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.
They aren't. This is pretty easily seen by the air. The area that forms the giant "U" or crab claw around the bay is well connected and urban to dense suburban the whole way though. But SC, Sonoma, Napa and even Marin don't really feel connected b/c there is the big water gaps, parkland, and mountains. What it does create is a lot of options of "variety" of scene not found so much in other metros.
Which is ironic, because Marin and areas to the east of the Oakland Hills are included in the San Francisco MSA, whereas the urban ring including the South Bay is not. I think that the San Francisco metropolitan population figures are probably the most screwed up of any in the U.S.
They aren't. This is pretty easily seen by the air. The area that forms the giant "U" or crab claw around the bay is well connected and urban to dense suburban the whole way though. But SC, Sonoma, Napa and even Marin don't really feel connected b/c there is the big water gaps, parkland, and mountains. What it does create is a lot of options of "variety" of scene not found so much in other metros.
Yea but my problem with this is that it creates cultural and logistical balkanization. Compare the 680 corridor with Marin. Or silicon valley with SF. Santa Cruz with Napa.
Logistical, look at all the fragmented transit. You got AC, Muni, ACE, Bart, Cal Train, VTA, and god knows what else.
Which is ironic, because Marin and areas to the east of the Oakland Hills are included in the San Francisco MSA, whereas the urban ring including the South Bay is not. I think that the San Francisco metropolitan population figures are probably the most screwed up of any in the U.S.
True, if anything the North Bay should not be included, and the South Bay should.
Anyway, I think cities like Boston and SF give this impression mainly due to the power of their cores. Both have very large, dense cores and have a pretty tenuous hold over their regions. I think that their urban cores give them the feel of a very large city, even if their MSAs don't necessarily reflect that.
Due to its age, once you leave Boston's urban core it becomes much different than most other cities in the nation. Rather than the never-ending blanket of suburbs which are of comparative size and density, Boston has dozens of clusters of independent cities, towns & villages (secondary cities: Worcester, Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, Providence, New Bedford, Fall River, Framingham, Manchester, and Nashua. Even though is still the Hub, their bodies don't physically connect the way many other satellite cities do with the primary city.
I think the Bay Area is much different because it's considerably more connected. It's very dense throughout, without much drop-off whatsoever. For that reason, I'd say that it's fair to say that the SF Bay achieves 7+ million people as a metro while Boston achieves this as a region.
Ya Boston is more of a spiderweb as main Roads between towns connect "Hubs" and then each Town Center State roads are oriented towards a satalite city, then they orient themselves with National roads towards Boston
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.
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.
