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.
The problem is that you assume if one designation is wrong, then they must all be wrong when that clearly isn't the case. In the West Coast, the two major metropolitan areas (LA and SF) clearly have areas attached to them, that only grew BECAUSE of them, not be apart of the technical MSA because of the way commuter patterns developed.
Actually I would say LA's growth was more naturally derived than the Bay Area. The South Bay area(Silicon Valley-San Jose was all farmland as little as 50 years ago). It was more a product of mass population explosion from WW 2 than a direct product of SF. Based on history the N + S Bay had more of a merger than a organic outflow from SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower
You state that SF is 45 miles away from SJ, therefore isn't part of the metro area. Well, what about how far away Milpitas is away from Fremont? Or how about East Palo Alto to Palo Alto?
And the same can be said for Philadephia. The main suburban job hub attract hundreds of thousands of commuters from micro areas abutting but not included in Philadlephia CMSA(Lancaster,Allentown,Central Jersey,South jersey,Dover etc..)
My beef isnt with you. I'm more perplexed why every other metro gets supersized CMSA's but Philadelphia leaves itself out of that mix. If Boston can claim Providence then Philadlephia should be given rights to Trenton Allentown,Lancaster,Atlantic City
etc etc.
Quote:
Anyways, if you want to pump up Philadelphia, that's fine. Just don't be surprised by the results. Even if Philadelphia is bigger than Washington DC, it still won't make it more important because Washington is the nation's capital. People can even argue that Washington is even more important than NYC, but I won't make that one. Washington isn't important because it adds Baltimore, but because of its real power it has over the rest of our lives whether we like it or not. If you want to add Trenton, add Trenton by all means. The results will still be exactly the same.
I'm not trying to pump up Philaldephia. I'm just trying to make the case that Philadlephia was and still is one of the great historic cores of this country and one of the great metroes. Ive presented facts to back up that statement.
Its disingenuous and counterproductive to reel out stats from a 13,000 sq. mile Houston or Wash-Va-WVA-MD CMSA and compare it to a 5000 sq. mile Philadlephia CMSA.
Actually I would say LA's growth was more naturally derived than the Bay Area. The South Bay area(Silicon Valley-San Jose was all farmland as little as 50 years ago). It was more a product of mass population explosion from WW 2 than a direct product of SF. Based on history the N + S Bay had more of a merger than a organic outflow from SF.
What are you talking about? How is LA's growth into the Inland Empire 'more naturally derived' (whatever that means) than the Bay Area. As recent as 2000, most of the Inland Empire was farmland as well! 50 years ago, the City of LA still had orange groves in it (what do you think was in the San Fernando Valley before it became suburbia?). Most long time Inland Empire residents would take exception to that, since Riverside and San Bernardino themselves were job centers before the suburb explosion in the past 2 decades (San Bernardino being near the junction of 2 major railway lines, Riverside with producing oranges). LA gets a slide in your book simply because it has a larger central city that annexed everything it could, while SF restricted annexing extra areas.
San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley were agricultural areas, dependent on the ports of Oakland and San Francisco to ship their product out. For the beginning of Silicon Valley: NetValley
Where do you think most of the funding and investment for SV came from, aside from the Federal Government's R&D projects? It was investors from San Francisco who came and invested in most of these start ups to begin with. Why do you think Stanford University was built in the area it was built in? (even though they're my rivals, I still deeply respect them) Most of where Silicon Valley started was on the peninsula (San Mateo County) spreading southwards into the Santa Clara Valley to be closer to Stanford (which is on the border of San Mateo and Santa Clara County) and because they have more space to expand there.
Ask any resident of 'San Jose Metro' of where they identify. Chances are they won't say San Francisco, but they will say the San Francisco Bay Area. There are probably more SF Giants and SF 49ers fans in the South Bay than in the SF itself (since the City is full of transplants from everywhere). Most of the hardcore NorCal'ers I knew here at Berkeley were from 'San Jose Metro' who don't feel anything apart from San Francisco. That's the reality. If you don't want to accept it, that's up to you. However, its clear that you've never been to California.
Quote:
And the same can be said for Philadephia. The main suburban job hub attract hundreds of thousands of commuters from micro areas abutting but not included in Philadlephia CMSA(Lancaster,Allentown,Central Jersey,South jersey,Dover etc..)
If I'm not mistaken, a huge chunk of South Jersey (minus Trenton and Ocean Counties), Northern Delaware, and some of Northeast Maryland are part of Philadelphia's CMSA. In terms of Central Jersey, I agree that Trenton has way more connection to Philadelphia than NYC and was surprised myself to learn that Trenton was part of NYC's CSA, but in the northern part of that county where Princeton is, it begins to merge with areas such as New Brunswick which is home to many NYC commuters.
