[bobcat]

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6673/gmp1ya8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

For the full report and complete listing of all 361 metros ranked, go to:

http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdf

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

These are for metros, yet Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario is separate from LA?

the total would have been 737.8 Billion for LA if they were together.

[BTinSF]

^^^If you add SF/Oakland/Fremont (Fremont?) with San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara, you get $268.7 billion putting the Bay Area in 4th place which makes a lot more sense.

[Alta California]

^^^If you add SF/Oakland/Fremont (Fremont?) with San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara, you get $268.7 billion putting the Bay Area in 4th place which makes a lot more sense.

That's it?! I thought the Bay Area would be far wealthier. I'm also surprised that the 909ers pips the South Bay since they're about equal in population.

[Xelebes]

Hm, so Edmonton would rank 50th on the list - higher than Portland. :)

[citywatch]

Look past the headline of the following article. 3 of the US cities in the list from usmayors.org are mentioned below:


London Moving Up Rich List of World Cities

London is moving up the league of the world's richest cities, although it remains behind Tokyo and New York at the top of the wealth list, a new study said Wednesday.

March 07, 2007

LONDON (AFP) -- Fast-growing cities in emerging markets are also making their presence felt on the global wealth stage, according to the research paper on UK Economic Outlook by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PCW).

In 2005 London, where vast City bonuses are once again fueling property markets and other conspicuous spending, was sixth place in terms of Gross Domestic Product using purchasing power parities (PPP), according to the study. But by 2020 it will be in fourth place, overtaking Paris and Chicago -- and while Tokyo, New York and Los Angeles will remain above it, "London's economy is projected to grow faster than any of these cities, driven in particular by strong growth in business and financial services," said the research.

"It seems likely that the most successful cities of the future will be those that have comparative advantages in intangible business, financial and consumer services that are not so easily emulated by the rising stars of China, India or Brazil," said PCW head of macroeconomics John Hawksworth.

"London and Frankfurt should benefit from the increased financial services trade and Paris and Milan should find new markets for their fashion industries," he added.

According to the study, Tokyo topped the list in 2005 with a GDP using PPP of 1.2 trillion US dollars, followed by New York on 1.1 trillion. Los Angeles was on 639 billion, Chicago and Paris 460 billion and London 452 billion. In 2020 the Japanese capital will have increased to 1.6 billion, followed by New York on 1.56 billion, Los Angeles on 886 million and London 708 million US dollars.

One striking detail of the projected 2020 rich list is that none of the top 30 fastest-growing large cities will be from the major advanced economies, with emerging economy cities rising up the rankings. Five emerging economy cities are currently in the top 30 -- Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Sao Paolo, Moscow and Rio de Janeiro -- and will be joined in 2020 by Shanghai, Mumbai, Istanbul and Beijing.

The PCW study is believed to be the first of its kind covering the world's biggest 100 cities in terms of GDP while taking into account both population and average per capita income levels.

[liat91]

Wow, they really subdivided alot of metro regions up, I will add up all the missing parts.
New York: $1.103 T
Los Angeles: $770.6 B
Chicago: $429.6 B
Washington/Baltimore: $436 B
San Francisco Bay Area: $357.8 B + Stockton = $388.2 B
Boston/Providence: $364.6 B
Philadelphia/Reading: $286.1 B
Detroit: $206.7 B

[edluva]

there are a couple more MSA's that constitute the bay area consolidated CMSA

[liat91]

there are a couple more MSA's that constitute the bay area consolidated CMSA

Yes, including
Santa Rosa
Vallejo
Napa
Santa Cruz

All of which I added up to my above posted numbers.

[edluva]

good work, liat.

[Shawn]

The Boston number given in the first post doesn't even include Worcester, or any of Bristol County, for that matter - an area which starts twelve miles south of the Boston/Milton border - let alone Providence-Fall River-New Bedford. I can maybe agree with leaving out Providence, but excluding Worcester? Bizarre.

[Cirrus]

Chicago: $429.6 B
Washington/Baltimore: $436 BIs that correct? Interesting, if so.

[glowrock]

The Boston number given in the first post doesn't even include Worcester, or any of Bristol County, for that matter - an area which starts twelve miles south of the Boston/Milton border - let alone Providence-Fall River-New Bedford. I can maybe agree with leaving out Providence, but excluding Worcester? Bizarre.

