Growing up, New York was always the most important city on the East Coast, Chicago was the hub of the Midwest, and Los Angeles, naturally, because of its size and the entertainment industry, was their rival on the West Coast.
Now that I think of it though, Seattle and San Francisco host several of the global tech giants that are a backbone of American economic strength. Google, Meta, Intel, Amazon, Microsoft just to name a few. Besides Hollywood, was crucial industry does L.A. have?
23 comments
Not at all. Los Angeles still has more global importance. Like the port, for one example.
LA metro population is roughly double the other two combined.
They are culturally influential, but are not as “important.”
I’d still give it to LA.
“Besides movies, TV, and music, what is in LA?” is a hell of a question lol. LA also has a lot of energy stuff, finance, the busiest port in the US… I think you’re dramatically overrating the importance of the tech industry in comparison to everything else.
[Los Angeles has](https://www.britannica.com/place/Los-Angeles-California/Economy) entertainment, shipping, finance, aerospace, tech, defense, logistics…
> If the Los Angeles metropolis were a country, it would have a gross national product exceeding those of all but a handful of the most prosperous countries in the world.
No
No
Every person who responds to this is going to have a different definition of what makes a city “important’. This question needs to be more specific with a definition of what is considered important to have any value as a conversation.
Definitely not
Just want to not that until 1920, the most important city in the West Coast was San Francisco; since then it has been Los Angeles and continues to be so today. Beyond the soft power it has, it is also a major industrial area and a major port.
Los Angeles is wider than the distance of Seattle to Tacoma, and that LA port is probably many times as large in volume than port of Seattle
LA overtook San Francisco originally.
There’s a reason the west coast banks have more of a history in San Francisco than LA.
if you mean SF as in the bay area, id say the bay area and LA has always been equally important
Nope, and even if they do, it won’t enter the public consciousness for about 50 years
San Francisco’s not even the most important city in the Bay Area.
San Francisco by itself is not hugely important, but pretty wealthy. When added to the Bay Area and cities like San Jose, Oakland, and the surrounding suburbs; that area becomes hugely important, but not San Francisco on its own and definitely not Seattle.
As metros, Los Angeles has more [economic output and population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP). The GDP of Los Angeles is twice as large as San Francisco and three times Seattle.
No, not at all
I’d say within California, San Francisco is more influential than LA. Mostly speaking about state politics and political trends. On a national level, LA is still a powerhouse and the 2nd city in the US. People have already described the massive economy of LA aside from Hollywood.
When comparing individual cities, no. San Francisco and Seattle are much smaller than Los Angeles.
I think when comparing metropolitan areas however, the Bay Area is equal to LA in regards to economic heft. Seattle and the surrounding area are certainly a big economic engine for the country but I still think they are a leg behind LA and the Bay Area. For an East Coast equivalent think of New York City and its suburbs as the LA of the East, while Boston is like its Seattle and D.C. as it’s Bay Area.
Do you mean the SF Bay? SF has some megacorps but a lot of it is in the South Bay too. Both are most tech hubs but you’re ignoring the less sexy stuff. The ports of LA and Long Beach are huge for import/export, though the Bay has Oakland and Richmond which are huge too, and SF proper doesn’t have much.
No
IMO, no
Separately? No. Together? Also no.
And it isn’t close, either.