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 06-28-2011, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,446 posts, read 23,951,266 times
Reputation: 7277

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
I was too lazy to read through all of the posts, so I apologize if I am repeating what has already been said, but:

1. No large, natural harbors. The San Francisco Bay area was destined to be a major point of commerce with a large protected, relatively waveless bay, with flat, low lands that could be converted to docks/industry, close to the gold mines of the Sierra foothills, etc.

2. Along the same lines, little flatland. The LA basin was also destined to become a city, as the large basin was agriculturally productive, with some early oil development, and the mouth of the LA river that could be converted to a massive harbor. Plus, the sunny weather (necessary for early filming) diverse landscapes attracted the film industry which clinched the title of the entertainment capital..
William K. Everson in his book "The Hollywood Western" wrote that there were other factors why the early film producers wound up in L.A. It was inevitable that they'd come to California because Westerns were the most popular genre in the silent era. There was some early production in the Bay Area ; Essanay Studios in Fremont being the best known Bay Area production company. The Bay Area offered even more diverse landscapes within close range. The reasons why L.A. won out had to do with the Patents Trust which drove the largely immigrant independent producers out of New York to begin with. San Francisco had the West Coast branches of the East Coast law firms who were working for the Patents Trust, and San Francisco's own big law firms had close ties to those of the east. The early producers by basing themselves in the Bay Area were putting their livelihoods in danger and putting themselves at risk of injunctions to shut down production as well as lawsuits. Los Angeles was farther away from the East Coast law firms, there were far fewer commercial ties with the East and thus less of a possibility of the Patents Trust shutting the early producers down, and, in the possibility that the Patents Trust drove them out of business in L.A., Mexico was closer. In Southern California, Santa Barbara also had early studios, but the choices made by the city of Santa Barbara to not try to compete with L.A. for being the big city of Southern California (as it was in the state's early days inasmuch Southern California had any big city) resulted in L.A. being the center of film production. Also, S.B. wasn't as close to Mexico as L.A. in case the Patents Trust drove the early producers out of business.

As it was, the early producers would go on to be the founders of the big studios, the Patents Trust was dissolved in 1918, and the companies that made up the Patents Trust either went out of business or were bought up by the new Hollywood studios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2011, 10:10 PM
 
1,817 posts, read 3,779,891 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by soonmoving1 View Post
why are there NO major cities in N Cal? It is inhabitable, there are cities, further north (portland, Seattle, Vvancouver, Anchorage)
Because there are no jobs up there (well, now there are none in the rest of the state for that matter)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2011, 11:03 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
1,482 posts, read 4,736,484 times
Reputation: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia View Post
Who is "they"?
You know, the General Secretary and all his comrades at the Central Planning Bureau.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 07:55 AM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 7,658,919 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior101 View Post
Because there are no jobs up there (well, now there are none in the rest of the state for that matter)
If California's unemployment rate is 11.7% right now, that means that 88.2% of employables are working. Pretty tough to say there are no jobs in the state.

Keep in mind that there is a labor shortage in agriculture. Most of those 11.7% could be working tomorrow if they wished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,730 posts, read 5,279,477 times
Reputation: 4188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImRandy View Post
You know, the General Secretary and all his comrades at the Central Planning Bureau.
How did Barack Obama get in this discussion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:27 AM
 
1,817 posts, read 3,779,891 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by .highnlite View Post
If California's unemployment rate is 11.7% right now, that means that 88.2% of employables are working. Pretty tough to say there are no jobs in the state.

Keep in mind that there is a labor shortage in agriculture. Most of those 11.7% could be working tomorrow if they wished.
A pure agricultural based economy is not going to create a major metropolitan area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 09:45 AM
 
2,723 posts, read 3,771,994 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb123 View Post
the trend is telecommuting. More people can live where they want to live and are not tied to a city.
This is true in theory, yet you would think people would then live in cheaper, more remote areas, and they don't. They still concentrate in urban cores and commute to work. Telecommuting isn't quite there yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 01:56 PM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 7,658,919 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstieber View Post
This is true in theory, yet you would think people would then live in cheaper, more remote areas, and they don't. They still concentrate in urban cores and commute to work. Telecommuting isn't quite there yet.
Tahoe Truckee is a nexus of telecommuting, there are lots of folks who live there who telecommute.

Gives them a good income and a fine place to live. They usually don't go cheaper, they go more interesting, since they can afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 5,471,880 times
Reputation: 878
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.
That's demonstrably false:



Granted, that's partly because SF proper was already running out of land by 1910 (being surrounded by water on three sides), and LA had unlimited free land. But even if you compare the population of Bay Area vs. the population of LA & suburbs, the picture is the same - LA gets a healthy boost from the earthquake, and then the area gets diversified with several lucrative industries (by the 1920's, LA became the center of the movie industry and was one of the largest petroleum producers in the world) and its population skyrockets.

Up until the late 19th century, "Northern California" north of SF/Sac metro, "Jefferson Country" aka "Hippie Country", was more populous than Southern California. In a parallel universe Eureka could have become a megalopolis and the area of present LA could have been considered an uninhabitable desert (which it, technically, is - you can't sustain even a tenth of its present population without pumping water from Central California and Colorado River). I think it was mostly luck and railroads. The first railway line came to Los Angeles in 1876. That gave Los Angeles roughly a 30-year head start, and, when the 1906 earthquake hit, it was sufficiently larger and more accessible than Eureka (which wasn't reached by railroads till 1907) that it quickly rose to dominance.

Last edited by esmith143; 07-03-2011 at 06:59 PM..
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.

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