Yeah, how can you not include Wuhstah in the Bawstuhn metro area? :D

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Joey D]

Wow, they really subdivided alot of metro regions up, I will add up all the missing parts.
New York: $1.103 T
Los Angeles: $770.6 B
Chicago: $429.6 B
Washington/Baltimore: $436 B
San Francisco Bay Area: $357.8 B + Stockton = $388.2 B
Boston/Providence: $364.6 B
Philadelphia/Reading: $286.1 B
Detroit: $206.7 B

Liat, if you're going to add Providence to Boston, you should be fair to Philadelphia and add in York, Lancaster, Reading, and Trenton, if not Atlantic City and Vineland/Millville.

[MayorOfChicago]

Maybe we should just add all the cities in the country together...then we wouldn't have to worry about leaving anything out.

[ginsan2]

Delete post.

[SHiRO]

Not that they are comparing like for like here...:rolleyes:..., but here's the tabel found in the PWC report referenced in the article above...

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4163/citygdpro6.png

[Minato Ku]

I don't like GDP PPP :shrug:
In nominal GDP Paris urban area has already the GDP estimated in 2020. :D

[Marcu]

I don't like GDP PPP :shrug:
In nominal GDP Paris urban area has already the GDP estimated in 2020. :D

Nominal gdp is useless. It doesn't account for inflation.

[The Agonist]

What would be interesting is to divide the figure by metro pop in order to see which metros are getting the most bang for their buck.

[caltrane74]

Toronto is so far behind the other world cities. kinda surprising, but I guess it makes sense relative to our population.

I wonder what the per capita numbers look like?

[Taft]

Maybe we should just add all the cities in the country together...then we wouldn't have to worry about leaving anything out.

+++:haha:

We seem to be the only country in the world that really does this type of thing. I really don't understand it.

Taft

[malek]

Toronto is so far behind the other world cities. kinda surprising, but I guess it makes sense relative to our population.

what did you expect? all the cities above are bigger to much bigger.

is there a way to have the full list?

[Attrill]

Maybe we should just add all the cities in the country together...then we wouldn't have to worry about leaving anything out.

Exactly.

Randomly adding areas up without a consistent criteria is meaningless. I agree that the division in the report seems arbitrary, but many of the proposed groupings are just as arbitrary. i.e. - based on some of the groupings above you should add Kankakee, Peoria, Racine, and Milwaukee to Chicago. And why not throw in Rockford and Janesville?

[Cirrus]

It looks very much like a list of MSAs to me. And MSAs, though not a perfect standard by any stretch, are most certainly NOT arbitrary.

[Qaabus]

Nominal gdp is useless. It doesn't account for inflation.
Nor does PPP.

[WonderlandPark]

MSA's are arbitrary

Please tell me why there are 2 different metros in this photo when they are SO CLEARLY one. The LA/OC and Riverside/S.Bernadino are ARBITRARILY divided right down the middle of this photo:
http://www.pixelmap.com/images/Nav/la-area.jpg

Same goes for the Bay Area, Fremont more a part of SF? It is so firmly Silicon Valley and in the orbit of San Jose, the MSA is meaningless.

Why not just put a line along the Hudson and consider Northern NJ its own metro? because that is exactly what they do in California.

[liat91]

Liat, if you're going to add Providence to Boston, you should be fair to Philadelphia and add in York, Lancaster, Reading, and Trenton, if not Atlantic City and Vineland/Millville.

I added Reading and Vineland because they are part of the Philadelphia Combined statistical area. I added Trenton to New York and as of now Atlantic City stands alone. I don't think you can compare adding Providence to Boston as to adding York to Philadelphia, no way.

[Marcu]

Nor does PPP.

It's real GDP at PPP. So yes it does. They just took the real GDP and adjusted it for purchasing power. It's the most streight forward and most accepted calculation out there.

PPP is "A method of measuring the relative purchasing power of different countries' currencies over the same types of goods and services. Because goods and services may cost more in one country than in another, PPP allows us to make more accurate comparisons of standards of living across countries. PPP estimates use price comparisons of comparable items but since not all items can be matched exactly across countries and time". It has nothing to do with inflation.

It wouldn't make any sense to take PPP of nominal GDP (GDP without inflation) and would end up rewarding countries with hyperinflation. Istanbul would have 10%+ growth per year since Turkey's inflation rate is 10%.

