U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-15-2010, 05:50 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,121,266 times
Reputation: 2508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
what is it? its a small city. maybe not a huge city, but berkeley is a city. i cant think of any context in which someone could call berkeley suburban. the east bay is a solid urban area and city limits are basically meaningless.

do you consider richmond to be a suburb? why dont you head on up to richmond and enjoy some "suburban" life. go at night. everything on the east bay was a suburb at some point (including all the small suburbs that converged to become oakland) but none of that is suburbs now. the suburbs of the bay area are more places like fremont or danville.

there is no way an area as urban as berkeley could ever be considered a suburb. berkeley is a city. and when a region is called "left coast" it sure makes sense to call berkeley a major city as its the "deep left coast" the way mississippi is the "deep south". a place like telegraph avenue is a perfect example of this.
A city can be a suburb. "Suburb" just means it's not the main city. Every "suburb" is obviously also a "city", or a "town", or "township", or "Census designated place", etc, etc. Density and vibe has nothing to do with it. Berkeley and Richmond are suburbs. As is Fremont. Berkeley and Richmond are not "suburbia" or "suburban" though in the sense that many people take those terms to mean (especially not Berkeley). Remember that "suburban/suburbia" is often more a description of physical characteristics, usually reffering to low density, tract housing, cul-de-sacs, etc, neither of which apply to Richmond or Berkeley. However, even parts of major cities can be described as "suburban/suburbia" (see San Jose for a nearby example).

But then...

I found definitions saying suburbs are "anything outside the central city" others saying they're "cities or towns dependent on the central city" which is my idea of what one is. I also found definitions going by what you're saying...as in a suburb is primarily residential and of lower density than the central city. Berkeley is less dense than SF and dependent (a suburb then?), but has pretty much the same density as Oakland or San Jose (but is also dependent...so a suburb or not a suburb?). It looks like there are conflicting definitions out there. In that case i'll level with you and say Berkeley is not a suburb but rather a "smaller core city" or some such (or would that be a "smaller core city" .....that is a suburb? ). It looks like neither of us is wrong, really...but i find my method of defining suburbs to be more universal and much less confusing.

The point is, Berkeley in itself is NOT a "major city." Can we agree on that?

edit: why can't Berkeley and Oakland just combine and make it easy on us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2010, 07:53 PM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,215 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
A city can be a suburb. "Suburb" just means it's not the main city. Every "suburb" is obviously also a "city", or a "town", or "township", or "Census designated place", etc, etc. Density and vibe has nothing to do with it. Berkeley and Richmond are suburbs. As is Fremont. Berkeley and Richmond are not "suburbia" or "suburban" though in the sense that many people take those terms to mean (especially not Berkeley). Remember that "suburban/suburbia" is often more a description of physical characteristics, usually reffering to low density, tract housing, cul-de-sacs, etc, neither of which apply to Richmond or Berkeley. However, even parts of major cities can be described as "suburban/suburbia" (see San Jose for a nearby example).

But then...

I found definitions saying suburbs are "anything outside the central city" others saying they're "cities or towns dependent on the central city" which is my idea of what one is. I also found definitions going by what you're saying...as in a suburb is primarily residential and of lower density than the central city. Berkeley is less dense than SF and dependent (a suburb then?), but has pretty much the same density as Oakland or San Jose (but is also dependent...so a suburb or not a suburb?). It looks like there are conflicting definitions out there. In that case i'll level with you and say Berkeley is not a suburb but rather a "smaller core city" or some such (or would that be a "smaller core city" .....that is a suburb? ). It looks like neither of us is wrong, really...but i find my method of defining suburbs to be more universal and much less confusing.

The point is, Berkeley in itself is NOT a "major city." Can we agree on that?

edit: why can't Berkeley and Oakland just combine and make it easy on us?
berkeley is a city, not a suburb in any of your definitions. you are weighing far too much into city limits. point is, the east bay from richmond to san leandro pretty much is a string of urbanity, so berkely is a PART of the core urban area and is not separate regardless of what the city boundaries are. the urbanity never ends. the only way you know that youve crossed from berkeley to oakland is the sign.

the east bay is a solid entity, and the city lines mean nothing. a suburb must be somewhat disconnected, less dense, and reliant on the urban area for jobs/shopping/etc. berkeley does not need oakland to function at all as it has all all of these things. where you will find that people actually commute to work in berkeley from REAL suburbs every day. and like i said earlier, berkeley is just a part of the long string of urban area which has been divided up. is compton a suburb in your book? it shouldnt be.

and berkeley doesnt have the same density of san jose, its actually almost twice as dense. and berkeley is more dense than oakland as well.

and as far as berkeley being a "major city". if the region was called "west coast", then i'd say no. but because its called "left coast" (referring to politics and "hippie" type culture,) then berkeley certianly gets the nod as being an iconic and major left coast city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 07:56 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,880,809 times
Reputation: 3248
Berkeley developed as a street car suburb of oakland and ferry suburb of sf, anyone who knows the bay aera knows this

lots of jews were pushed out that way because they were not allowed to live else where

It in no way shape or form developed as its own seperate entity of a city. Its growth was entirely dependent on the growth of sf and oakland , there really was never much industry there to speek of.

