metro Detroit $197,773 Phoenix Metropolitan Area $190,601 San Diego Metropolitan Area $171,568 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA $168,517 Denver Metropolitan Area $157,567
Phoenix is below Detroit, Seattle and MSP and just a little over Denver.
That's not the correct figure for the entire San Francisco Bay Area, but is only the GDP of the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont CA MSA
The GDP for the entire San Francisco Bay Area is $544 Billion according to the most recent data released on the subject.
Furthermore, the argument has been made that its impossible to compare our cities to those abroad, and yet there are 'reputable' rankings that do it everyday and quite disastrously sometimes I might add. Just saying, respectfully of course.
At the end of the day, based on the professionals that do this for a living, one thing is for certain ... NYC is #1. However, a trend suggest that US cities would rank as such (numbers don't lie):
NYC
LA
Chicago
DC
SF
Boston
Houston
Dallas
Philadelphia
Atlanta/Miami
*This is not my list, but the ones that PROFESSIONAL ECONOMISTS have aggregated over time.
At the end of the day, based on the professionals that do this for a living, one thing is for certain ... NYC is #1. However, a trend suggest that US cities would rank as such (numbers don't lie):
NYC
LA
Chicago
DC
SF
Boston
Houston
Dallas
Philadelphia
Atlanta/Miami
*This is not my list, but the ones that PROFESSIONAL ECONOMISTS have aggregated over time.
nothing wrong w/ that list. anyone who would make major changes just has a personal dislike with a city or an overzealous crush.
changes may be slight, but generally, this list is solid.
The irony in 'their' composite lists is that if you've lived in or visited those 10 cities that's pretty much how it 'feels'. Yes, LA and Houston are massive in terms of sheer drivability. However, it's an incredible amount of commercial and residential real estate in all of that land. What separates LA and Houston is there is more commercial real estate in the former vs the latter. With DC, yes, I know the government the government the government is there. But guess what, people forget that there is way more to DC than the feds. Most of us argue with SF being the Bay Area and so forth, but I think (just a hunch) that the companies that are in SF, along with all of those billionaires, populate the studies that suggests it's in the top 5 of US cities that rank globally.
That's why I personally love the studies by the professionals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
nothing wrong w/ that list. anyone who would make major changes just has a personal dislike with a city or an overzealous crush.
changes may be slight, but generally, this list is solid.
I personally would not change a thing.
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.