[Cirrus]

MSA's are arbitrary
ar•bi•trar•y (adjective) not decided by rules or laws but by a person's own opinion - the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/kdict.html)

MSAs are determined by a fixed set of objective rules. Those rules may be stupid and nonsensical, but they exist beyond any doubt. They are published on the census website and easily verifiable. MSAs may be many things, but they are absolutely and incontrovertibly NOT arbitrary.

Your picture may prove that the non-arbitrary standards used to determine MSAs are inadequate to describe reality* but that’s a totally different argument than the one you’re making.

* I agree that they're not. So does the census. That's why we have CSAs.

[WonderlandPark]

It is arbitrary, metro areas grow organically, so the decision to use a (in this case a county line) to "confine" an organic entity is arbitrary.

[Attrill]

It looks very much like a list of MSAs to me. And MSAs, though not a perfect standard by any stretch, are most certainly NOT arbitrary.

I agree that MSAs aren't arbitrary, even though I don't agree with their criteria. Actually, I think their criteria is arbitrary, but they are consistent.

What I think is truly arbitrary is grouping MSAs based on pesonal impressions. If someone thinks Boston and Providence should be combined, then why not add Nashua?

[liat91]

I agree that MSAs aren't arbitrary, even though I don't agree with their criteria. Actually, I think their criteria is arbitrary, but they are consistent.

What I think is truly arbitrary is grouping MSAs based on pesonal impressions. If someone thinks Boston and Providence should be combined, then why not add Nashua?

Nashua is added.

[antinimby]

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6673/gmp1ya8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

For the full report and complete listing of all 361 metros ranked, go to:

http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdfHey check out Detroit. For a city that's suppose to be down and out, it's surprisingly no. 12, ahead of many places like Seattle, Minneapolis, Phoenix, etc.

Not bad.

[Cro Burnham]

Not that they are comparing like for like here...:rolleyes:..., but here's the tabel found in the PWC report referenced in the article above...

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4163/citygdpro6.png

I'm from Philly but . . . how does Philly get that high - more than Osaka AND Kobe combined? Hong Kong? Shanghai? Sao Paulo? Buenos Aires? Wha????? No way. What on earth is this measuring?

[Cro Burnham]

I added Reading and Vineland because they are part of the Philadelphia Combined statistical area. I added Trenton to New York and as of now Atlantic City stands alone. I don't think you can compare adding Providence to Boston as to adding York to Philadelphia, no way.

Trenton really is part of the Philly metro, to nit pick. Not NYC. Truly.

[edluva]

I'd like to see how the UN metro areas are defined (second list using ppp). LA's metro undoubtedly leaves out San Bernardino/Riverside and Ventura counties.

It's strange because NY's figure increases in this list, whereas LA's drops dramatically. I doubt any consistent criteria would cut LA's more contiguous metro off while leaving NY's more diffuse metro intact, but it appears that's what's happened.

[Attrill]

Nashua is added.

And London ONT isn't added to Detroit? Milwaukee or South Bend isn't added to Chicago? Without any criteria defining how you are combining MSAs you are just meaninglessly adding numbers.

I think Houston/Phoenix/Dallas/Las Vegas is larger than NYC. :)

[edluva]

just as I suspected...

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana: 12.298m
New York-Newark: 18.718m

Source: World Urbanization Prospects 2005 Revision Population Database


Riverside-San Bernardino is listed seperately and Ventura's nowhere to be found. Furthermore, DC is listed at 4.2m. Tokyo remains at 35m. That's why the numbers are so different from Liat's.

So I searched for criteria and it appears they used the UA definition, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then LA is penalized for having uneven topography. In any case, all I could get was this vaguary:



Urban agglomerations and capital cities The term “urban agglomeration” refers to the population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory in-habited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries. It usually incorporates the population in a city or town plus that in the suburban areas lying outside of but being adjacent to the city boundaries. Whenever possible, data classified according to the concept of urban agglomeration are used. However, some countries do not produce data according to the concept of urban agglomeration but use instead that of metropolitan area or city proper. If possible, such data are adjusted to conform to the concept urban agglomeration. When sufficient information is not available to permit such an adjustment, data based on the concept of city proper or metropolitan area are used. The sources listed online indicate whether data were adjusted to conform to the urban agglomeration concept or whether a different concept was used.


So it is completely possible that the data the UN provides does not reflect a uniformly applied set of criteria, and it's definitely true hat the US Census data is more consistent between metros than the UN's. But that's to be expected.

