Visual Capitalist: World's Largest Metropolitan Area GDPs

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I've been told for 5 years that London will be destroyed because of the very conversation of Brexit.

Yeah, those folks were entirely wrong.

Wait, what?

There's been one year of Brexit. The data appears to be based on 2020, so Brexit wouldn't be factored in. And you seriously thought London would have a GDP of 0 after one year, even though cities like Beirut have decent GDP after 50 years of open warfare?

No one claimed London would be a post-apocalyptic wasteland post-Brexit. That's absurd. Even Caracas isn't a post-apocalyptic wasteland, even with mass starvation. But basically every serious economist agrees that Brexit will deeply harm London. There's a huge range of economic outcomes between global hegemon and wasteland. The UK will probably always be a reasonably wealthy first world nation. And London will probably always be the wealthiest, most desirable geography in the UK.

And London doesn't look particularly good. It has half the economy of NYC. Doesn't London always like to compare itself with NYC?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by ocman

There's no reason other than being outdated. Of all of them, it makes the least sense. The separation is done on a seamless urbanized area. Just a random line between Sunnyvale and Mountain View, which you can't tell are two different cities except on a map.

The border is between Palo Alto and Menlo Park, but that doesn't make it make any more sense.

Two obviously different metro areas here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...4d-121.8907041

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Canadian metros have low GDP relative to U.S. metros. Incomes, expenditures and production are generally significantly lower.

So Toronto seems pretty high, all things considered. It's basically the same as Philly, which doesn't make much sense to me. Philly has only a slightly smaller metro but probably has 50% higher per capita GDP.

Greater Toronto Area
- 252,000,000 SF total office space (total vacant 8%)
- ~94 Million of which is Downtown
- 8.8 Million square feet u/c

826,000,000 SF total industrial space
total vacant: 3.1M SF or 0.4%

Greater Philadelphia (includes Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern NJ, Delaware)
- 155,000,000 SF total office space (total vacant 14%)
- ~48 Million of which is Downtown
- 2.1 Million square feet u/c

717,500,000 SF total industrial space
total vacant: 45.7M SF or 6.4%

source: Colliers

In office space and industrial space there's roughly 100 Million square feet difference, and with Downtown Toronto having double the office space of Downtown Philly.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Greater Toronto Area
- 252,000,000 SF total office space (total vacant 8%)
- ~94 Million of which is Downtown
- 8.8 Million square feet u/c

826,000,000 SF total industrial space
total vacant: 3.1M SF or 0.4%

Greater Philadelphia (includes Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern NJ, Delaware)
- 155,000,000 SF total office space (total vacant 14%)
- ~48 Million of which is Downtown
- 2.1 Million square feet u/c

717,500,000 SF total industrial space
total vacant: 45.7M SF or 6.4%

source: Colliers

In office space and industrial space there's roughly 100 Million square feet difference, and with Downtown Toronto having double the office space of Downtown Philly.

I'm not seeing how this is relevant. San Jose doesn't have a crazy high GDP because it has more square feet of office space. It has a crazy high GDP because it produces goods and services (mostly the latter) of extremely high value, which is what GDP measures (value add of a final product or service).

Fort McMurray, Alberta, also doesn't have much office space either and has an extremely high value economy.

Toronto's office space is disproportionately banks, media, and real estate companies (stable dividend aristocrats). Those are never going to give you the GDP numbers of more dynamic sectors producing software that's sold at 98% profit with obscene markups that people will nonetheless still line up for.

To give an example, Apple alone is worth more than the entire TSX 60 combined, essentially the 60 largest companies in Canada, even though the latter consume far more office space than Apple.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wait, what?

There's been one year of Brexit. The data appears to be based on 2020, so Brexit wouldn't be factored in. And you seriously thought London would have a GDP of 0 after one year, even though cities like Beirut have decent GDP after 50 years of open warfare?

