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: Is San Francisco-San Jose the West Coast equivalent of Phialdelphia-New York City?
Yes 16 10.67%
No 134 89.33%
Voters: 150. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-28-2012, 04:52 PM
 
78 posts, read 74,829 times
Reputation: 59

Advertisements

Listen Philly posters. I love you an all but screw New York. As I read these threads, I see a lot of people posting on how Philly can be in the CSA as NYC. Why? Philadelphia has it's own identity. We would still succeed with or without New York.

And Philadelphia is NOT in New York's shadow. To be in a shadow to me means, that you would completely not be recognized for anything because someone's bigger and better is 2 feet away. Which means, if NYC was removed from off the face of the Earth, Philly would still never get noticed. The only city in the shadow of another is Reno.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2012, 04:55 PM
 
637 posts, read 268,640 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
I think Philadelphia and its suburbs alone is almost as big as the Bay Area, which is an oddly shaped and fractured region. As others have said, NY/PHI is not really as cohesive, either.

There really isn't a parallel for the Bay Area when you factor in Oakland and the East Bay.
The Federal Government, who knows better than all of us who do this as a hobby, has defined Oakland and the East Bay to be part of San Francisco's metro area, for better and for worse, while leaving out San Jose.

Quote:
Honestly I think the Inland Empire/LA to San Francisco/San Jose comparisons are pretty accurate.
In a sense, yes, but Inland Empire/LA to SF-SJ in terms of connected development leaves the former dominating the latter. Again, 3.7 combined miles is way less than the 11-12 or so connected miles of development along the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County Lines.

But both are dwarfed by the many miles of development between NYC and Philadelphia. Despite the lower density of the development, its development nonetheless.

Quote:
Those two figures are two completely different things. If anything it shows how much closer SJ and SF are to each other.
Again, SF and SJ are MUCH smaller cities than NYC and Philadelphia in terms of population, and SF's city limits don't really stretch out that far from DTSF, while San Jose's skews away from San Francisco.

If anything, given the population figures and the scope, this shows that NYC and Philadelphia really are beginning to emerge as a cohesive mega-metropolis, though in its beginning stages. A few decades ago, people thought that the connection between DC and Baltimore or Boston and Providence was weak as well, but now they are becoming as interconnected as ever while retaining their identity.

Quote:
That is because of geographic constraints... In the flatlands (which are the 2.7 miles and 1 mile you get) there is a pretty straight line of 5k+ ppsm development in the Bay Area, on both sides of the bay. This stretches from downtown San Jose up to SF and on the other side up to Oakland (with lots of higher densities between).

Dallas and Forth Worth are like two balls that have intersected, while the Bay is a giant horseshoe.
True.

If the borders of Santa Clara/San Mateo/Alameda Counties were drawn differently, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, but reality is what it is.

I would love to hear the point of view from a native San Jose resident to see what the relation of the nearly 1 million persons San Jose has to 800,000 person San Francisco.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp Point View Post
Listen Philly posters. I love you an all but screw New York. As I read these threads, I see a lot of people posting on how Philly can be in the CSA as NYC. Why? Philadelphia has it's own identity. We would still succeed with or without New York.

And Philadelphia is NOT in New York's shadow. To be in a shadow to me means, that you would completely not be recognized for anything because someone's bigger and better is 2 feet away. Which means, if NYC was removed from off the face of the Earth, Philly would still never get noticed. The only city in the shadow of another is Reno.
I think you're being somewhat negative about having a shared metro region with NYC. I don't think it has anything to do with being "overshadowed" per se, but rather showing how interconnected Philadelphia and NYC really are.

Being overshadowed is the state of affairs we have right now, where Philadelphia gets forgotten because of DC and NYC being literally right next to us. If Philadelphia were combined with NYC, it would strengthen the notion of the extreme urban nature of this part of the Northeast, and would be a great sticking point to many urban enthusiasts.

It's not as if Philadelphia were suddenly to be a suburb of NYC. What it means is that Philadelphia would be the other pole of the gigantic metro region of NYC-Philadelphia. Sure, NYC would still get more attention, but now at least Philadelphia isn't left alone to get absolutely no attention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,005 posts, read 5,711,875 times
Reputation: 2884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
The Federal Government, who knows better than all of us who do this as a hobby, has defined Oakland and the East Bay to be part of San Francisco's metro area, for better and for worse, while leaving out San Jose.

In a sense, yes, but Inland Empire/LA to SF-SJ in terms of connected development leaves the former dominating the latter. Again, 3.7 combined miles is way less than the 11-12 or so connected miles of development along the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County Lines.

But both are dwarfed by the many miles of development between NYC and Philadelphia. Despite the lower density of the development, its development nonetheless.
This cross-section thing - that the border between LA and IE is 12 miles vs. the border between SF and SJ being just a few miles. I don't think it is relevant really at all.