[bobcat]

I'd like to see how the UN metro areas are defined (second list using ppp).

I'd also like to see where they got their growth rates from. Does anyone really think LA will have a lower economic growth rate than Detroit over the next decade?

[The Agonist]

just as I suspected...

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana: 12.298m
New York-Newark: 18.718m

Source: World Urbanization Prospects 2005 Revision Population Database


Riverside-San Bernardino is listed seperately and Ventura's nowhere to be found. Furthermore, DC is listed at 4.2m. Tokyo remains at 35m. That's why the numbers are so different from Liat's.
d.

NY GMP (billions)/Pop estimate(millions)=51
LA GMP/Pop estimate=49.2

So it appears that NY is at most barely more productive than LA and might statistically be equal given these numbers are estimates. Those number up there likely correlate solely to population and nothing else.

Regariding the MSA thing with respect to Riverside..having just driven in from Palm Springs, I can say I have no idea where the inland empire ends and where LA begins. It seems fairly continuous to me.

[WonderlandPark]

Regariding the MSA thing with respect to Riverside..having just driven in from Palm Springs, I can say I have no idea where the inland empire ends and where LA begins. It seems fairly continuous to me.

That is because it IS continuous, the metro has grown all over a random county line, and the Census department refuses to recognize it.

[Shawn]

Liat, if you're going to add Providence to Boston, you should be fair to Philadelphia and add in York, Lancaster, Reading, and Trenton, if not Atlantic City and Vineland/Millville.

Are York, Lancaster, Reading and Trenton all part of the Philly CSA? I know that Atlantic City isn't. In 2006, the Providence MSA was officially added to the Boston CSA. So if we are to include places like Stamford CT with the New York numbers and Riverside with the LA numbers, we must include Providence with the Boston numbers.

[Alta California]

Regariding the MSA thing with respect to Riverside..having just driven in from Palm Springs, I can say I have no idea where the inland empire ends and where LA begins. It seems fairly continuous to me.

I drive this distance often. There's a geographically impossible gap to cross between Palm Springs and Banning which are 20 miles apart. The reason why the area around the 10 in the Coachella Valley are vacant are the high winds (note the wind farms) and the restriction on building things on a waterway. The San Jacinto Mountains maybe that "wall" that beat sprawl.

[Teshadoh]

I wonder if it would be a good idea to sticky a thread listing MSA's & CSA's & describing what the difference is. Because after all of these years - it surprises me people still ask why Riverside isn't in the Los Angeles MSA.

[Teshadoh]

MSA's are arbitrary

Please tell me why there are 2 different metros in this photo when they are SO CLEARLY one. The LA/OC and Riverside/S.Bernadino are ARBITRARILY divided right down the middle of this photo:

Same goes for the Bay Area, Fremont more a part of SF? It is so firmly Silicon Valley and in the orbit of San Jose, the MSA is meaningless.

Why not just put a line along the Hudson and consider Northern NJ its own metro? because that is exactly what they do in California.

Maybe if more people in northern NJ didn't commute to NYC they would. If you want Riverside to be in the LA MSA - you need to convince more Riverside residents to get jobs there rather than working in Riverside County.

[Goody]

And London ONT isn't added to Detroit? Milwaukee or South Bend isn't added to Chicago? Without any criteria defining how you are combining MSAs you are just meaninglessly adding numbers.

I think Houston/Phoenix/Dallas/Las Vegas is larger than NYC. :)

Dude everyone that lives Nashua works in Boston, christ everyone that lives in Manchester and Concord work in Boston. Sad but fucking true

[Attrill]

Dude everyone that lives Nashua works in Boston, christ everyone that lives in Manchester and Concord work in Boston. Sad but fucking true

I totally agree - I grew up in Boston and worked in New Hampshire for a number of years.

Looking at this more closely I'm unclear on what criteria is being used exactly? I don't think the Census includes Providence as part of the Boston Metropolitan Statististical Area, I know Rockingham and Stafford county are considered part of the Boston MSA. When I first looked at this thread it looked like people are just adding up numbers without understanding where they came from. i.e. - does this report include Nashua as a seperate area but then also include it in the Boston numbers? It seems like a lot of the posts are combining MSAs to fit what the posters feel is more representative of the area, but doing it without any criteria.