Quote:
My beef isnt with you. I'm more perplexed why every other metro gets supersized CMSA's but Philadelphia leaves itself out of that mix. If Boston can claim Providence then Philadlephia should be given rights to Trenton Allentown,Lancaster,Atlantic City
etc etc.
I'm not trying to pump up Philaldephia. I'm just trying to make the case that Philadlephia was and still is one of the great historic cores of this country and one of the great metroes. Ive presented facts to back up that statement.
Its disingenuous and counterproductive to reel out stats from a 13,000 sq. mile Houston or Wash-Va-WVA-MD CMSA and compare it to a 5000 sq. mile Philadlephia CMSA.
It's also disingenious to leave out SJ from the rest of the Bay Area because the Bay Area isn't located in a flat plain that can build out radially instead of in a linear fashion.
Look, I understand that you feel that Philadelphia got the short end of the stick in the Northeast. That doesn't mean its right to do the same in areas 3000 miles away where realities are much different than they are on the East Coast. Geography plays a MUCH bigger role in how areas are built in California that it does in the East. That's a fact.
The MSA is the best measurement of the influence of a core city. The CSA is a farce, something the chamber of commerce can use to overinflate its importance. The CSA also undermines the immense importance of the historic big core cities like NYC-Chi and to a lesser degree Philadelphia Boston and Detroit.Metros whose existence grew around a singular core city.
Baltimore developed before Washington, not because of Washington. And on and on.
The problem is that you assume if one designation is wrong, then they must all be wrong when that clearly isn't the case. In the West Coast, the two major metropolitan areas (LA and SF) clearly have areas attached to them, that only grew BECAUSE of them, not be apart of the technical MSA because of some government definition. Whether you like it or not, realities are much different than the way government defines metro areas.
You state that SF is 45 miles away from SJ, therefore isn't part of the metro area. Well, what about how far away Milpitas is away from Fremont? Or how about East Palo Alto to Palo Alto? There are hundreds upon thousands of commuters that commute between Santa Clara County (or at your insistence, San Jose MSA) and San Mateo and Alameda Counties (or San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA). In fact, by all statistics, all THESE commuters pass the % of how much it takes to become an MSA! You assume that it must be between SF and SJ, when in fact most people in the Bay Area don't even live in SF or SJ!
You think every single Bay Area poster is lying? Have you even ever been to the Bay Area before to know what its like? Try commuting down 101, 280, 880, or 680 on any given day and you'll WISH they were two separate metro areas. In fact, the MSA line goes right through an apartment complex in Milpitas/Fremont! Here's your nice little MSA line:
Or how about the thousands upon thousands of commuters in the Inland Empire practically living on the 60, 10, 210, and 91. Not very many people in SoCal actually think that the Inland Empire is in a different metropolitan area than LA and OC. In fact, they aren't very geographically separated from the rest of the LA area, unlike SF and SJ.
Anyways, if you want to pump up Philadelphia, that's fine. Just don't be surprised by the results. Even if Philadelphia is bigger than Washington DC, it still won't make it more important because Washington is the nation's capital. People can even argue that Washington is even more important than NYC, but I won't make that one. Washington isn't important because it adds Baltimore, but because of its real power it has over the rest of our lives whether we like it or not. If you want to add Trenton, add Trenton by all means. The results will still be exactly the same. All that bravado for nothing.
I live in the East Bay and had to commute daily to school in San Jose and let me tell you 880 and 680 is some of the worst traffic you will see in the Bay Area. There are thousands and thousands of people in the East Bay who are technically in the SF-Oakland-Fremont MSA that commute into San Jose/Santa Clara for work or school.
I think most of the posters who think that San Jose is not apart of the Bay Area have actually never been here. The Bay Area is like one continuous loop. People want to claim that SJ is too far from SF to be in the same metro but look at it this way Fremont is in the same MSA as San Francisco and is only 10 min away from SJ's border!
First of all, what's with the bolded colored text? I was just coloring outside of the lines , please forgive me?
Secondly, DC having a "really bad reputation" and "not being respected" has not been my experience at all when discussing the city with people who don't live here.
Well then in that case why isn't Washington DC the number one city in America. People tend to still see it as a "crime riddled" city even with crime at a all time low , with recent increase in the core city population Washington is on the rebound. Washington DC is full of World Class Venues too Numerous to even bring up or mention "What's The Hey" Something is wrong in the "Federal District of Washington" the one thing that D.C. should excell in Tourist isn't even working for it.
