Is San Francisco-San Jose the West Coast equivalent of Phialdelphia-New York City? (compare, bigger)

[Rhymes with Best Coast]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

Totally disagree for so many reasons.

Philadelphia and NYC are better connected than many people realize. Only 46 miles from border to border, quick commute via accela, and the suburbs of the cities overlap.

HOWEVER

They are not as connected as San Fran and San Jose and not as close to one another. Besides regardless of physical ties I do not discount the mental/perceived connection of the actual residents of those areas. How many Philadelphians would consider themselves to live in the NYC area or vis versa? Probably somewhere around zero percent. These are two distinct cities with two very distinct identities.

Meanwhile there are plenty of people in San Fran and San Jose who consider themselves to be part of the greater bay area. So these two cities are not just more connected physically but also more connected by perception and identity.

Despite their close distance NYC and Philly came of age in a time when traveling between the two cities took days, not minutes. By the time trains and automobiles shortened the commute these cities were already hundreds of years old and with their own distinct identities.

This is not even mentioning the fact that the scale is WAY off. If NYC-Philly functioned as a single metro area like many claim the bay area does, NYC-Philly would dwarf the Bay Area in just about every conceivable way.

As I said though this is all moot because they're not that comparable. Even when the area between Philly and NYC builds up more (it will), even when transportation infrastructure between the two improves (it will), and commute between the two becomes quicker and easier (it will), Philly and NYC will still be totally different entities.

Finally! Someone from Philly telling it like it is.

I would go even further and say that 100% of San Joseans see themselves as part of the San Francisco Bay Area, in reality/mental/conciousness. It's complete and utter blanket coverage. When you live in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Los Altos, San Jose, etc, you are living in the San Francisco Bay Area PERIOD. No sensible person in the world would ever question this.

Here are other clear as day differences from the PHI/NY connection.

Same TV market - same news stations - reporting one the same things - advertising to the same base.
Same FM radio market.
San Francisco 49ers new stadium will be in Santa Clara county, and the team will still be called San Francisco.
San Jose is San Francisco Giants territory per MLB.
In fact, a second victory parade for the 2010 world series was held in San Jose. That's how close we are.
San Francisco Giants To Get Second Victory Parade -- In San Jose - San Francisco News - The Snitch

LOL at the things I just listed happening between NY/Philly.

The analogy to that would be:
LA-San Diego
Chicago-Milwaukee
SF-Sacramento

[bchris02]

No! Now Los Angeles-San Diego-Inland Empire is a better comparison.

[JakeDog]

San Jose isn't a real city. More of a shabby suburb. SF/Oakalnd is similar to D.C./Baltimore. Oakland is yucky, but it feels like a city. San Jose is an afterthought- surrounded by tech/money and contains some itself, but it is the shabbiest part of that area and not urban in any way.

[OyCrumbler]

Short answer is no, because Philly and NYC does not have much of a shared identity. Sure, there's northeastern cities, but that's shared with a fair bit of other cities.

The Bay Area is brought together by being in the same state, sharing a lot of regional services, and being around a single geographic feature (the San Francisco Bay). Maybe Dallas and Fort Worth (the Metroplex) are a closer comparison, though there seems to be more of an enmity between those two. The Bay Area rings the Bay and those flatlands are surrounded by hills which makes the bands of development a bit narrow--though still very connected geographically due to its transit infrastructure such as commuter/heavy rail, freeways, and multiple bridge/tunnel crossings of the bay.

What's most important though is the shared collective grouping people living in the Bay Area have of themselves.

[Pine to Vine]

As I understand it, SF & SJ share TV markets and network affiliates. I presume this means they report on one another's news, sports, weather, etc. Together with Oakland, they also share sports teams. I see them as an integrated market in many respects. This is not the case with Philly & NY.

I would say SF-SJ are the west coast equivalent of DFW.

