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.
People are seriously underrating SF on this thread. I agree London overall is the "greater" city and by quite a bit, but SF is probably the richest major metro on earth (in terms of median income), the most innovative major metro on earth, and has drop-dead beauty. It's a clear Top 5 U.S. city (maybe higher) and a Top 20-25 or so global city.
London kills it in architecture, history, politics and sheer size, but SF is pretty strong. Pound-for-pound, it's loaded. It's the second most desirable urban environment in the most important country.
Please do your homework as all of this is rubbish. In the states, even Washington, DC is richer than San Francisco in terms of median income, far richer by that stat in fact. Using median income, SF is much closer to NYC and Seattle than it is to Washington. And that's not even getting to areas like Geneva, Bridgeport (CT, USA), Hartford (CT, USA), Doha, Oslo, Abu Dhabi and many more. As you see, small cities do much better than large cities when it comes to this statistic so it's an odd comparison.
Pound for pound does not count, unfortunately. I know some of the smaller places want recognition but that's now how the world works. If everything were pound per pound, Luxembourgh would be the most important and the best place in the world as it blows past everywhere in the world when looking at per capita statistics!
Last edited by duke of windsor; 05-21-2014 at 10:16 PM..
I have to admit it, but even the mighty NYC struggles to keep pace with London nowadays. Looking at the momentum index and employment pools in particular -- it's amazing that a relatively low density city core can lead the world in intellectual capital and dynamism. Though perhaps lacking (only relatively that is) in innovation compared to SF - it is catching up quickly.
No - London will never catch up to San Francisco when it comes to innovation. What innovation comes out of London? Please tell me what has come out of London that can possibly match what comes out of SF? Hilarious.
And New York trying to keep pace with London? LOL. You mean the other way around, right? London will never be as rich or as powerful as New York. New York, a much younger city, already has an economy nearly twice the size the economy of London, not to mention more Global 500 Companies, more office space under construction. There isn't a single metric of wealth in which London outperforms New York. In terms of growth, New York and London's economy has grown at identical pace for about 5 years now. No matter how many hundreds of "studies" UK organizations throw out onto the internet to sway public opinion re: the dominance of certain cities, it will never be as rich as New York.
Again, why are 90% of these city rankings originating from London? I'll take a wild guess: all the United Kingdom has is London. It's their capital. Their crown jewel. They pump trillions into that place and I suppose it's in their public interest to make the world believe London is the most dominant city on earth as the country would crumble without their #1 investment! Meanwhile, New York is simply one of the many important cities of commerce in the United States (NYC, SF, LA, Dallas, Houston, Boston) and doesn't have the huge advantage of being the capital in which all investments are bestowed upon. Even with all of that, New York still wallops London in terms of power/importance and global wealth.
It's basically entire United Kingdom against lonely old New York. It's a completely lopsided match (population 8-17mm vs population 66mm), but I still place my bets on NYC as would any smart person. After all, NYC has more millionaires than the entire United Kingdom so I'm sure the business leaders of NYC are up to the race. The UK needs to try needs to try much harder if it ever wants to overtake NYC. Obviously, commissioning countless manipulated "studies" clearly isn't working (the Knight Frank, riddled with simple opinions, one especially made me LOL!)
Well, it's just that they are too blinded by London's hideous self promotion and nauseating PR to see that the world is shrinking, as so is their clout.
I suppose the bottom line would be, London your great but we aren't really that impressed in these parts.
PriceWaterhousecoopers
Headquarters: London
Author of that study: David Snell of London.
LOL.
The sudden dumping of "London is the best city" studies coming out of London are all comical.
A+ effort! Let's see if these studies will successfully sway public opinion. America/New York seem to have no time to engage in this PR smoke and mirrors nonsense.
No - London will never catch up to San Francisco when it comes to innovation. What innovation comes out of London? Please tell me what has come out of London that can possibly match what comes out of SF? Hilarious.
And New York trying to keep pace with London? LOL. You mean the other way around, right? London will never be as rich or as powerful as New York. New York, a much younger city, already has an economy nearly twice the size the economy of London, not to mention more Global 500 Companies, more office space under construction. There isn't a single metric of wealth in which London outperforms New York. In terms of growth, New York and London's economy has grown at identical pace for about 5 years now. No matter how many hundreds of "studies" UK organizations throw out onto the internet to sway public opinion re: the dominance of certain cities, it will never be as rich as New York.
Again, why are 90% of these city rankings originating from London? I'll take a wild guess: all the United Kingdom has is London. It's their capital. Their crown jewel. They pump trillions into that place and I suppose it's in their public interest to make the world believe London is the most dominant city on earth as the country would crumble without their #1 investment! Meanwhile, New York is simply one of the many important cities of commerce in the United States (NYC, SF, LA, Dallas, Houston, Boston) and doesn't have the huge advantage of being the capital in which all investments are bestowed upon. Even with all of that, New York still wallops London in terms of power/importance and global wealth.