For example, the Miami metro is long and thin, but still one cohesive metro area - the SF Bay Area is similar but curved, hugging the bay as opposed to the Atlantic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
Again, SF and SJ are MUCH smaller cities than NYC and Philadelphia in terms of population, and SF's city limits don't really stretch out that far from DTSF, while San Jose's skews away from San Francisco.

If anything, given the population figures and the scope, this shows that NYC and Philadelphia really are beginning to emerge as a cohesive mega-metropolis, though in its beginning stages. A few decades ago, people thought that the connection between DC and Baltimore or Boston and Providence was weak as well, but now they are becoming as interconnected as ever while retaining their identity.
I just think that comparing apples to apples (or in this case distance from CBD to CBD) is much more telling about the relationship the cities have with each other, as opposed to the distance from one city's exurb to the other's.

I agree they are merging but I still don't see them being as cohesively a single unit as I see the Bay Area.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
I would love to hear the point of view from a native San Jose resident to see what the relation of the nearly 1 million persons San Jose has to 800,000 person San Francisco.
My brother lives in Pleasanton (Oakland suburb), works and goes to school in SJ, and does most social activities in SF or Oakland (because SJ is pretty dull.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 05:21 PM
 
637 posts, read 268,640 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
This cross-section thing - that the border between LA and IE is 12 miles vs. the border between SF and SJ being just a few miles. I don't think it is relevant really at all.
Reason why its relevant is that according US Census Bureau standards, the amount of development that needs to be taken into in order for two areas to be joined as an MSA is at least 3 miles of uninterrupted development (regardless of density), which SF and SJ currently lack. There is 2.7 miles of uninterrupted development on the Santa Clara-San Mateo side and only 1 mile on the Santa Clara-Alameda Side.

In addition, the areas have to fit commuter requirements of 25%, which probably will never be met since Santa Clara has the plurality of the jobs of Silicon Valley, so for all intents and purposes, it IS the job center.

Quote:
For example, the Miami metro is long and thin, but still one cohesive metro area - the SF Bay Area is similar but curved, hugging the bay as opposed to the Atlantic.
Across South Florida, all the county line combinations (Dade-Broward, Broward-West Palm Beach) are developed for at least 10 miles at the thinnest line. In addition, the counties all meet the commuter requirement to be considered one MSA.

SF/SJ is more like PHL-NYC in that sense rather than South Florida because SF and SJ are in themselves, huge job centers, like PHL and NYC, while in South Florida, there is a slight huger pull toward Miami, and maybe Fort Lauderdale.

Quote:
I just think that comparing apples to apples (or in this case distance from CBD to CBD) is much more telling about the relationship the cities have with each other, as opposed to the distance from one city's exurb to the other's.
I can see what you mean. However, it's still important to note that the distance differential between NYC/PHL and SF/SJ using the city limits measure, even if for NYC that means the south end of Staten Island, is not that large.

If SF/SJ can be seen as one entity, then NYC/PHL will follow soon enough given that 46 miles nowadays is not a very huge distance to hurdle.

I know people in NNJ, within eyesight of Manhattan, who regularly make trips to go to Philadelphia's bars.

Quote:
I agree they are merging but I still don't see them being as cohesively a single unit as I see the Bay Area.
Give it time, and I think soon they will be in the same category.

Quote:
My brother lives in Pleasanton (Oakland suburb), works and goes to school in SJ, and does most social activities in SF or Oakland (because SJ is pretty dull.)
I have heard that SJ is making strides to become a larger entertainment venue.

I know that the Sharks and Earthquakes are already there. Do other areas in the Bay Area cheer for those teams as if it was their own home team as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ area
6,628 posts, read 3,898,712 times
Reputation: 3641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp Point View Post
Listen Philly posters. I love you an all but screw New York. As I read these threads, I see a lot of people posting on how Philly can be in the CSA as NYC. Why? Philadelphia has it's own identity. We would still succeed with or without New York.

And Philadelphia is NOT in New York's shadow. To be in a shadow to me means, that you would completely not be recognized for anything because someone's bigger and better is 2 feet away. Which means, if NYC was removed from off the face of the Earth, Philly would still never get noticed. The only city in the shadow of another is Reno.
Being in the same CSA as New York isn't going to change Philly's unique identity. It's not like most people in the Philly suburbs are going to say they live in the New York suburbs and not the Philly suburbs. Washington and Baltimore share one CSA and those two cities still have their distinct identities. I think your blowing things a little out of proportion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 05:36 PM
 
239 posts, read 239,121 times
Reputation: 236
IMO no.

San Franscisco and San Jose (along with Oakland) are all in the same metro area. New York and Philly are always thought of as separate metro areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,005 posts, read 5,711,875 times
Reputation: 2884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
Reason why its relevant is that according US Census Bureau standards, the amount of development that needs to be taken into in order for two areas to be joined as an MSA is at least 3 miles of uninterrupted development (regardless of density), which SF and SJ currently lack. There is 2.7 miles of uninterrupted development on the Santa Clara-San Mateo side and only 1 mile on the Santa Clara-Alameda Side.