No one claimed London would be a post-apocalyptic wasteland post-Brexit. That's absurd. Even Caracas isn't a post-apocalyptic wasteland, even with mass starvation. But basically every serious economist agrees that Brexit will deeply harm London. There's a huge range of economic outcomes between global hegemon and wasteland. The UK will probably always be a reasonably wealthy first world nation. And London will probably always be the wealthiest, most desirable geography in the UK.

And London doesn't look particularly good. It has half the economy of NYC. Doesn't London always like to compare itself with NYC?

The impact of Brexit will be felt slowly and often imperceptibly. I'd look at the gap between France and the U.K. in the coming years to gauge the Brexit effect.

A key sign of Brexit running amok is France starting to pull away from the $2k GDP per capita advantage they currently have. It UK can hit parity, they've defied the odds. If France pulls away and the UK is closer to Italy in 10 years, you know Brexit was a disaster.

But I agree, most Brexit doomsday scenarios were in the range of GDP being 3% lower after 10 years when compared to a no Brexit scenario. I never heard anyone saying the U.K. would literally collapse to 0.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Gordo

The border is between Palo Alto and Menlo Park, but that doesn't make it make any more sense.

Two obviously different metro areas here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...4d-121.8907041

Which seems arbitrary because I will be in Fremont which is 20-30 minutes from downtown SJ but 40 minutes (at best) from SF but it falls within SF's MSA.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Which seems arbitrary because I will be in Fremont which is 20-30 minutes from downtown SJ but 40 minutes (at best) from SF but it falls within SF's MSA.

Welcome to the dissonance that Bay Area forumers have been experiencing since about 2001. Which are you going to believe, the official classifications or your lying eyes?

It's the same with Los Angeles and the Inland Empire.

[jd3189]

There is no developmental boundary between LA and the IE. I’ve driven through I-10 many times and it’s just constant sprawl. Only a few parks with hills (ex. Chino Hills) disrupt it.

[SFBruin]

I mean, they have to draw the line somewhere. I think that SF and SJ do count as a single metro, but that has more to do with a good deal of commuting between the two, rather than a lack of break in the in-between development.

[SFBruin]

In any case, I mostly agree with this list.

I am a little surprised about the width of the gap between the Bay Area and LA (I thought it would be closer), but I guess with a large population in a rich country comes a massive economy.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

In any case, I mostly agree with this list.

I am a little surprised about the width of the gap between the Bay Area and LA (I thought it would be closer), but I guess with a large population in a rich country comes a massive economy.

At CSA-level comparisons, they are much closer and the Bay Area closed the gap by a lot in the 2010s.



2010-2019 Combined Statistical Area(CSA) GDP Growth
New York-Newark............................................ .....+$624.620 Billion(+42.22%)
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland........................+$492.029 Billion(+82.84%)
Los Angeles-Long Beach.....................................+$442.26 5 Billion(+49.09%)
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington.........................+$208.586 Billion(+34.65%)
Boston-Worcester-Providence.......................... .+$205.955 Billion(+42.88%)
Chicago-Naperville........................................ .......+$200.434 Billion(+37.98%)
Seattle-Tacoma............................................ ........+$198.898 Billion(+73.21%)
Dallas-Fort Worth............................................. .....+$193.170 Billion(+55.38%)
Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs......+$167.943 Billion(+57.25%)
Houston-The Woodlands......................................+$1 64.798 Billion(+46.29%)
Miami-Port St Lucie-Fort Lauderdale...................+$139.288 Billion(+51.90%)
Philadelphia-Camden-Reading.............................+$125.655 Billion(+32.54%)

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

The impact of Brexit will be felt slowly and often imperceptibly. I'd look at the gap between France and the U.K. in the coming years to gauge the Brexit effect.

A key sign of Brexit running amok is France starting to pull away from the $2k GDP per capita advantage they currently have. It UK can hit parity, they've defied the odds. If France pulls away and the UK is closer to Italy in 10 years, you know Brexit was a disaster.

But I agree, most Brexit doomsday scenarios were in the range of GDP being 3% lower after 10 years when compared to a no Brexit scenario. I never heard anyone saying the U.K. would literally collapse to 0.