[bobcat]

I can understand why Riverside/SB is not included in the LA MSA, but it seems strange to me that it's not included in the LA urbanized area, either. Is that due to a quirk in the geography? Going by the numbers at Demographia, even if the Riverside/SB UA were tacked onto the LA UA, the total geographic area of the resultant UA (2107 sq mi) would still be smaller than either the NYC or Chicago UAs (3353 sq mi and 2123 sq mi, respectively).

[bobcat]

f years.

Looking at this more closely I'm unclear on what criteria is being used exactly? I don't think the Census includes Providence as part of the Boston Metropolitan Statististical Area, I know Rockingham and Stafford county are considered part of the Boston MSA. When I first looked at this thread it looked like people are just adding up numbers without understanding where they came from. i.e. - does this report include Nashua as a seperate area but then also include it in the Boston numbers?

People are adding the figures up to get the totals for the Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) as defined by the Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/List6.txt


According to the list, Nashua and Providence are included in the Boston CSA.

[Cirrus]

Trenton really is part of the Philly metro, to nit pick. Not NYC. Truly.Actually not. It seems like it should be and historically it may be more connected to Philly than New York, but the numbers the census use say more Trentonians (or at least people in that county) commute into New York than Philly, which is for census the deciding factor.

Milwaukee or South Bend isn't added to Chicago? Without any criteria defining how you are combining MSAs you are just meaninglessly adding numbers.There ARE criteria. They’re called CSAs. I assume that’s what he’s using.

That is because it IS continuous, the metro has grown all over a random county line, and the Census department refuses to recognize it.The census’ metropolitan area standards are based on commuting, not urbanization.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to sticky a thread listing MSA's & CSA's & describing what the difference is. Because after all of these years - it surprises me people still ask why Riverside isn't in the Los Angeles MSA.Hear hear. It’s not that complicated, but it seems we’re forever explaining it.

[Attrill]

People are adding the figures up to get the totals for the Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) as defined by the Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/List6.txt


According to the list, Nashua and Providence are included in the Boston CSA.

Cool - thanks. I didn't realize Providence had been rolled into Boston.

[The Agonist]

Actually not. It seems like it should be and historically it may be more connected to Philly than New York, but the numbers the census use say more Trentonians (or at least people in that county) commute into New York than Philly, which is for census the deciding factor.


What percentage of people need to commute out of the county for it to be considered in another county's metro versus being regarded as its own free-standing metro?

Considering the crushing traffic traveling East out of Los Angeles on the freeways in the afternoons and the relative light traffic traveling into LA at the same time, it is hard to believe there aren't a considerable number of people living in the Inland Empire who work in LA county. However, I guess that is now what the stats show.

It seems that the definition of metro just demonstrates the interdependence of counties on another central county. In the case of SJ:SF and LA:OC:Inland Empire it demonstrates that the counties have matured and are their own viable entities rather than massive bedroom communities.

[Cirrus]

The Inland Empire *is* in the LA CSA, in the same manner that San Jose is in the Bay Area CSA, Baltimore in the Washington CSA, and Providence, Worcester and Nashua in the Boston CSA... But it's independent enough to be considered a separate MSA, which really just means that it's a big partially independent node within the greater LA Basin Metropolis. Orange County is the same.

Don’t get hung up on “MSA” being the end-all of the discussion. CSAs are at least as important, if not more so.

[The Agonist]

Metro definition

Metropolitan county: A central county with (1) one or more urbanized areas each having a population of 50,000 or more residents, plus (2) any outlying counties in which at least 25 percent of the working age population commute to the central county for work or in which 25 percent of the outlying county’s workers commute from the central county – the so-called "reverse" commuting pattern.

I suppose this leaves some ambiguity, as even if 25% of Riverside County commuted to LA it could be defined as a central county, then it is its own metro no matter what.

Same with SF and SJ. I imagine they are both defined as central counties.

[AnotherPunter]

^^^If you add SF/Oakland/Fremont (Fremont?) with San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara, you get $268.7 billion putting the Bay Area in 4th place which makes a lot more sense.

Still, why is Silicon Valley so small?

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
2002 82.6
2003 82.8
2004 87.6
2005 93.6


So much ink spilled on this place's economy. Is this just a vestige of the dot.com bubble bursting? I wonder what the numbers for Silicon Valley look like 98-2001

[AnotherPunter]

Answering my own question:

1998: 71.4
1999: 75.4
2000: 85.4
2001: 91.5

Thats a huge jump 99-01. And a huge drop 01-02. They are only just now catching back up.

