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: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 08-01-2011, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
41 posts, read 47,451 times
Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
How many durf threads will you bump just to cry?

That was only my second one and my last one. Sorry if you thought I was crying....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 08-01-2011, 06:45 PM
 
Location: 93,020,000 miles from the sun
491 posts, read 405,847 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
No matter what the US Census says, the fact is that San Jose is part of a larger urban (a.k.a. "metropolitan") area called the Bay Area, which also includes San Francisco and Oakland. Contrary to the belief of some on CD, there is not a wall or barren wasteland that separates San Jose from the rest of the Bay Area, in fact San Francisco and San Jose are hugely dependent on one another. San Jose gets its news broadcasts from San Francisco networks, its shares public transportation networks (BART, CalTrain), and so on and so forth. The NY Times even has a section on the greater Bay Area.

And since Houston is the dominant city in its metropolitan area (whereas San Jose is not), it will beat San Jose in most categories including international airport, sports team, cultural amenities, etc. Most people in San Jose head to San Francisco for these reasons (hence, it being part of an interconnected urban region).

I'm fine with comparing city propers, in which case Houston would probably win because as I said it is the dominant city in its region, but ignoring the fact that its part of the Bay Area is ridiculous and disingenuous.
Sorry, haven't read through this entire thread so forgive me if I overlooked something or am just repeating what others have already said. This is from the first page and just caught my attention.

I pretty much agree with this, but one thing that has always confused me about the Bay Area conglomeration is that why is the city with the second highest population (San Francisco: 805,235 per 2010 census figures) considered the "hub" of the area, when the actual largest city in the Bay Area (San Jose: 958,789 per 2010 census figures) is viewed as secondary? I mean, I'm well aware of SF's global status and higher profile, but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.

That said, I don't see how comparing San Jose to Houston is "unfair". If the comparison was San Francisco to Houston nobody would be saying this, and SF would most likely win hands-down. Yet it's the smaller city in the bay area.

Just my 2 pennies. I won't compare Houston to San Jose simply because I haven't even been to San Jose since I was 2 years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-01-2011, 07:12 PM
 
Location: 93,020,000 miles from the sun
491 posts, read 405,847 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Sacramento is both bigger than San Jose and actual its own metro area.
These are official 2010 U.S. census totals:

Sacramento: 489,488
San Jose: 958,789

The U.S. census bureau defines the San Jose MSA as separate from San Francisco/Oakland, but you live close enough to the bay area to know better. San Jose's suburbs are just as joined up with San Francisco's as Dallas is with Ft. Worth. There is no real open, undeveloped land between the 2 MSA's. Most people refer to San Jose and San Francisco as being part of the same "Bay Area" metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-01-2011, 07:31 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
8,603 posts, read 7,346,608 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewzerr68 View Post
These are official 2010 U.S. census totals:

Sacramento: 489,488
San Jose: 958,789

The U.S. census bureau defines the San Jose MSA as separate from San Francisco/Oakland, but you live close enough to the bay area to know better. San Jose's suburbs are just as joined up with San Francisco's as Dallas is with Ft. Worth. There is no real open, undeveloped land between the 2 MSA's. Most people refer to San Jose and San Francisco as being part of the same "Bay Area" metro.
Isn't the separation between the SF-Oakland MSA and San Jose MSA a business park and creek? Something about not having enough density, so this part of the Bay is the dividing line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-01-2011, 08:00 PM
 
Location: 93,020,000 miles from the sun
491 posts, read 405,847 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae713 View Post
Isn't the separation between the SF-Oakland MSA and San Jose MSA a business park and creek? Something about not having enough density, so this part of the Bay is the dividing line.
I'm not sure, but that makes sense. I've flown over it recently, and it looked like one continuous mass of development to me from the air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-01-2011, 10:31 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 3,311,004 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewzerr68 View Post
Sorry, haven't read through this entire thread so forgive me if I overlooked something or am just repeating what others have already said. This is from the first page and just caught my attention.