We should keep in mind, however, French GDP was 50% larger than the British by the late 1970's, the peak of British malaise. Economic reforms came under Thatcher-Major-Blair and the British overtook France by 2000, for the first time since the late 1960's.

Even though I beleive Brexit was unnecessary, those doomesday forecasts are completely emotional. Britain has been dealing with Brexit since 2016, five years now, and there's no change in their GDP compared to France. IMF's predictions that goes up to 2026, already correct Britain up and they keep their lead over France.

In fact, not even immigration, one of the hottest Brexit topics has slowed down. European immigrants were replaced by Commonwealth's.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

In any case, I mostly agree with this list.

I am a little surprised about the width of the gap between the Bay Area and LA (I thought it would be closer), but I guess with a large population in a rich country comes a massive economy.

I'm not. LA is 2x the size of the Bay Area (CSA's) but slightly edges it out in GDP.

Originally Posted by craigs

Welcome to the dissonance that Bay Area forumers have been experiencing since about 2001. Which are you going to believe, the official classifications or your lying eyes?

It's the same with Los Angeles and the Inland Empire.

Yeah "LA" should be all of that blob of humanity within spitting distance of Dodger Stadium and the Kardashian's.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by jd3189

There is no developmental boundary between LA and the IE. I’ve driven through I-10 many times and it’s just constant sprawl. Only a few parks with hills (ex. Chino Hills) disrupt it.

The Inland Empire feels so different from "LA," though... San Bernardino and Riverside definitely don't have that intangible "energy" that LA does. I feel like people even drive differently in the Inland Empire; to me they feel like completely different and separate areas. Going west on the 10 from say, Redlands, I feel like I'm in a completely different part of SoCal, as distinct as being in Palm Springs or something. And then when you pass the Covina Forest Lawn and descend into the SGV, it starts feeling more like "LA."

I feel this way with San Jose vs. SF. San Jose, despite all the traffic now, has a slower, less energetic vibe than SF. Going north on 101, I don't feel I've hit the "REAL Bay Area" until I get to about Redwood City.

I've felt this way about both places for a long time; maybe it's because I'm from LA and I've been going to San Francisco regularly since I was about 18 or 19. So it's entirely subjective of course.

[Chisouthside]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

The Inland Empire feel so different from "LA," though... San Bernardino and Riverside definitely don't have that intangible "energy" that LA does. I feel like people even drive differently in the Inland Empire; to me they feel like completely different and separate areas. Going west on the 10 from say, Redlands, I feel like I'm in a completely different part of SoCal, as distinct as being in Palm Springs or something. And then when you pass the Covina Forest Lawn and descend into the SGV, it starts feeling more like "LA."

I feel this way with San Jose vs. SF. San Jose, despite all the traffic now, has a slower, less energetic vibe than SF. Going north on 101, I don't feel I've hit the "REAL Bay Area" until I get to about Redwood City.

I've felt this way about both places for a long time; maybe it's because I'm from LA and I've been going to the San Francisco regularly since I was about 18 or 19. So it's entirely subjective of course.

LA def feels exciting when youre driving in. Coming into the valley from ventura and then over the hills into LA is always super exciting.

And i think regarding the Bay, the Penninsula def feels different than the south bay but i feel like the penninsula feels sleepier. And obviously the Penninsula or the south bay cant compare to driving past the airport into proper SF.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by pizzaguysrevenge

Amazing that California has two of the Top 5 once you combine SF + SJ.

Yup.

The Metro Area border on the Peninsula.


The border at the other side of the bay(the overpass at the top of this pic) is also totally built out but narrower at the Alameda/Santa Clara county line, and actually has worse traffic congestion because of Central Valley commuters. The 880 freeway, seen here, carries 370,000 cars daily at it's busiest point.