[Huge Foodie 215]

Originally Posted by bchris02

No! Now Los Angeles-San Diego-Inland Empire is a better comparison.

Aside from population figures, not even close. Even Southern Californians have admitted in this thread have admitted that because of the marine corps base and the mountainous terrain to the east, any sort of development and commuting between the two will be much smaller in scale.

The developed area of Central New Jersey and Lehigh Valley (or the possible area that could send commuters to both Philadelphia and New York City) is MUCH lager than LA-SD-IE.

Most of the orientation of Orange and Riverside Counties DEFINITELY skews north, and definitely closer to Los Angeles than San Diego. In Central New Jersey, its relatively even between the development toward Philadelphia and development toward NYC.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Rhymes with Best Coast

Finally! Someone from Philly telling it like it is.

I would go even further and say that 100% of San Joseans see themselves as part of the San Francisco Bay Area, in reality/ mental conciousness. It's complete and utter blanket coverage. When you live in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Los Altos, San Jose, etc, you are living in the San Francisco Bay Area PERIOD. No sensible person in the world would ever question this.

Here are other clear as day differences from the PHI/NY connection.

Same TV market - same news stations - advertising to the same base
Same FM radio market
San Francisco 49ers new stadium will be in Santa Clara county, and the team will still be called San Francisco.
San Jose is San Francisco Giants territory per MLB.
In fact, a second victory parade for the 2010 world series was held in San Jose. That's how close we are.
San Francisco Giants To Get Second Victory Parade -- In San Jose - San Francisco News - The Snitch

LOL at the things I just listed happening between NY/Philly.

I actually agree with the premis by Phillies

Though a couple of points

Part of the NYC MSA is in the Philly TV Market
There are Philly market radio stations that broadcast from the NYC CSA
Based on rooting alliance; there are areas of the NYC MSA/CSA which are handially Philles and Eagles territory

That being said they are very distinct cities with very distinct identities. They are just very close and very populated in the space between (remember the population of the entire Bay area CSA equivelent) lives in the ~80 miles between the two CBDs or cities and this excludes any population in either of the cities at either end. So there is no real division line for population or work markets and commuter flow and a grey space in the middle that graduallly affiliates more with each pole (city)

To me as I said earlier Boston and Providence are the smaller version of NYC and Philly Not SF/SJ or LA and SD

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215

I think it's an interesting comparison regardless, since city limit to city limit Philadelphia to NYC is only a mere 46 miles as the crow flies, while SF to SJ's downtown to downtown is 41 miles. Then once you bring in the DC/Baltimore scenario into play, it would make sense why some would question whether or not SF/SJ's interplay is analogous to NYC/Philadelphia, given like distances.

Those two figures are two completely different things. If anything it shows how much closer SJ and SF are to each other.

Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215

I also don't find the comparison of SF/Oak-SJ to DFW to hold much water. The border of Tarrant and Dallas County are MUCH more developed than the borders of Santa Clara County to San Mateo/Alameda County. The combined total line of development area for the border of San Mateo-Santa Clara County is around 2.7 miles, while the developed area of the Alameda County-Santa Clara County border is at most, 1 mile, while nearly the whole border of Tarrant and Dallas County is wholly developed.

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.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215

Aside from population figures, not even close. Even Southern Californians have admitted in this thread have admitted that because of the marine corps base and the mountainous terrain to the east, any sort of development and commuting between the two will be much smaller in scale.

The developed area of Central New Jersey and Lehigh Valley (or the possible area that could send commuters to both Philadelphia and New York City) is MUCH lager than LA-SD-IE.

Most of the orientation of Orange and Riverside Counties DEFINITELY skews north, and definitely closer to Los Angeles than San Diego. In Central New Jersey, its relatively even between the development toward Philadelphia and development toward NYC.

Honestly I think the Inland Empire/LA to San Francisco/San Jose comparisons are pretty accurate and better than the Philly/NY to SJ/SF.

[krudmonk]

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.