Bay area residents tend to regard it as an inner suburb, no different than san leandro, daly city, or richmond,save there is a college there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 08:06 PM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,215 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
Berkeley developed as a street car suburb of oakland and ferry suburb of sf, anyone who knows the bay aera knows this

lots of jews were pushed out that way because they were not allowed to live else where

It in no way shape or form developed as its own seperate entity of a city. Its growth was entirely dependent on the growth of sf and oakland , there really was never much industry there to speek of.

Bay area residents tend to regard it as an inner suburb, no different than san leandro, daly city, or richmond,save there is a college there
not any ive met. and ive met quite a few years worth of em. berkeley is a city. you dont know what the hell youre talking baout if you think berkeley is dependent on SF today. it doesnt matter what it once was. if you knew anything about oakland's history youd know that it was just a bunch of small little suburbs back then as well, but then they consolidated. but thats all irrelevant because we are talking about right now.

Last edited by JimmyJohnWilson; 07-15-2010 at 08:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,412 posts, read 8,238,355 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
berkeley is a city, not a suburb in any of your definitions. you are weighing far too much into city limits. point is, the east bay from richmond to san leandro pretty much is a string of urbanity, so berkely is a PART of the core urban area and is not separate regardless of what the city boundaries are. the urbanity never ends. the only way you know that youve crossed from berkeley to oakland is the sign.

the east bay is a solid entity, and the city lines mean nothing. a suburb must be somewhat disconnected, less dense, and reliant on the urban area for jobs/shopping/etc. berkeley does not need oakland to function at all as it has all all of these things. where you will find that people actually commute to work in berkeley from REAL suburbs every day. and like i said earlier, berkeley is just a part of the long string of urban area which has been divided up. is compton a suburb in your book? it shouldnt be.

and berkeley doesnt have the same density of san jose, its actually almost twice as dense. and berkeley is more dense than oakland as well.

and as far as berkeley being a "major city". if the region was called "west coast", then i'd say no. but because its called "left coast" (referring to politics and "hippie" type culture,) then berkeley certianly gets the nod as being an iconic and major left coast city.
You provide "food for thought" I also don't entirely buy into the notion that Berkeley and Oakland are suburbs of San Francisco especially since San Jose actually has more people than San Francisco. When does a city lose the designation of being the major city if it is less populated than another city in the same metro region? Southern California is an example of long-established cities becoming one big metro region in a hundred mile radius. It seems strange to refer to Riverside or San Bernardino as suburbs of Los Angeles. Norwalk and Cerritos definitely are suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
5,645 posts, read 7,448,028 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
not any ive met. and ive met quite a few years worth of em. berkeley is a city. you dont know what the hell youre talking baout if you think berkeley is dependent on SF today. it doesnt matter what it once was. if you knew anything about oakland's history youd know that it was just a bunch of small little suburbs back then as well, but then they consolidated. but thats all irrelevant because we are talking about right now.
It still is not a MAJOR city in the overall sense. Politically, perhaps; however, it can also be seen as just being extreme in politics or thinking rather than being "major".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 09:35 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,880,809 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
not any ive met. and ive met quite a few years worth of em. berkeley is a city. you dont know what the hell youre talking baout if you think berkeley is dependent on SF today. it doesnt matter what it once was. if you knew anything about oakland's history youd know that it was just a bunch of small little suburbs back then as well, but then they consolidated. but thats all irrelevant because we are talking about right now.
Uh i know alot about berkeley, because unlike you, I actually lived there and went to school there. No body works in berkeley unless you work at the college, everyone who is an adult and works typically commute to oakland and sf.

Thats why the commute patters show everyone from bart rides from berkeley towards sf and oakland during the day, and back north towards berkeley at night.

And oakland developed as a city because the sf earthquake destroyed everything and oakland was the only place feasable to build while cleaning up sf. Oakland was never a collection of suburbs, infact most cities historically faught to not be a part of oakland.
Emeryville, berkeley, san leandro and peidmont (which is completely surronded on all sides by oakland), respectively.