This location is the midway point between Oakland and San Jose:


Anyhow, SF and SJ combined look like this:
Metropolitan Area by GDP(millions of USD)
$2,055,698 Tokyo
$1,874,398 New York
$1,133,627 Los Angeles
$978,402 London
$952,740 San Francisco-San Jose
$934,168 Paris
$926,790 Seoul
$714,697 Chicago
$699,474 Osaka-Kobe
$636,449 Rhine-Ruhr
$633,935 Shanghai
$593,629 San Francisco
$591,374 Beijing
$578,985 Washington DC
$523,854 Dallas-Fort Worth
$513,211 Boston
$504,808 Moscow
$489,377 Houston
$455,694 Shenzhen
$455,653 Philadelphia
$452,292 Toronto
$444,337 Seattle
$432,009 Atlanta
$407,838 Taipei-Taoyuan
$407,562 Chonqing
$405,355 Guangzhou
$398,037 Sydney
$388,725 Miami
$379,301 Nagoya
$374,394 Singapore
$368,633 Hong Kong
$359,111 San Jose
$329,529 Milan
$318,677 Melbourne
$308,250 Jakarta
$301,510 Suzhou
$283,330 San Diego
$280,937 Madrid
$278,841 Phoenix
$277,379 Mumbai
$272,603 Delhi
$272,373 Minneapolis-St Paul
$267,731 Detroit
$261,642 Sao Paulo
$260,642 Chengdu
$252,145 Busan
$252,128 Bangkok
$250,455 Mexico City
$249,764 Munich
$248,721 Hangzhou
$247,312 Istanbul
$243,160 Berlin
$235,664 Tianjin

[Handro]

I’m honestly surprised Chicago is so high up on these lists considering it’s a crime infested wasteland almost 20 years into its nationally recognized death spiral.

[Crawford]

I don't understand all these border pics for SF and SJ metros.

Relative intensification of MSA borders plays no role in MSA or CSA calculations. Totally immaterial, whether it's a dense forest or 100-floor skyscrapers. The MSA and CSA rules are mostly based around county-based commute patterns.

In short, SJ is a separate MSA bc of Silicon Valley, which has enormous job base and relatively little housing. This is highly unlikely to change, at least in the near-term.

[Thebestofeverything]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand all these border pics for SF and SJ metros.

Relative intensification of MSA borders plays no role in MSA or CSA calculations. Totally immaterial, whether it's a dense forest or 100-floor skyscrapers. The MSA and CSA rules are mostly based around county-based commute patterns.

In short, SJ is a separate MSA bc of Silicon Valley, which has enormous job base and relatively little housing. This is highly unlikely to change, at least in the near-term.

If commute patterns are what determines an MSA then SF-SJ and LA-Riverside are definitely in the same MSA. Anyone that has lived in the Bay Area over the past 20 yrs knows that the commutes between SF and SJ have become both ways. Same thing with LA and Riverside in which many in Riverside commute to LA or Orange Co for jobs and many in LA or Orange commute to Riverside for jobs.

Beyond commutes, if we are talking about GDP, each of the MSA in their respective regions are dependent upon each other economically speaking. The logistics/warehouse economy in Riverside only exists because of the huge ports at LA/Long Beach. The high tech economy is not just limited to SJ but has start ups and locations in the SF/Oakland areas.

Also, these so called separate MSAs share the same media and sports markets.

I don't see why the folks in Washington haven't updated the MSAs for LA & SF.

I remember for the longest, there was resistance to combining the LA-Long Bch and Orange Co MSAs. Finally sometime during the '70s they were magically added together. Its time for another update.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand all these border pics for SF and SJ metros.

Relative intensification of MSA borders plays no role in MSA or CSA calculations. Totally immaterial, whether it's a dense forest or 100-floor skyscrapers. The MSA and CSA rules are mostly based around county-based commute patterns.

In short, SJ is a separate MSA bc of Silicon Valley, which has enormous job base and relatively little housing. This is highly unlikely to change, at least in the near-term.

I hear it’s not like that. They ask local authorities if they want MSAs to merge. It seems Cleveland and Akron should be a single MSA too. Same for Bridgeport and New York.