I pretty much agree with this, but one thing that has always confused me about the Bay Area conglomeration is that why is the city with the second highest population (San Francisco: 805,235 per 2010 census figures) considered the "hub" of the area, when the actual largest city in the Bay Area (San Jose: 958,789 per 2010 census figures) is viewed as secondary? I mean, I'm well aware of SF's global status and higher profile, but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.
Really its b/c from 1850 to about 1990 or 1991 SF WAS the largest city here and SJ was the smaller of the two. SJ continued to annex areas near it while the population of the area grew, so it developed over time into a larger area in both land and population. But for the majority of both their history as incorporated cities, SF was the big dog and in many ways still is. But SJ's rise to prominence has only made the Bay Area that much better in many ways. I hope to see more of the same for Oakland in the near future as well.

In addition, SF has the Bay named after it and consequently the whole area surrounding it, so that adds to this perception. And the City of SF contains several other things within it's city limits, like various embassies, the CA State Supreme Court, etc. There are many reasons why SF itself remains the face-city of the Bay Area, despite accounting for only about 10% of the Bay's population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewzerr68 View Post
These are official 2010 U.S. census totals:

Sacramento: 489,488
San Jose: 958,789

The U.S. census bureau defines the San Jose MSA as separate from San Francisco/Oakland, but you live close enough to the bay area to know better. San Jose's suburbs are just as joined up with San Francisco's as Dallas is with Ft. Worth. There is no real open, undeveloped land between the 2 MSA's. Most people refer to San Jose and San Francisco as being part of the same "Bay Area" metro.
Exactly! +1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-01-2011, 10:38 PM
 
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,152 posts, read 226,566 times
Reputation: 432
The economy in San Jose is based off the tech industry and this field is slowly dying out. Tech jobs are slowly being outsourced to India, China, Korea and other various nations throughout Asia. San Jose doesn't seem to have a bright future to me.

Now, Houston is quite different. The economy is taking off and the city as a whole has a bright economic future and is going in the right direction with about 25 fortune 500 companies within the metro. Personally, I would choose Houston to live over San Jose for these reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-02-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,543 posts, read 9,194,402 times
Reputation: 2487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewzerr68 View Post
but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.
It's not correct to call either the lone "hub" as the two cities are about an hour apart unless there's no traffic. SF doesn't revolve around SJ any more than the opposite is true, but they are still joined by towns in between.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2013, 02:07 PM
 
530 posts, read 270,197 times
Reputation: 520
Which city would you guys say is more walkable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2013, 04:06 PM
 
247 posts, read 95,909 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewzerr68 View Post
Sorry, haven't read through this entire thread so forgive me if I overlooked something or am just repeating what others have already said. This is from the first page and just caught my attention.

I pretty much agree with this, but one thing that has always confused me about the Bay Area conglomeration is that why is the city with the second highest population (San Francisco: 805,235 per 2010 census figures) considered the "hub" of the area, when the actual largest city in the Bay Area (San Jose: 958,789 per 2010 census figures) is viewed as secondary? I mean, I'm well aware of SF's global status and higher profile, but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.

That said, I don't see how comparing San Jose to Houston is "unfair". If the comparison was San Francisco to Houston nobody would be saying this, and SF would most likely win hands-down. Yet it's the smaller city in the bay area.

Just my 2 pennies. I won't compare Houston to San Jose simply because I haven't even been to San Jose since I was 2 years old.
Because just as tall buildings =/= urbanity (ahem Houston), annexing a ton of land to plump up your population figures does not automatically make you the hub of the region. This is a bit of an unfair analogy, but if I just decided to throw a bunch of random suburbs around Atlanta together, enough so that it was larger than Atlanta's city proper population, would that then be the "hub" of the region? What would really change? City limits are arbitrary political boundaries. Now San Jose is more than "just some random suburbs," but it is hard to deny it has pretty much grown out of San Francisco's (or perhaps Sunnyvale/MV/RWC's) urban sprawl. It is true the SF Bay Area has no singular dominant hub, but given the SJ MSA is over a million and the SF MSA is over 4 million (these are based on commuting patterns) San Francisco still is the bigger of the "hubs" of the region regardless of SJ having a bunch of land. I've even read SJ's population drops during the day. Now SJ isn't just a suburb of SF, but San Jose certainly isn't the hub of the Bay Area (if there even was one). I know people from San Jose who refer to San Francisco as "The City" and where they live as "the burbs" even though SJ has a larger city proper population. But those arbitrary political boundaries don't translate to the day to day reality in the SF Bay Area. I'd actually argue that the fact that SJ is in such a large (populous) region gives it a leg up on Houston anyways.
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 $74,000 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
Similar Threads

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