So in addition to not knowing berkeley history and the nature of the city, you don't know Oaklands either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 09:54 PM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,215 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
Uh i know alot about berkeley, because unlike you, I actually lived there and went to school there. No body works in berkeley unless you work at the college, everyone who is an adult and works typically commute to oakland and sf.

Thats why the commute patters show everyone from bart rides from berkeley towards sf and oakland during the day, and back north towards berkeley at night.

And oakland developed as a city because the sf earthquake destroyed everything and oakland was the only place feasable to build while cleaning up sf. Oakland was never a collection of suburbs, infact most cities historically faught to not be a part of oakland.
Emeryville, berkeley, san leandro and peidmont (which is completely surronded on all sides by oakland), respectively.

So in addition to not knowing berkeley history and the nature of the city, you don't know Oaklands either.
i went to berkeley high and was born in berkeley. dont give me that BS. and PLENTY of people work in berkeley. have you ever been ANYWHERE there? what are those robots building houses, serving food, helping you cash checks, ect...??? and i know a plenty of people who went to BHS (in fact probably about a third of the school) who didnt live in berkeley but were able to get into the school because, guess what, their parents worked there and they used that address. so you are full of it.

ive never met anybody in all my years in the east bay who considered berkeley a suburb. for that, you must venture over the hills to walnut creek.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 10:02 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,880,809 times
Reputation: 3248
Dude are you on something?, if it was not for the university, the number of people who work in berkeley would be less than 1% of the bay area(less than 70k). Of course people work in berkeley, but most do not. You are trying to compare the small numbers of buss boys and people working mc jobs to the thousands of people who get up and take bart from berkeley to sf and oakland to work in office buildings daily. YOu can look it up yourself, the largest employer in berkeley is the univesrity. Thats the only reason people come there to make real money.

And im not full of it, You are full of it, you keep talking about what 'everybody" says about berkeley, and what "everybody else thinks" and now all of a sudden you are berkeley born and raised. What ever you say, but up until a few days ago, you never have shown your face in the bay area boards to even so much as offer an iota of information about berkeley, so that is suspect to me.

Berkeley is not its own independent city with its own independent suburbs, its a small city that is essentially an inner bay burb. Simply just a more dense version of hayward or san leandro, with a much more prestigious university. Quit trying to act like Berkeley is San Jose, an actual city that has been relatively free of SF and Oaklands influence in the bay area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 10:14 PM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,215 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
Dude are you on something?, if it was not for the university, the number of people who work in berkeley would be less than 1% of the bay area(less than 70k). Of course people work in berkeley, but most do not. You are trying to compare the small numbers of buss boys and people working mc jobs to the thousands of people who get up and take bart from berkeley to sf and oakland to work in office buildings daily. YOu can look it up yourself, the largest employer in berkeley is the univesrity. Thats the only reason people come there to make real money.

And im not full of it, You are full of it, you keep talking about what 'everybody" says about berkeley, and what "everybody else thinks" and now all of a sudden you are berkeley born and raised. What ever you say, but up until a few days ago, you never have shown your face in the bay area boards to even so much as offer an iota of information about berkeley, so that is suspect to me.

Berkeley is not its own independent city with its own independent suburbs, its a small city that is essentially an inner bay burb. Simply just a more dense version of hayward or san leandro, with a much more prestigious university.
do i have to post on the bay area boards to be from there? maybe, just maybe, i dont live there now and dont have interest in posting about my hometown (although ive posted a few things there). i know berkeley like the back of my hand, from the hills to the waterfront down to ashby and on over to telegraph. you dont have to believe me though.

and you are only looking at this from a professional standpoint. sure, if you are a white collar worker you might commute. but most people in berkeley work jobs that are in berkeley (teacher, contruction, university, janitor, store manager, nurse, ect). at least most of the people i knew did.

and like i said, i knew plenty of people at BHS who lived in places like antioch, fairfield, and especially richmond and oakland. they got to go to BHS by either using a freinds address, or parents work address.

honestly, i could go 6 or 7 months at a time without going to SF, and wouldnt usually go to oakland very often except to visit freinds (i went to hilltop mall more than oakland). but thats exactly my point. hilltop mall in richmond might as well be part of berkeley and oakland. the whole east bay is a solid urban area and the cities function like boroughs of a large city. people from oakland work in berkeley and vice versa. same with SF

Last edited by JimmyJohnWilson; 07-15-2010 at 11:17 PM..
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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