U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Which one is the most important?
Bay Area 162 55.10%
Boston 54 18.37%
Philadelphia 65 22.11%
Confused 13 4.42%
Voters: 294. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2012, 08:57 PM
 
76 posts, read 137,925 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
closer to Bmore
Who cares about Charm City, when there's Philadelphia, it's bigger and more suave older brother.

Quote:
Less yuppies
Yes, you're correct here. Boston is way too stuck-up of a city, as a whole (of course there being the few exceptions).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2012, 04:33 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
70 posts, read 54,666 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Center City certainly has its "dead zones," too.
Well, there are a few cemeteries next to churches (Pine St. and 4th, for example)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 02:11 AM
 
21 posts, read 14,500 times
Reputation: 37
As a person who was born in Boston, grew up in Philadelphia, and now reside in San Francisco this thread was interesting enough for me to join the forum so I could post. While not having read the entire thread (83 pages? Get outta here) I will say my two cents and hope someone responds.

Before commenting on my choice I have a couple complaints. First, San Francisco is not the same as the Bay Area, and just because people choose to conflate the two, it does not make a fair argument. Suddenly every argument made for San Francisco can comprise of advantages for the city of San Jose (one of the largest cities in the country in its own right), Oakland (except when it comes to crime, 'suddenly' Oakland is different than SF), Berkeley (UC-Berkeley is not in San Francisco anymore than UC Santa Clara is in Berkeley), etc. To make this a fair argument, it should be the City of San Francisco vs. The City of Boston vs. The City of Philadelphia, with a few exceptions (SF can claim Berkeley, Boston can claim Harvard even though it is in Cambridge, and Philly can claim Swarthmore, etc.) If you want to make a conflated argument of places within a 50 mile radius, Philadelphia can claim Atlantic City and all of its GDP. Lol. See how ridiculous that is?

Secondly, "importance" itself is a loaded term but lets say for layman's terms you mean overall cultural influence mixed with economic power mixed with historic significance.

Then I'd have to say Boston because it has a large helping of cultural influence (food, education, sports, tourism, regional significance), economic power (companies listed earlier, the might of the upper northeast, etc.), and historic significance (no need to explain that).

San Francisco has alot of cultural significance but ALOT less than San Franciscans believe it does. To put it bluntly, in most of the country no one gives a **** about what San Francisco thinks on an issue, and the country is not becoming more "San Franciscan". Although I love the band, "Californication" is NOT happening, RHCP. People are not becoming more "hippie-ish", the country is becoming more green granted but San Francisco didn't invent environmental consciousness, they just advocate it alot (if you don't believe me visit the Pacific Northwest or Canada any time before 2005). San Francisco has SOME economic power (Bank of America, etc.) but all of the real economic power is in San Jose and Palo Alto (which as I've pointed out is NOT San Francisco. Ask any person who lives in San Jose and they WISH they lived in SF). Lastly historically San Francisco does not mean much outside of the 1960's and the Gold Rush... well that's an oversimplification but compared to Boston or Philly it ain't cutting it.

Philly is where I grew up but needless to say it hasn't been a cultural juggernaut since, ohhh 1800's. The rest of the country thinks of Philly as angry sports fans and cheesesteaks, to which I say, "Yup and we love it!!" but of course that doesn't sway the country in any which way. Yes the country was founded there bla bla bla but for most Americans its a case of "What of you done for me lately?" and as a native... its been dangerous and slow to recover.

So with that being said Boston satisfies the most categories. If you argue the entire Bay Area then it gives SF a leg up significantly, but I think Boston still wins because for every Mark Zuckerberg there is a kid who went to Harvard... oh wait
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 07:32 AM
 
Location: In the heights
10,826 posts, read 8,822,693 times
Reputation: 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
As a person who was born in Boston, grew up in Philadelphia, and now reside in San Francisco this thread was interesting enough for me to join the forum so I could post. While not having read the entire thread (83 pages? Get outta here) I will say my two cents and hope someone responds.