It's basically entire United Kingdom against lonely old New York. It's a completely lopsided match (population 8-17mm vs population 66mm), but I still place my bets on NYC as would any smart person. After all, NYC has more millionaires than the entire United Kingdom so I'm sure the business leaders of NYC are up to the race. The UK needs to try needs to try much harder if it ever wants to overtake NYC. Obviously, commissioning countless manipulated "studies" clearly isn't working (the Knight Frank, riddled with simple opinions, one especially made me LOL!)
The rest of your post is the same dishonest rhetoric you've spammed the London forums with under different accounts. I may have said that I prefer New York as a city (thanks to BK), but London's rapidly rising pre-eminence is so obvious at this stage that to deny it would mark one out as grossly dishonest.
One problem is that San Francisco is part of a polycentric metro area. As much as people don't like to admit it, the Bay Area is far more like Los Angeles than eastern American metros. Despite the hype about the tech industry moving into San Francisco, the Silicon Valley is still the center of growth in the Bay Area. London has a much stronger grip on its metro area. San Francisco just seems, like a feather in the wind, to be swaying back and forth to the wills and desires of the rest of the metro... sometimes it even seems a quasi bedroom community of sorts.
Even here on city-data, people so easily fall back to the "Bay Area" when a shortcoming of the city of San Francisco itself is illuminated. It seems to be losing its distinction as a city. Maybe because it is becoming sterilized, and the culture is moving out of the city? Either way, it's all about "The Bay Area" nowadays and less about the city itself. It doesn't seem as much of a center of the metro as London does.
One problem is that San Francisco is part of a polycentric metro area. As much as people don't like to admit it, the Bay Area is far more like Los Angeles than eastern American metros. Despite the hype about the tech industry moving into San Francisco, the Silicon Valley is still the center of growth in the Bay Area. London has a much stronger grip on its metro area. San Francisco just seems, like a feather in the wind, to be swaying back and forth to the wills and desires of the rest of the metro... sometimes it even seems a quasi bedroom community of sorts.
Even here on city-data, people so easily fall back to the "Bay Area" when a shortcoming of the city of San Francisco itself is illuminated. It seems to be losing its distinction as a city. Maybe because it is becoming sterilized, and the culture is moving out of the city? Either way, it's all about "The Bay Area" nowadays and less about the city itself. It doesn't seem as much of a center of the metro as London does.
While you do have some good points such as the South Bay being the tech hub. San Fran is still the business and tourist king in the area which is a huge deal considering the top cities in the world rely on tourism for income. In fact, the only sector in the bay that's superior in to San Fran's in comparison is Silicon Valley but, besides that, there's nothing else worth mentioning. Ask anyone from here, San Fran is the place to be as far as entertainment, business, fun, leisure, if they can afford it. San Jose is self sustaining and Oakland has things to offer but overall, they are light-years behind San Francisco in everything besides tech.
One problem is that San Francisco is part of a polycentric metro area. As much as people don't like to admit it, the Bay Area is far more like Los Angeles than eastern American metros. Despite the hype about the tech industry moving into San Francisco, the Silicon Valley is still the center of growth in the Bay Area. London has a much stronger grip on its metro area. San Francisco just seems, like a feather in the wind, to be swaying back and forth to the wills and desires of the rest of the metro... sometimes it even seems a quasi bedroom community of sorts.
Even here on city-data, people so easily fall back to the "Bay Area" when a shortcoming of the city of San Francisco itself is illuminated. It seems to be losing its distinction as a city. Maybe because it is becoming sterilized, and the culture is moving out of the city? Either way, it's all about "The Bay Area" nowadays and less about the city itself. It doesn't seem as much of a center of the metro as London does.
And the funny thing is - San Francisco is NOT in the same metro area as Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley = San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area. San Francisco = San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.
In America, places have to meet certain commuting criteria for it to be on metro area. And in real life, San Francisco and San Jose/Silicon Valley are NOT really connected as its a fact that they don't meet the commuting patterns to be considered one metro area. SF members will scream up and down that they're a special case and that they should merge with Silicon Valley but that's not correct as these standards apply to all US metro areas so exceptions shouldn't be made for SF just because they want to be big enough to match to real global cities . Metro Area = Connectivity via commuting. Period. And according to the U.S. Govt', SF and San Jose/Silicon Valley aren't the same.
San Franciscans like to fall back on "Bay Area" and combine an area that is not part of their metro area because their city falls shot. With any comparison of SF, SF residents always immediately start talking about the Bay Area. Londoners talk about London, not the beautiful Cotswolds. New Yorkers talk about NYC, not the gorgeous Hudson Valley. Is there nothing in SF worth talking about? So bizarre and it's certainly NOT the mark of a sophisticated, urban city. There isn't any way in hell SF can compare to London, sorry! I can live anywhere and choose London because I like cities and as a city, SF is nothing.