Its interesting though. I wonder what it would look like if the metric was the valuation of companies headquartered. Google alone would boost these numbers significantly. But these numbers depend a lot on (1) banking revenues (which are a little misleading; its just passing through) and (2) input-output trade which favors manufacturing.

[Evergrey]

Hey check out Detroit. For a city that's suppose to be down and out, it's surprisingly no. 12, ahead of many places like Seattle, Minneapolis, Phoenix, etc.

Not bad.

Well... people sometimes forget that Detroit is enormous... and has an enormous economy. However, Detroit's rate of growth has been anemic in recent years and it's economic base is at risk.

[MonkeyRonin]

Toronto is so far behind the other world cities. kinda surprising, but I guess it makes sense relative to our population.


That list is pretty crap, actually. Some cities (such as TO) are listed for the city, while others are listed for metro. And I dunno if I'm right or not, but I thought the city's GDP in 2005/06 was $231 billion? (360 in GTA)

[Joey D]

Are York, Lancaster, Reading and Trenton all part of the Philly CSA? I know that Atlantic City isn't. In 2006, the Providence MSA was officially added to the Boston CSA. So if we are to include places like Stamford CT with the New York numbers and Riverside with the LA numbers, we must include Providence with the Boston numbers.

I'll be honest with you, Shawn. Most people who like to comment on this matter seem to believe that the Northeast is a large, spread out area where most areas are spread far apart from each other and decently distinguishable from each other.

However, look at any satellite or night satellite image, and you will see the tracts between each smaller city and the larger city, and see the lifelines by which the cities have been economically connected.

Culturally, and historically, these smaller cities have more to do with certain near cities than commuting patterns may dictate.

Not Shown: Atlantic City

http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ESC/small/ISS006/ISS006-E-36284.jpg

Lancaster, Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Reading, Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Trenton, and far-off New York City and North Jersey top right.

[Shawn]

Joey, I'm a Boston native who has lived in Providence and New York City. I am well aware of the nature of the Northeast. But if we are to come up with some sort of standard to apply when calculating GDPs of metropolitan areas, then the US Census CSA standard, which is based on commuting patterns, seems to be the most apt. If not enough people commute from Lancaster to Philly for the US Census to include it within the Philly CSA - and let's not forget that a mere 15% of the Lancaster workforce commuting to any county already part of the Philly CSA is all that it would take to do this - then I can see no reason to include it in an economic survey such as regional GDP calculations. 15% is a rather low threshold, and if Lancaster isn't contributing even 15% of its labor to the Philly CSA, why should it be included when calculating the total amounts of goods and services produced by Philly?

[JMGarcia]

A flawed but interesting list for The Economist.

My guess is that they're using MSA's for the US cities.

City economies
Mar 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Big cities pack a punch equal to some national economies. The GDP of Tokyo or New York, for example, is broadly similar to that of Canada, a G7 country. The two cities followed by Los Angeles will hold their position at the top of the table in 2020, according to forecasts from PricewaterhouseCoopers, an accountancy firm. However, London will pass Paris and Chicago to take fourth place thanks to buoyant expansion in business and financial services. At present, the top 15 city economies are dominated by those in the developed world. But by 2020, São Paulo will have elbowed its way into the premier league as part of a trend for those in emerging economies to move up the rankings.

http://www.economist.com/images/20070310/CIN062.gif

[Minato Ku]

This is only the estimation for 2020
Those estimations are never reliable. :yes:

That list is pretty crap, actually. Some cities (such as TO) are listed for the city, while others are listed for metro. And I dunno if I'm right or not, but I thought the city's GDP in 2005/06 was $231 billion? (360 in GTA)

For Toronto like Tokyo, Paris and London are their nominal GDP higher than GDP PPP.
The nominal GDP of Paris in 2005 was about $600 billion.

[urbanflyer]

It is absolute bunk that none of the included lists with world cities include Nagoya, particularly since it's well-known in this area that the greater metro's economic prowess has exceeded Osaka's. Everyone in Japan knows this, so why do overseas sources always forget that we exist?