Before commenting on my choice I have a couple complaints. First, San Francisco is not the same as the Bay Area, and just because people choose to conflate the two, it does not make a fair argument. Suddenly every argument made for San Francisco can comprise of advantages for the city of San Jose (one of the largest cities in the country in its own right), Oakland (except when it comes to crime, 'suddenly' Oakland is different than SF), Berkeley (UC-Berkeley is not in San Francisco anymore than UC Santa Clara is in Berkeley), etc. To make this a fair argument, it should be the City of San Francisco vs. The City of Boston vs. The City of Philadelphia, with a few exceptions (SF can claim Berkeley, Boston can claim Harvard even though it is in Cambridge, and Philly can claim Swarthmore, etc.) If you want to make a conflated argument of places within a 50 mile radius, Philadelphia can claim Atlantic City and all of its GDP. Lol. See how ridiculous that is?

Secondly, "importance" itself is a loaded term but lets say for layman's terms you mean overall cultural influence mixed with economic power mixed with historic significance.

Then I'd have to say Boston because it has a large helping of cultural influence (food, education, sports, tourism, regional significance), economic power (companies listed earlier, the might of the upper northeast, etc.), and historic significance (no need to explain that).

San Francisco has alot of cultural significance but ALOT less than San Franciscans believe it does. To put it bluntly, in most of the country no one gives a **** about what San Francisco thinks on an issue, and the country is not becoming more "San Franciscan". Although I love the band, "Californication" is NOT happening, RHCP. People are not becoming more "hippie-ish", the country is becoming more green granted but San Francisco didn't invent environmental consciousness, they just advocate it alot (if you don't believe me visit the Pacific Northwest or Canada any time before 2005). San Francisco has SOME economic power (Bank of America, etc.) but all of the real economic power is in San Jose and Palo Alto (which as I've pointed out is NOT San Francisco. Ask any person who lives in San Jose and they WISH they lived in SF). Lastly historically San Francisco does not mean much outside of the 1960's and the Gold Rush... well that's an oversimplification but compared to Boston or Philly it ain't cutting it.

Philly is where I grew up but needless to say it hasn't been a cultural juggernaut since, ohhh 1800's. The rest of the country thinks of Philly as angry sports fans and cheesesteaks, to which I say, "Yup and we love it!!" but of course that doesn't sway the country in any which way. Yes the country was founded there bla bla bla but for most Americans its a case of "What of you done for me lately?" and as a native... its been dangerous and slow to recover.

So with that being said Boston satisfies the most categories. If you argue the entire Bay Area then it gives SF a leg up significantly, but I think Boston still wins because for every Mark Zuckerberg there is a kid who went to Harvard... oh wait
If you don't want to include anything outside the immediate adjoining areas, SF still has a pretty good claim for relevance on a number of levels--except for historically as Boston and Philly are obviously more important now (though as the country gets older, it's arguable a head start of a century or two becomes less relevant). San Jose may have a lot of economic power, but it's not as strong or well-balanced compared to SF (which does have a lot of tech companies within its borders, and even more within its metro which includes a large portion of what's considered Silicon Valley). If you look at this list which includes companies only SF, you'll see that a lot of very recognizable names.

As far as cultural value for SF, I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than the 60s and the Gold Rush. There's the start of the Chinese-American community which holds SF with particular esteem (and Chinese actually has a separate, non-phonetically adapted name for San Francisco but pretty much no other American city that I know of). There's it's part as a major player and port in the Pacific Theater of Operations for World War II. There's also its place in Beat poetry and artists who came before the hippies. SF also seems to hold a pretty big place in terms of gay rights which seems to contribute a lot to people's perception of the city. And as far as conservation goes, SF was where John Muir and friends established the Sierra Club which was the catalyst and main lobbyist for the national park system and ecological awareness in general--the history of conservation is pretty extensive in SF considering the length of the US's history. Muir's early victories were getting Yosemite, Glacier, Mount Rainier, and Yellowstone established as protected national parks and these are pretty nice meanwhile the history of the Sierra Club aside from just John Muir has also been responsible for extensive conservation efforts and is still really active today (and you might consider joining). Then again, I'm super partial to John Muir and Yosemite in general.

There is a lot of crossover between SF and Boston though with a lot of companies and people shifting between the two.