In addition, the areas have to fit commuter requirements of 25%, which probably will never be met since Santa Clara has the plurality of the jobs of Silicon Valley, so for all intents and purposes, it IS the job center.



Across South Florida, all the county line combinations (Dade-Broward, Broward-West Palm Beach) are developed for at least 10 miles at the thinnest line. In addition, the counties all meet the commuter requirement to be considered one MSA.

SF/SJ is more like PHL-NYC in that sense rather than South Florida because SF and SJ are in themselves, huge job centers, like PHL and NYC, while in South Florida, there is a slight huger pull toward Miami, and maybe Fort Lauderdale.



I can see what you mean. However, it's still important to note that the distance differential between NYC/PHL and SF/SJ using the city limits measure, even if for NYC that means the south end of Staten Island, is not that large.

If SF/SJ can be seen as one entity, then NYC/PHL will follow soon enough given that 46 miles nowadays is not a very huge distance to hurdle.

I know people in NNJ, within eyesight of Manhattan, who regularly make trips to go to Philadelphia's bars.



Give it time, and I think soon they will be in the same category.



I have heard that SJ is making strides to become a larger entertainment venue.

I know that the Sharks and Earthquakes are already there. Do other areas in the Bay Area cheer for those teams as if it was their own home team as well?
As far as I know the Sharks have a pretty dedicated fan base throughout the entire Bay (I believe it's the only hockey team up there) and when I lived in Pleasanton for a short period met a lot of Sharks fans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 06:02 PM
 
9,976 posts, read 7,251,510 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
I know that the Sharks and Earthquakes are already there. Do other areas in the Bay Area cheer for those teams as if it was their own home team as well?
There's a ton of Sharks fans in San Francisco and the East Bay. They're basically the Bay Area's hockey team--and they even played in Daly City for their first two years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 06:26 PM
 
239 posts, read 239,121 times
Reputation: 236
It's interesting how people have been saying NYC and Philly are so interconnected or will be. Being a native New Yorker (I know I say this so many times I apologize! ) I never thought of NYC being interconnected at all with Philly. Even though NYC and Philly are only 100 miles apart, they are completely separate metro areas. San Francisco and San Jose may be separate metro areas according to the federal government, but most people think of them as the same regional area (Bay Area). Also as stated before San Francisco and San Jose share some of the same media markets, where as NYC and Philly are completely separate.

San Francisco and San Jose are 45 miles apart, making it easy for a person to from one city to make a day trip to the other city. When New Yorkers go to Philly and vice versa, they don't usually do it just one day. This alone makes San Francisco and San Jose much more interconnected.

I feel like New Yorkers tend to forget about Philly for some reason. If anything, the next big city in proximity New Yorkers compare themselves to is Boston. (Although maybe this is just because of the sports rivalries).

I don't know anything about population statistics, but the population of NYC has grown. Due to growth, perhaps sometime in the future, the suburbs of the two cities will be more connected though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 06:40 PM
 
637 posts, read 268,640 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCNNY View Post
It's interesting how people have been saying NYC and Philly are so interconnected or will be. Being a native New Yorker (I know I say this so many times I apologize! ) I never thought of NYC being interconnected at all with Philly. Even though NYC and Philly are only 100 miles apart, they are completely separate metro areas. San Francisco and San Jose may be separate metro areas according to the federal government, but most people think of them as the same regional area (Bay Area). Also as stated before San Francisco and San Jose share some of the same media markets, where as NYC and Philly are completely separate.

San Francisco and San Jose are 45 miles apart, making it easy for a person to from one city to make a day trip to the other city. When New Yorkers go to Philly and vice versa, they don't usually do it just one day. This alone makes San Francisco and San Jose much more interconnected.

I feel like New Yorkers tend to forget about Philly for some reason. If anything, the next big city in proximity New Yorkers compare themselves to is Boston. (Although maybe this is just because of the sports rivalries).

I don't know anything about population statistics, but the population of NYC has grown. Due to growth, perhaps sometime in the future, the suburbs of the two cities will be more connected though.
Well, to use an analogy, I think it would make the relationship between Philadelphia and NYC more like DC-Baltimore. I'm 100% sure that residents of both areas view themselves as being part of distinct areas, despite the connectivity through development between them. However, that does not rule out the fact that there is a strong tenuous connection between the two.

San Francisco and San Jose's past relationship before the boom of Silicon Valley and before the advent of the car is unknown to me. According to Wikipedia, San Jose was one of the first capitals of California. It was already an established town when San Francisco started growing. They could have had as distinct of a relationship, but someone from California has to enlighten me.

Again, I don't think its a negative thing if NYC-Philadelphia were combined, just like if SF-SJ were to be combined.
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 $84,000 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

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