The 2002 GDP figures for greater Nagoya are ¥47.75 trillion, which in 2007 dollars equates to around $408 billion. And with the incredible growth in this area since, they would only be higher now. I've come across estimates recently but I'll post hard numbers when I can find some.

http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/invest/region/nagoya-city/

[Minato Ku]

I agree the GDP figures for Tokyo, London, Paris, Osaka, Nagoya, Toronto etc are to low.

[alleystreetindustry]

wow. atlanta (in the estimates) will outpace san francisco in gdp by 2020. interesting. i would have had no idea. close call though. can't wait til then and see.

[fflint]

By 2020, the Census Bureau will have split "San" from "Francisco" and maintain they are two different metropolitan areas.

Seriously, it's still bizarre for me to read these sorts of comparisons now and see the Bay Area artificially split into two or three or however many supposedly separate regions. But whatever. Soon, "San" will overtake "Francisco" as the most populous metropolitan area within SF city limits...

[plinko]

^Fflinty, lest we forget that the census bureau separates the peninsula from MEGA-San Jose by a six lane thoroughfare separating suburban office parks.... :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/SBA-SFO-JULY057.jpg

Doesn't exactly require a satellite picture to see that these two are linked...

[ltsmotorsport]

Is there any political motivation for splitting up CA's two largest metros, or just plain stupidity?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

^ East Coast Bias LOL

[urbanflyer]

^
Perhaps the same brand of stupidity that leaves Japan's industrial heartland off the Economist's list.

[dimondpark]

wow. atlanta (in the estimates) will outpace san francisco in gdp by 2020. interesting. i would have had no idea. close call though. can't wait til then and see.

Its actually not impressive because Atlanta already has a larger population then SF-Oakland now so technically its GDP should already be larger.

[dimondpark]

^Fflinty, lest we forget that the census bureau separates the peninsula from MEGA-San Jose by a six lane thoroughfare separating suburban office parks.... :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/SBA-SFO-JULY057.jpg

Doesn't exactly require a satellite picture to see that these two are linked...

yeah, this really is ridiculous.

that density just creams tons of other places that are combined with a lot less density but because its bigger then 3 miles it gets the nod.

[plinko]

yeah, this really is ridiculous.

that density just creams tons of other places that are combined with a lot less density but because its bigger then 3 miles it gets the nod.

Actually last year sometime we had a whole thread in the Califorum related to these census tracts and determined that it both meets the density and minimum 'width' requirements (by census tracts). Why they are still kept separate is beyond me.

[ocman]

Is there any political motivation for splitting up CA's two largest metros, or just plain stupidity?

My understanding, if my memory serves me correctly, is that Riverside/SB were part of Los Angeles metro in census statistics. And then around 2000-2002, the census decided to cut LA in half and make Riverside/SB their own metro. I don't what the reason was. Maybe it diverts funding from California?

[dimondpark]

My understanding, if my memory serves me correctly, is that Riverside/SB were part of Los Angeles metro in census statistics. And then around 2000-2002, the census decided to cut LA in half and make Riverside/SB their own metro. I don't what the reason was. Maybe it diverts funding from California?

Cirrus has already stated that The Inland Empire is indeed part of the LA CSA, just as it was part of the LA CMSA before. Nothing's changed.

Just like San Jose and San Francisco-Oakland are in the same CSA-although many of us feel they should be a combined MSA.

An MSA which is a Metropolitan Statistical Area is what LA-OC are and Riverside-SB are another MSA.

When a 2 or MSAs become so integrated and meet certain requirements they become a CSA(Combined Statistical Area) and thus is the case with the above mentioned California Metro Areas.

[alleystreetindustry]

Its actually not impressive because Atlanta already has a larger population then SF-Oakland now so technically its GDP should already be larger.

not always true, an example would be miami and houston compared with atlanta, they may have more people, but atlanta has a higher gdp. a higher population shouldn't always mean a higher gdp, although the information shows it does. besides, nothing in atlanta can compare to san francisco. this especially applies to other international cities compared to atlanta, such as toronto, moscow, madrid, and seoul.

[northbay]

^ yea. but like bt said, it really doesnt make sense to me to split up san jose and san francisco as its really the same metropolitan area.

[dante2308]

All of those estimates seem so off. 3.0% per year every year for London? Sounds like wishful thinking. 6.0% per year for Shanghai? I doubt thats even possible.

[alex1]

6.0% per year for Shanghai? I doubt thats even possible.

when a nation of 1.3 billion puts their might behind a handful of select cities, 6% is very attainable.