Also, if you've got issues with using the Bay Area rather than the city proper, then this is probably the wrong thread to be posting in. Look at the name of this topic--it's pretty much dealing with these three places as regions rather than individual cities.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-13-2012 at 08:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 09:42 AM
rah
 
Location: San Francisco
3,086 posts, read 4,838,999 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
First, San Francisco is not the same as the Bay Area, and just because people choose to conflate the two, it does not make a fair argument.
No one thinks SF is synonymous with "the Bay Area". But SF is the primary city of the Bay Area, along with Oakland and SJ (though SF is widely understood to be the actual "big city" of the three big ones). And the Bay Area is SF's metro area, so calling it simply "SF" while not entirely accurate, makes plenty of sense, especially if dealing with people who don't know what "the Bay Area" refers to, or who do not know of Oakland or SJ (i.e. plenty of foreigners).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
Suddenly every argument made for San Francisco can comprise of advantages for the city of San Jose (one of the largest cities in the country in its own right)
City proper populations mean nothing. SF has a much larger MSA than San Jose does, but in the case of the Bay Area, the SJ and SF MSAs should truly be combined, but aren't due to census technicalities. Even so, they're still within the same CSA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
If you want to make a conflated argument of places within a 50 mile radius, Philadelphia can claim Atlantic City and all of its GDP. Lol. See how ridiculous that is?
Except that distance has nothing to do with it. It's all about commuting patterns, that's how MSAs and CSAs (metro areas) are defined by the census. SJ and SF have enough commuters between their MSAs to be part of the same CSA. That is NOT the case for Philly and Atlantic city.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
San Francisco has alot of cultural significance but ALOT less than San Franciscans believe it does. To put it bluntly, in most of the country no one gives a **** about what San Francisco thinks on an issue, and the country is not becoming more "San Franciscan".
No San Franciscan thinks the country is getting more "San Franciscan", smart guy. And San Franciscans don't care what other city residents think either. It goes both ways. People are mostly concerned with their immediate surroundings, obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
Although I love the band, "Californication" is NOT happening, RHCP. People are not becoming more "hippie-ish",
Nobody believes this either. It's not the 60s/70s anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
the country is becoming more green granted but San Francisco didn't invent environmental consciousness, they just advocate it alot (if you don't believe me visit the Pacific Northwest or Canada any time before 2005).
Who actually thinks SF invented that? No one I know. SF is a big advocate of it, but of course SF didn't invent being environmentally freindly or anything dumb like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
San Francisco has SOME economic power (Bank of America, etc.) but all of the real economic power is in San Jose and Palo Alto
False.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
Lastly historically San Francisco does not mean much outside of the 1960's and the Gold Rush
Ever hear of world war II? SF and the Bay Area had a very large part to play in that conflict: multiple shipyards (in SF, Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo) and other war industries (i know some stuff was manufactured in SJ, including tanks, if I remember right), SF was the main point of debarkation for US troops in the pacific, and the UN charter was signed in SF. And What about Bank of America? Wells Fargo? Both were founded in SF over a century ago, and they're both obviously a big part of American life.

You honestly sound like you believe a bunch of stereotypes about SF (all the green/environmental/hippie stuff you've mentioned), and are actually trying to describe the city based on them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 10:26 AM
 
Location: The City
18,538 posts, read 14,638,119 times
Reputation: 5285
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post

City proper populations mean nothing. SF has a much larger MSA than San Jose does, but in the case of the Bay Area, the SJ and SF MSAs should truly be combined, but aren't due to census technicalities. Even so, they're still within the same CSA.




Except that distance has nothing to do with it. It's all about commuting patterns, that's how MSAs and CSAs (metro areas) are defined by the census. SJ and SF have enough commuters between their MSAs to be part of the same CSA. That is NOT the case for Philly and Atlantic city.
Distance yes but on the MSA/CSA designation it is not purely commuter rates but also commuter rates between core counties. It is a little more complex (probably for the better in most cases) and all (commuter rates) is proportional (meaning as a share and not based on absolutes in numbers of people).


The Bay is definately connected on the whole but does have have some polarity.

On rates; actually there are areas in the broader Philly/NJ/NYC region that all have commuter rates to either add MSA and/or CSA connections.

Actually the Philly MSA and NYC MSA have counties that in the broadest sense are meeting MSA to one and CSA to the other; what they dont have is core county commuter rates.

This core county will actually keep SJ and SF from connecting as a unified MSA based on the designations. (well unless the Census changes the criteria)

Also commuter rates are but one classification; for example on DMA SJ and SF are one; as are Atlantic City and Philly (as well as Allentown and Trenton etc.)

census cuts are what they are; there are places only 11 miles from the city border of Philadelphia (Philly is not really a large land area to begin with) not included in the CSA let alone MSA.