Last edited by duke of windsor; 05-22-2014 at 01:25 AM..
And the funny thing is - San Francisco is NOT in the same metro area as Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley = San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area. San Francisco = San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.
In America, places have to meet certain commuting criteria for it to be on metro area. And in real life, San Francisco and San Jose/Silicon Valley are NOT really connected as its a fact that they don't meet the commuting patterns to be considered one metro area. SF members will scream up and down that their a special case and that they should merge with Silicon Valley but it's not unique. Metro Area = Connectivity via commuting. Period, and according to the U.S. Govt', SF and San Jose/Silicon Valley aren't the same.
San Franciscans like to fall back on "Bay Area" and combine an area that is not part of their metro area because their city falls shot. There isn't any way in hell SF can compare to London, sorry!!
Yeah, that is the ironic part about it. Technically San Jose/SV is in the CSA but when San Francisco is being compared to other American cities people will get upset if it isn't included.
And the funny thing is - San Francisco is NOT in the same metro area as Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley = San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area. San Francisco = San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.
In America, places have to meet certain commuting criteria for it to be on metro area. And in real life, San Francisco and San Jose/Silicon Valley are NOT really connected as its a fact that they don't meet the commuting patterns to be considered one metro area. SF members will scream up and down that they're a special case and that they should merge with Silicon Valley but that's not correct as these standards apply to all US metro areas so exceptions shouldn't be made for SF just because they want to be big enough to match to real global cities . Metro Area = Connectivity via commuting. Period. And according to the U.S. Govt', SF and San Jose/Silicon Valley aren't the same.
San Franciscans like to fall back on "Bay Area" and combine an area that is not part of their metro area because their city falls shot. With any comparison of SF, SF residents always immediately start talking about the Bay Area. Londoners talk about London, not the beautiful Cotswolds. New Yorkers talk about NYC, not the gorgeous Hudson Valley. Is there nothing in SF worth talking about? So bizarre and it's certainly NOT the mark of a sophisticated, urban city. There isn't any way in hell SF can compare to London, sorry! I can live anywhere and choose London because I like cities and as a city, SF is nothing.
You sound close-minded. No one is forcing you to love San Fran but, you have to accept that other cities, even the small ol township of San Francisco, is better in some areas than London. Progressive-thinking, acceptance of anyone and everyone, climate, tech-hubs, Chinatown, beach, scenic views. Those are examples.
I have to admit it, but even the mighty NYC struggles to keep pace with London nowadays. Looking at the momentum index and employment pools in particular -- it's amazing that a relatively low density city core can lead the world in intellectual capital and dynamism. Though perhaps lacking (only relatively that is) in innovation compared to SF - it is catching up quickly.
Neither London nor New York are anywhere near catching up to San Francisco as far as driving global innovation and to mention 'low density' is hilarious because Apple, Facebook, Google etc are all located in suburban office parks.
Top 5 Sites in India, 22 May 2014 1 Google.co.in
2 Google.com
3 Facebook.com
4 Youtube.com
5 Yahoo.com Alexa - Top Sites in India
Top 5 sites in Germany, 22 May 2014 1 Google.de
2 Facebook.com
3 Google.com
4 Youtube.com
5 Ebay.de Alexa - Top Sites in Germany
Top 5 Sites in Japan, 22 May 2014 1 Yahoo.co.jp
2 Google.co.jp
3 Google.com
4 Amazon.com 5 Youtube.com Alexa - Top Sites in Japan
Top 5 sites in Brazil, 22 May 2014 1 Google.com.br
2 Facebook.com
3 Google.com
4 Youtube.com
5 Uol.com.br Alexa - Top Sites in Brazil
Top 5 sites in South Africa, 22 May 2014 1 Google.co.za
2 Google.com
3 Facebook.com
4 Youtube.com
5 Yahoo.com Alexa - Top Sites in South Africa
Top 5 sites in Saudi Arabia, 22 May 2014 1 Google.com.sa
2 Youtube.com
3 Google.com
4 Facebook.com
5 Yahoo.com Alexa - Top Sites in Saudi Arabia
Top 5 sites in Australia, 22 May 2014 1 Google.com.au
2 Google.com
3 Facebook.com
4 Youtube.com
5 Ebay.com.au Alexa - Top Sites in Australia
And so forth...
So I really don't think anywhere in the world has much influence in the global free flow of information at this particular point in time as the Bay Area. We provide a platform for anyone to express themselves and give them the biggest possible audience. London, how can you compete with that? I'd like to know.
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.
