why are there NO major cities in N Cal? (Los Angeles: car insurance, places to live)

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by 60sfemi

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.

[Phil306]

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.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Phil306

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.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

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.

[rgb123]

Originally Posted by EdJS

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

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by rgb123

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.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Phil306

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.

[rgb123]

the trend is telecommuting. More people can live where they want to live and are not tied to a city.

[Phil306]

Originally Posted by sav858

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

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Phil306

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?