But on an area the Bay is an area with some plarity and more grey in the middle. On the whole though to me it is very cohesive and basically one larger area with multiple poles/cores
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 06:40 PM
 
21 posts, read 14,500 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
As far as cultural value for SF, I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than the 60s and the Gold Rush. There's the start of the Chinese-American community which holds SF with particular esteem (and Chinese actually has a separate, non-phonetically adapted name for San Francisco but pretty much no other American city that I know of). There's it's part as a major player and port in the Pacific Theater of Operations for World War II. There's also its place in Beat poetry and artists who came before the hippies. SF also seems to hold a pretty big place in terms of gay rights which seems to contribute a lot to people's perception of the city. And as far as conservation goes, SF was where John Muir and friends established the Sierra Club which was the catalyst and main lobbyist for the national park system and ecological awareness in general--the history of conservation is pretty extensive in SF considering the length of the US's history. Muir's early victories were getting Yosemite, Glacier, Mount Rainier, and Yellowstone established as protected national parks and these are pretty nice meanwhile the history of the Sierra Club aside from just John Muir has also been responsible for extensive conservation efforts and is still really active today (and you might consider joining). Then again, I'm super partial to John Muir and Yosemite in general.
Living in San Francisco obviously I am familiar with these bits of SF lore and Muir Woods is *awesome*, I'm just pointing out that to the rest of the country, these mean little. The Chinese-American or conservationist history of San Francisco is awesome, but it hasn't made much impact on the vast majority of the country outside of the Pacific West... not to denegrate the importance I'm just saying step foot in most major American cities and John Muir is an unknown outside of liberal circles

In any case, your post was great and I take those points in strides
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 06:59 PM
 
21 posts, read 14,500 times
Reputation: 37
Whew, this is a perfect example of the self-deception common when discussing SF and The Bay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
No one thinks SF is synonymous with "the Bay Area".
False. Actually tons of arguments in this thread have used The Bay Area and San Francisco as essentially the same exact thing. A large part of the country (especially people who have never visited) think of San Francisco and The Bay as essentially the same thing, have you ever traveled?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
No San Franciscan thinks the country is getting more "San Franciscan", smart guy. And San Franciscans don't care what other city residents think either. It goes both ways. People are mostly concerned with their immediate surroundings, obviously.
Actually, they do. And yes, San Franciscans, do, dumb guy. It is extremely common for San Franciscans to tell their out-of-town friends how "awesome San Francisco is" and how "They should come to visit" and how they "Wish more places were like San Francisco", and how "close minded" other cities are. You are in absolute denial if you think it is not common for San Franciscans to brag about The Bay and seemingly 'convince' other city residents how great it is or how they should come. Or maybe you just don't have friends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Nobody believes this either. It's not the 60s/70s anymore.
That song I'm referencing was released in 1999 by an extremely influential Californian band who has been around since the late 80's to the present. So you are correct, it's not the 1960's/1970's anymore. Google them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Who actually thinks SF invented that? No one I know. SF is a big advocate of it, but of course SF didn't invent being environmentally freindly or anything dumb like that.
Who actually thinks it? Tons of San Franciscans believe they are the greenest/most sustainable city in the world. This is simply not true. The word "invent" in the context did not literally mean "create from thin air" but San Franciscans have an inflated sense of their importance in the green movement - they are right along side the Pacific Northwest, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
False.
True. Silicon Valley is not a reference to the city of San Francisco, it is a reference to the South Bay, most prominently comprised of Palo Alto and San Jose. Seriously read the news before you make true/false claims.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Ever hear of world war II? SF and the Bay Area had a very large part to play in that conflict: multiple shipyards (in SF, Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo) and other war industries (i know some stuff was manufactured in SJ, including tanks, if I remember right), SF was the main point of debarkation for US troops in the pacific, and the UN charter was signed in SF. And What about Bank of America? Wells Fargo? Both were founded in SF over a century ago, and they're both obviously a big part of American life.
I commented it was an oversimplification (their importance in WWII? No **** - it's called The Presidio), but compared to Boston or Philly even that pales in comparison, that's all I'm saying. Get it right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
You honestly sound like you believe a bunch of stereotypes about SF (all the green/environmental/hippie stuff you've mentioned), and are actually trying to describe the city based on them
I live in San Francisco and I attended the City College of San Francisco, so again you are simply incorrect. You just don't like it because I'm keeping it real and doing the most DREADED thing to anyone who likes SF or The Bay... ADMITTING IT'S NOT PERFECT AND OTHER PLACES ARE NICE TOO.

