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.
Maybe I am just too much of a city lover to care about the debate over MSA populations. But, I could really care less about the suburbs. IMO, whether SJ is part of SF's msa is besides the point.
What makes SF great in my book is the core areas like North Beach, Hayes Valley, Union Sq, etc. The rest of the Bay area (with a few exceptions) is sprawl like any large metro area.
Same with Philly, I like it because of Rittenhouse, Old City, etc. Not Cherry Hill, King of Prussia.
Maybe I am just too much of a city lover to care about the debate over MSA populations. But, I could really care less about the suburbs. IMO, whether SJ is part of SF's msa is besides the point.
What makes SF great in my book is the core areas like North Beach, Hayes Valley, Union Sq, etc. The rest of the Bay area (with a few exceptions) is sprawl like any large metro area.
Same with Philly, I like it because of Rittenhouse, Old City, etc. Not Cherry Hill, King of Prussia.
I could not agree more, yet the thread has been allowed to be highjacked into a what I think my metro is...not the census bureau...you cannot debate without guidelines...or using your own definitions that are not recognized by the Census Bureau or this Forum for that matter. Since they cannot debate on an even playing field, than it ruins my thread.
My intent is to show how nice Philly really is...I knew philly would loose...but the children just keep repeating their ludicrous arguements like a broken record. More intent on their own pitiful agendas, than an honest comparison of both cities.
Maybe I am just too much of a city lover to care about the debate over MSA populations. But, I could really care less about the suburbs.
Couldn't have said it better myself. IMO suburbs are all the same across the country-bland, insular and anything but diverse. Cities, however vary widely-that is why this is the city vs city forum not the metropolitan area vs metropolitan area forum. Suburbs have historically been detrimental to most cities across the country, i.e. "white flight". Some of us, including myself, have gotten off topic arguing about MSA's or CSA's or whatever, when this is actually about San Francisco and Philadelphia-two of our country's most intriguing and vibrant cities. So let's try and stay on topic
Couldn't have said it better myself. IMO suburbs are all the same across the country-bland, insular and anything but diverse. Cities, however vary widely-that is why this is the city vs city forum not the metropolitan area vs metropolitan area forum. Suburbs have historically been detrimental to most cities across the country, i.e. "white flight". Some of us, including myself, have gotten off topic arguing about MSA's or CSA's or whatever, when this is actually about San Francisco and Philadelphia-two of our country's most intriguing and vibrant cities. So let's try and stay on topic
For the reasons you mentioned Philadelphias actually needs its suburbs to help level the playing field somewhat with Bay Area.
I'm as big a homer as there is but a head to head city matchup with SF, Philly is going to lose. You could fill volumes and spend days discussing the controversial reasons why Philly and the cities east of the Mississippi fell on hard times during the course of the 20th century.
Sprawl, deindustrialization and white flight has battered Philadlephia, effecting Philly much more than SF. SF being a city 200 years younger, compact in size, in a location where it avoided the "Great Migration" of poor uneducated southern farmers/slaves , and surrounded on 3 sides by water really gives it an unfair advantage in a head to head matchup with Philadelphia or any city for that matter.
I agree with the general gist that the metro populations don't really matter that much in this comparison.
But you "hijacked" (note the spelling) your own thread by refusing to acknowledge what every source besides the census, and all who have actually spent time in the bay area, say. You stubbornly insist that when comparing the regions we have to go by the Census MSA, when that doesn't reflect the reality.
If you had just acknowledged that SF/Oakland/San Jose are all clearly part of the same interconnected, unfettered urban area (or taken our word for it, along with the numerous credible sources we've posted, and the satellite images, etc. etc.) we could have moved on. But you insisted on sticking to this 4.3 million number which has no basis in reality out of sheer stubborness. And you refused to directly address any of the substantive points people have made regarding why theyre the same metro area.
So, next time, if you don't want your thread "hijacked", either make reasonable arguments that directly address the points we're making, OR don't stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what is plainly obvious.
For the purpose of comparing what the metro areas have to offer, you have to include Silicon Valley/South Bay/San Jose as part of SFs metro area, otherwise its a disingenoous comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
I could not agree more, yet the thread has been allowed to be highjacked into a what I think my metro is...not the census bureau...you cannot debate without guidelines...or using your own definitions that are not recognized by the Census Bureau or this Forum for that matter. Since they cannot debate on an even playing field, than it ruins my thread.
My intent is to show how nice Philly really is...I knew philly would loose...but the children just keep repeating their ludicrous arguements like a broken record. More intent on their own pitiful agendas, than an honest comparison of both cities.
I agree with the general gist that the metro populations don't really matter that much in this comparison.
But you "hijacked" (note the spelling) your own thread by refusing to acknowledge what every source besides the census, and all who have actually spent time in the bay area, say. You stubbornly insist that when comparing the regions we have to go by the Census MSA, when that doesn't reflect the reality.
If you had just acknowledged that SF/Oakland/San Jose are all clearly part of the same interconnected, unfettered urban area (or taken our word for it, along with the numerous credible sources we've posted, and the satellite images, etc. etc.) we could have moved on. But you insisted on sticking to this 4.3 million number which has no basis in reality out of sheer stubborness. And you refused to directly address any of the substantive points people have made regarding why theyre the same metro area.
So, next time, if you don't want your thread "hijacked", either make reasonable arguments that directly address the points we're making, OR don't stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what is plainly obvious.
For the purpose of comparing what the metro areas have to offer, you have to include Silicon Valley/South Bay/San Jose as part of SFs metro area, otherwise its a disingenoous comparison.
Changing thread parameters equals hijacking to me...let's change philly too and include...you want your cake and eat it too...I really do not understand the problem with MSA's...I did not set the guidelines...the statistical abstract does....have you read it.
Where do we stop...trenton...reading...allentown...Scranton... York...Harrisburgh...noone will ever agree on these parameters.
It is senseless to ignore a statistical abstract; since all university papers are based on them...I've written my own. PS I make spelling errors...is that your best defense...no link...no abstract...no census data...PLEASE...
Couldn't have said it better myself. IMO suburbs are all the same across the country-bland, insular and anything but diverse. Cities, however vary widely-that is why this is the city vs city forum not the metropolitan area vs metropolitan area forum. Suburbs have historically been detrimental to most cities across the country, i.e. "white flight". Some of us, including myself, have gotten off topic arguing about MSA's or CSA's or whatever, when this is actually about San Francisco and Philadelphia-two of our country's most intriguing and vibrant cities. So let's try and stay on topic
I'm all for that if the others agree....city limits of San Francisco vs. city limits of Philadelphia.
Half the thread is people whining about what to call or not call San Francisco...childish, in my book.
MSA's are always talked about here! I'll redo Philadelphia's 1,400,000 residents versus San Francisco's 800,000 residents....IS that ok????? or will there be more silly comments about Philadelphia...I have only heard FRISCO people calling Philly names...what short attention spans some of the posters have...NOT YOU...you are reasonable.
When people make fun of me and my deceased father how should I respond and what does that tell the board and the world about some of San Fran's residents; especially when they are winning...YOU TELL ME! My father died a horrible death and I'm supposed to take these punks seriously...WOULD YOU???? see... http://www.census.gov/compendia/smadb/ They are the resource that defines all else!
i never made fun of your father, may he rest in peace. for all i know he was a respectable honorable man. you on the other hand betrayed him. we both know why. hold that in your heart.
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.