It seems to have quite a good reputation; indeed, even on notoriously fickle City-Data, DC tends to perform quite well in these poll-type questions.
City-Data is make believe , and you can never trust a poll with 100 to 200 people responsing to it.
Actually I would say LA's growth was more naturally derived than the Bay Area. The South Bay area(Silicon Valley-San Jose was all farmland as little as 50 years ago). It was more a product of mass population explosion from WW 2 than a direct product of SF. Based on history the N + S Bay had more of a merger than a organic outflow from SF.
And the same can be said for Philadephia. The main suburban job hub attract hundreds of thousands of commuters from micro areas abutting but not included in Philadlephia CMSA(Lancaster,Allentown,Central Jersey,South jersey,Dover etc..)
My beef isnt with you. I'm more perplexed why every other metro gets supersized CMSA's but Philadelphia leaves itself out of that mix. If Boston can claim Providence then Philadlephia should be given rights to Trenton Allentown,Lancaster,Atlantic City
etc etc.
I'm not trying to pump up Philaldephia. I'm just trying to make the case that Philadlephia was and still is one of the great historic cores of this country and one of the great metroes. Ive presented facts to back up that statement.
Its disingenuous and counterproductive to reel out stats from a 13,000 sq. mile Houston or Wash-Va-WVA-MD CMSA and compare it to a 5000 sq. mile Philadlephia CMSA.
I rep you rainrock just take it "like a man" Philadelphia just got thrown under the BIG YELLOW BUS Called The US Census Bureau for many years OAKLAND wasn't a part of Metro San Francisco and it was only a couple miles away , just imagine that????Everybody even those MEN and WOMEN with a RED TIPPED walking stick know that the U.S.C.B. are full of GAS.
Well then in that case why isn't Washington DC the number one city
in America. People tend to still see it as a "crime riddled" city even
with crime at a all time
OK, first of all, please learn how to quote and respond properly. The way you do it makes it really difficult to reply to your posts.
But to the point above: well, first of all, that's just silly. What I said was that it hasn't been my experience that DC has a "really bad reputation" with the American public. You're going off the deep end extrapolating from that statement that I'm claiming that DC should be "the number one city in America" (whatever that means). People are going to like different cities for different reasons--I never made any claims to DC superiority.
But more to the point, it seems that your perception of DC is that it is crime infested and dangerous, and that you are applying your own personal opinions to that of a large group of people. If this issue is as cut-and-dry as you make it sound, then certainly there would be a wealth of studies and polls that suggest as such, but if such things exist, I haven't seen them. And since I live in central DC, I can also tell you from firsthand experience that your perceptions are in fact misplaced. Our population growth, high housing demand and skyrocketing real estate values do not support your argument.
As for the tourist comment, I have no idea what you are referring to. DC is one of the most visited cities in the nation--why you view that as insufficient, I couldn't begin to fathom. But your perceptions about DC seem misplaced in a multitude of areas.
OK, first of all, please learn how to quote and respond properly. The way you do it makes it really difficult to reply to your posts.
But to the point above: well, first of all, that's just silly. What I said was that it hasn't been my experience that DC has a "really bad reputation" with the American public. You're going off the deep end extrapolating from that statement that I'm claiming that DC should be "the number one city in America" (whatever that means). People are going to like different cities for different reasons--I never made any claims to DC superiority.
But more to the point, it seems that your perception of DC is that it is crime infested and dangerous, and that you are applying your own personal opinions to that of a large group of people. If this issue is as cut-and-dry as you make it sound, then certainly there would be a wealth of studies and polls that suggest as such, but if such things exist, I haven't seen them. And since I live in central DC, I can also tell you from firsthand experience that your perceptions are in fact misplaced. Our population growth, high housing demand and skyrocketing real estate values do not support your argument.
As for the tourist comment, I have no idea what you are referring to. DC is one of the most visited cities in the nation--why you view that as insufficient, I couldn't begin to fathom. But your perceptions about DC seem misplaced in a multitude of areas.
I almost rep you for that post LOL Washington DC is a great city , that I have traveled to many times in the 1970's which is quite a while ago , but anyway Washington DC is a city that just recently turned itself around , and it's common knowledge that it was called the "murder capitol of America" and was renowned for it's high crime rate until just recently. Now in the renaissance that DC is currently in the middle of Washington is indeed riding high , but didn't D.C. lose population for about 50 years , that doesn't sound like Washington D.C. was very desirable during that period. Now let me touch on the"tourist question" with all of the National Treasures , Monuments , Museums shouldn't Washington be our's number one tourist destination , now don't get MAD I'm not mad at You I've learned a lot from you sir or madame.
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.
City-Data Is Make Believe
