U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2011, 04:32 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,621,434 times
Reputation: 9193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi View Post
Is considered Big Sur up to the top of the state! Big Sur to Santa Maria/Lompoc/Santa Barbara/Vandenberg central. Then lots of empty space and then Southern Calif...meaning LA to San Diego and to the border. If the jefferson backroads call it North Central, then they just "chose" to call it that probably because of actual mileage, but those that are native Californias do not. They ALL consder Bay area as Northern Cali
Exactly. Grew up in Santa Cruz, had family all over the Bay and Central Valley to the Sierras. We all considered ourselves living in Northern California and identified with being Northern Californians in opposition to Southern California. Anyone who grew up there knows that. People living in the northern Central Valley are still going to be fans of Bay Area sports teams and know San Francisco is being refered to when you say "the City".

There's a far Northern California mindset(State of Jefferson) that gradually morphs into Southern Oregon, but that really starts around Redding and to the north of there.

Last edited by Deezus; 06-27-2011 at 04:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,658,980 times
Reputation: 3967
In the late 1800's and early 1900's, San Francisco was THE place to go. It was the center of culture, arts, etc for the entire west coast of the country. This was fueled by the gold rush. Los Angeles and its environ's were small in comparison. Not too mention, until the addition of the California Acqueduct (sp), one big, huge desert and not very liveable.

One day, a natural disaster changed all that. It was in 1906 and the SF Earthquake. SF was basically destroyed and it took many, many years to rebuild. So much so, it never really recovered. Thus, as someone else rightly pointed out, people started to change its focus to Los Angeles. Their ports, shipping quickly passed that of SF and the north of the state.

A HUGE population boost ensued to the south and, the south of California flourished, while Northern California did not. California has never been the same since.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,131 posts, read 27,094,986 times
Reputation: 6826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
One day, a natural disaster changed all that. It was in 1906 and the SF Earthquake. SF was basically destroyed and it took many, many years to rebuild. So much so, it never really recovered. Thus, as someone else rightly pointed out, people started to change its focus to Los Angeles. Their ports, shipping quickly passed that of SF and the north of the state.
Well you got part of that right. The earthquake caused some of the focus as well as some of the population (including some of my ancestors) to the East Bay but had little to do with the growth of L.A. World War II was the major force boosting L.A. Most of the folks who settled there came from places other than Northern California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,446 posts, read 23,961,050 times
Reputation: 7277
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
Well you got part of that right. The earthquake caused some of the focus as well as some of the population (including some of my ancestors) to the East Bay but had little to do with the growth of L.A. World War II was the major force boosting L.A. Most of the folks who settled there came from places other than Northern California.
L.A. surpassed Oakland in 1910 and SF remained the biggest city in the state until 1930. There was enough growth to go around for everyone.

World War II was a major force in boosting the Bay Area as well as SoCal. It was the nation's most militarized region, the departing point for most US military en route to the Pacific, and would see its own WW2 and Cold War dividends. SoCal grew faster, but the Bay Area grew as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Southern California
3,455 posts, read 7,302,914 times
Reputation: 1410
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdJS View Post
As has been said, large cities are not scattered around the world randomly, they come into being because of significant historic and geographic factors. There is a reason San Francisco is where it is, and there is a reason that there is no large city between S.F. and Portland.
correction .. that was the reason. The same factors that dictate movement, even jobs are not in place and growth trends are different now than 50, 100 or 500 years ago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:05 PM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 7,662,869 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb123 View Post
correction .. that was the reason. The same factors that dictate movement, even jobs are not in place and growth trends are different now than 50, 100 or 500 years ago
The factors may not be the same, but, factors dictate location of globs of people. Incidentally this "even jobs are not in place" Does not make sense to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:17 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,425,564 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
In the late 1800's and early 1900's, San Francisco was THE place to go. It was the center of culture, arts, etc for the entire west coast of the country. This was fueled by the gold rush. Los Angeles and its environ's were small in comparison. Not too mention, until the addition of the California Acqueduct (sp), one big, huge desert and not very liveable.

One day, a natural disaster changed all that. It was in 1906 and the SF Earthquake. SF was basically destroyed and it took many, many years to rebuild. So much so, it never really recovered. Thus, as someone else rightly pointed out, people started to change its focus to Los Angeles. Their ports, shipping quickly passed that of SF and the north of the state.

A HUGE population boost ensued to the south and, the south of California flourished, while Northern California did not. California has never been the same since.
You really don't know your CA history. SF recovered relatively quickly and had more people in 1910 than it did in 1900. The city was pretty much rebuilt completely in time for the 1915 Pan-Pacific Exposition. SF remained the financial capital of the West despite the earthquake and is still today. The quake wasn't a significant catalyst for LA's growth at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Southern California
3,455 posts, read 7,302,914 times
Reputation: 1410
the trend is telecommuting. More people can live where they want to live and are not tied to a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,658,980 times
Reputation: 3967
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
You really don't know your CA history. SF recovered relatively quickly and had more people in 1910 than it did in 1900. The city was pretty much rebuilt completely in time for the 1915 Pan-Pacific Exposition. SF remained the financial capital of the West despite the earthquake and is still today. The quake wasn't a significant catalyst for LA's growth at all.
Nope. I know nothing. I am stupid black man. Gee, could it be your a stupid historian? I mean, god forbid the History Channel and the hundreds of people who have studied said issue are wrong...

San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 10:29 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,425,564 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Nope. I know nothing. I am stupid black man. Gee, could it be your a stupid historian? I mean, god forbid the History Channel and the hundreds of people who have studied said issue are wrong...

San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts
Where in your link does it say ANYTHING about LA's growth being related to the 1906 quake or that SF 'never really recovered'? Do you even know what you're trying to argue about at this point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:38 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top