U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Top 3 Most Important City In The West Coast In The U.S.
Seattle 13 16.67%
Portland 1 1.28%
Sacramento 1 1.28%
Oakland 0 0%
San Francisco 14 17.95%
San Jose 1 1.28%
Fresno 1 1.28%
Los Angeles 40 51.28%
Long Beach 1 1.28%
San Diego 4 5.13%
Las Vegas 0 0%
Phoenix 2 2.56%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2013, 02:59 AM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,495,836 times
Reputation: 848

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyJ26 View Post
But then again, "Silicon Valley" is not one particular city....
Sure it isn't. But I was speaking of Los Angeles proper, SF proper and SD proper. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't Silicon Valley more a part of San Jose? That's why I didn't give SV mention as a part of SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2013, 04:23 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
1,875 posts, read 2,550,644 times
Reputation: 1154
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthCali4LifeSD View Post
ironcouger, let's not get ahead of ourselves. San Francisco and San Jose are as distinct as San Diego County (pop 3 million) is from neighboring Orange County (pop 3 million).

Furthermore, let's also not get ahead of ourselves regarding Seattle's population or density.

San Diego has 656,000 people in zip codes 92101 to 92116, which includes downtown and communities that surround downtown (86 total square miles). That's about 7,600 people a square mile in what I consider SD's urban zone. Seattle is around 83 square miles with about 625,000 residents, so roughly the same as San Diego's urban zone. San Diego is usually more packed with tourists which can inflate the actual number of people per square mile at any given time. Urban-area wise, San Diego has 3 million people in about 730 square miles, or about 4,000 people per square mile. Seattle has 3 million people in its urban area, but in 1,010 square miles, or 3,000 people per square mile.

Yes, Seattle is an incredibly attractive city next to a highly desirable twin sister to the north (Vancouver), but San Diego is surrounded by urban zones that can be found in Orange County, Los Angeles County, and the Inland Empire, each with a plethora of big city offerings.
The Seattle's urban area contains most of king county. A vast area of king county is mountainous and rural. The population centers along the sound contain a much higher density of people. The City of Seattle itself has a density of over 7100 people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 05:24 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,094,662 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillaKlwn8523 View Post
How about the fact that there are more tech companies actually based within the city limits of San Jose than San Francisco, with the bulk of "Silicon Valley" being in the same county as San Jose and not San Francisco. Given how large the Bay Area is becoming because of loose government statistics, it may include the whole West Coast one day. This is CITY DATA, not metro data, not combined statistical area data.
See what I mean? It's a pretty thin argument to try to put any substance behind arbitrary city limits designations that were drawn around prominent geographical figures in horse and buggy days, when two cities truly function as a single entity. By your logic, why wouldn't Palo Alto or San Mateo be the most important city of the Bay Area?

And you had to reach all the way to something as inconsequential as the name of this web site to try to state your case?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 05:53 AM
 
Location: Washington State
15,402 posts, read 8,054,172 times
Reputation: 13200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
Sure it isn't. But I was speaking of Los Angeles proper, SF proper and SD proper. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't Silicon Valley more a part of San Jose? That's why I didn't give SV mention as a part of SF.
Good question and I think the answer is yes. The tech industry of Silicon Valley is more closely aligned with San Jose than SF. If you combine the Bay area as one city/metro, then my vote changes to the Bay Area over LA considering the value of the tech industry. If you consider San Jose and SF as separate city/metro areas, then my vote would be:

LA
Seattle
San Jose

As Ivoc mentioned, SF itself is a pretty place with a strong finance center but otherwise a pretty inconsequential city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,175 posts, read 21,776,227 times
Reputation: 10254
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillaKlwn8523 View Post
How about the fact that there are more tech companies actually based within the city limits of San Jose than San Francisco, with the bulk of "Silicon Valley" being in the same county as San Jose and not San Francisco. Given how large the Bay Area is becoming because of loose government statistics, it may include the whole West Coast one day. This is CITY DATA, not metro data, not combined statistical area data.
There's more in San Jose and a lot more outside of both San Jose and San Francisco, but San Francisco still has a good number (Twitter, Square, Wikimedia which includes Wikipedia, Craigslist, Dropbox, Instagram, Yelp, BitTorrent, etc.). Along with the tech scene though, SF also has major construction, architecture, clothing, food, banks and financial services, biotech (McKesson, one of the largest in the world), hospitality, publishing and retail companies. Part of what makes the Bay Area so powerful economically is that it has a very strong and diverse economy, and SF itself is host to much of that diversity.

San Francisco also has a lot more name recognition around the world and a lot more cultural amenities. It's host to great museums and performing arts, trend-setting restaurants, some great colleges and universities, and a fairly influential LGBT community. It's the seat of the California supreme court and generally the seat of many regional branches of the federal government for Northern California, California, or the entire West Coast (such as with the federal reserve or the court of appeals). Also, if you're going to harp on this being CITY DATA, not metro data, etc., then why would you undermine that being even mentioning what's in the same county of which? It sounds like you don't really want to make the distinction so much as just have an axe to grind with San Francisco.
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top