Sorry to break it to you. You can comfort yourself by going a hike through Golden Gate Park and saying it's not windy or foggy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2012, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia,New Jersey, NYC!
6,972 posts, read 11,751,041 times
Reputation: 2467
posting from boston

i don't see a difference..

but boston has better service - shocking
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2012, 09:10 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,816 posts, read 6,139,355 times
Reputation: 2907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Forever View Post
Whew, this is a perfect example of the self-deception common when discussing SF and The Bay.



False. Actually tons of arguments in this thread have used The Bay Area and San Francisco as essentially the same exact thing. A large part of the country (especially people who have never visited) think of San Francisco and The Bay as essentially the same thing, have you ever traveled?
Point out the argument. I'm from the Bay Area (born and raised) and have never lived in SF. When people ask me where I'm from I say I'm from the Bay (thus my location) not San Francisco. People from Oakland say they're from Oakland (not the Bay or San Francisco) and people from San Jose tend to say they're from San Jose. Anybody from the suburbs in-between those three cities generally says they're from the Bay Area. You don't know what you're talking about.


Quote:
Actually, they do. And yes, San Franciscans, do, dumb guy. It is extremely common for San Franciscans to tell their out-of-town friends how "awesome San Francisco is" and how "They should come to visit" and how they "Wish more places were like San Francisco", and how "close minded" other cities are. You are in absolute denial if you think it is not common for San Franciscans to brag about The Bay and seemingly 'convince' other city residents how great it is or how they should come. Or maybe you just don't have friends.
It is extremely common for transplant San Franciscans to tell their friends back home how "awesome San Francisco is" and how "They should come to visit". San Francisco is seen as a "status city" by people outside of the Bay much like NYC and Boston are by non-locals, so it will always attract a population of people who think their p*** is perfume now because they moved to SF. Take a trip to the Sunset or the southside of the City and see how many people think living in SF is a status symbol rofl.


Quote:
Who actually thinks it? Tons of San Franciscans believe they are the greenest/most sustainable city in the world. This is simply not true. The word "invent" in the context did not literally mean "create from thin air" but San Franciscans have an inflated sense of their importance in the green movement - they are right along side the Pacific Northwest, nothing more, nothing less.
The Bay Area is in fact the most environmentally conscious region in the country and one of the most in the world. There's no exaggeration in saying that whatsoever, more like denial on your part.


Quote:
True. Silicon Valley is not a reference to the city of San Francisco, it is a reference to the South Bay, most prominently comprised of Palo Alto and San Jose. Seriously read the news before you make true/false claims.
Silicon Valley has expanded a lot in the last decade... many software companies are headquartering in San Francisco and Oakland these days. The heart of SV will always be San Jose but its borders have increasingly grown outwards.

Quote:
I commented it was an oversimplification (their importance in WWII? No **** - it's called The Presidio), but compared to Boston or Philly even that pales in comparison, that's all I'm saying. Get it right.
You sound more and more like a hater... well no **** SF isn't historically comparable Philly or Boston, which doesn't mean it's better or worse by the way. Some of us appreciate that it isn't and judging from many of the posters on this forum plenty of people in Philly and Boston appreciate they're not SF.




Quote:
I live in San Francisco and I attended the City College of San Francisco, so again you are simply incorrect. You just don't like it because I'm keeping it real and doing the most DREADED thing to anyone who likes SF or The Bay... ADMITTING IT'S NOT PERFECT AND OTHER PLACES ARE NICE TOO.

Sorry to break it to you. You can comfort yourself by going a hike through Golden Gate Park and saying it's not windy or foggy
The amount of SF hating on this board stretches far beyond "keeping it real"... it's more like a lot of people who mask the real bone they have to pick with it (usually having to do with the perception of SF being a gay mecca or that there's too many asians/too few blacks/etc.) by attacking the "superiority complex" of SF locals, all the while boosting their own cities. SF is SF and that's all it is and will continue to be... if you don't like it that's great too, because frankly nobody cares.
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:

Over $79,000 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 > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top