Does the Bay Area have the greatest sense of identity out of all metro areas? (live, bars)
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.
I dunno, most of his post history is in the Chicago and Chicago suburbs forums. It would take a lot of effort to do that and still be in SF. But this is the internet and people can say where they are from.
The one Bay Area poster in here (sav858) vehemently disagrees. I do as well. I think most metro areas have a divide like that.
I dunno, most of his post history is in the Chicago and Chicago suburbs forums. It would take a lot of effort to do that and still be in SF. But this is the internet and people can say where they are from.
The one Bay Area poster in here (sav858) vehemently disagrees. I do as well. I think most metro areas have a divide like that.
for the record, I'm a Chicagoan, born and raised, with a strong connection to San Francisco (lived there for awhile when I grew up). And for the record, Chicago ranks right up there with San Francisco in my book.
was I putting San Francisco or the Bay Area on a pedestal like our LA buddy seems to think? Not in the least. Did I suggest that the Bay Area is a greater place than Metro LA or that SF is a greater city than LA? not in the least. Los Angeles is a major, blockbuster city by any measure.
I realize that I may not have made myself clear so I will give it one more shot….
my suggestion is not that the Bay Area is the greatest metro. My suggestion is merely that the Bay Area projects an area wide image unlike any other, that (again this is only my opinion) is projects a sense of true region and the parts don't come across as much as core city and suburban areas) but all parts contributing to the vision people have of the place.
I realize that this is hard to explain and I may have done a lousy job in doing so, but I simply was not putting down any metro area or making any suggestion of the Bay Area being superior (don't know where LA Guy got this). As noted, Metropolitan New York, Chicagoland, and the Los Angeles Area come across as central city and suburbia in how they are viewed and the identity come mainly from the Big City in their cores. Even in areas with 2 major cities (D/FW, Mpls/StP) they come across as being the two cities and their suburbs.
to me, the Bay Area differs in nobody speaks of suburbs but of subregions (SF, Peninsula, Marin, SJ/SV, Oakland/East Bay, Wine Country, etc. and that what is projected is a metro imagine of lands around the bay.
for the record, I'm a Chicagoan, born and raised, with a strong connection to San Francisco (lived there for awhile when I grew up). And for the record, Chicago ranks right up there with San Francisco in my book.
You're selling Chicago a bit short there. But that's for another topic for another thread.
Quote:
I realize that this is hard to explain and I may have done a lousy job in doing so, but I simply was not putting down any metro area or making any suggestion of the Bay Area being superior (don't know where LA Guy got this). As noted, Metropolitan New York, Chicagoland, and the Los Angeles Area come across as central city and suburbia in how they are viewed and the identity come mainly from the Big City in their cores. Even in areas with 2 major cities (D/FW, Mpls/StP) they come across as being the two cities and their suburbs.
to me, the Bay Area differs in nobody speaks of suburbs but of subregions (SF, Peninsula, Marin, SJ/SV, Oakland/East Bay, Wine Country, etc. and that what is projected is a metro imagine of lands around the bay.
That makes a bit more sense, but I think to an extent, all major metro areas are a bit like this. In the New York area, CT, Long Island, and Northern New Jersey are as distinct as the East Bay/South Bay/Wine Country but all come together as the "Tri-State Area". Hell, a huge chunk of people I know in New Jersey (including one of my best friends who lives in West Orange), barely go to the city for anything. My friend from Long Island also barely went to the city for anything. However, they all share in common that they are in the Tri-State Area.
The LA area is a whole lot like the Bay Area, except places outside of LA County pretend that LA doesn't exist. We're all "SoCal", but really, Orange County and the Inland Empire are pretty much their own self-sufficient units. While they are "suburbia" in build, they have enough of a job market itself (at least OC does) that LA is almost an afterthought. Most of the IE or OC doesn't view themselves as "Suburban Los Angeles" but at least their own kind of entities. Hell, the city of LA itself has a hard enough time keeping itself together. I myself hope that one day, the San Fernando Valley can split off so the City Council can leave people like my parents alone.
I'll give another example: Puget Sound Area. In a lot of ways, it's almost like a mini-Bay Area. Pierce County/Tacoma has their own thing going on, and so does Everett/Snohomish (to a smaller extent) but don't really view themselves as "suburban Seattle". The Eastside does, but Bellevue is enough of a draw in of itself.
A place I haven't lived in but think is similarly partitioned is South Florida: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County are all extremely different from each other, but the whole thing is part of the same MSA.
I don't think the Bay Area is all that unique in that respect.
I actually think it's much harder to find the "city/suburb" distinction as you pointed out than it is to find the Bay Area model.
for the record, I'm a Chicagoan, born and raised, with a strong connection to San Francisco (lived there for awhile when I grew up). And for the record, Chicago ranks right up there with San Francisco in my book.
was I putting San Francisco or the Bay Area on a pedestal like our LA buddy seems to think? Not in the least. Did I suggest that the Bay Area is a greater place than Metro LA or that SF is a greater city than LA? not in the least. Los Angeles is a major, blockbuster city by any measure.
I realize that I may not have made myself clear so I will give it one more shot….
my suggestion is not that the Bay Area is the greatest metro. My suggestion is merely that the Bay Area projects an area wide image unlike any other, that (again this is only my opinion) is projects a sense of true region and the parts don't come across as much as core city and suburban areas) but all parts contributing to the vision people have of the place.
I realize that this is hard to explain and I may have done a lousy job in doing so, but I simply was not putting down any metro area or making any suggestion of the Bay Area being superior (don't know where LA Guy got this). As noted, Metropolitan New York, Chicagoland, and the Los Angeles Area come across as central city and suburbia in how they are viewed and the identity come mainly from the Big City in their cores. Even in areas with 2 major cities (D/FW, Mpls/StP) they come across as being the two cities and their suburbs.
to me, the Bay Area differs in nobody speaks of suburbs but of subregions (SF, Peninsula, Marin, SJ/SV, Oakland/East Bay, Wine Country, etc. and that what is projected is a metro imagine of lands around the bay.
I think you're really over estimating how much people elsewhere know about the East Bay, Marin County, Peninsula, and Silicon Valley. What image do you think people have of Marin County and the Peninsula exactly? Even Silicon Valley, aside from being known as the home to major tech companies, it really doesn't project any sort of visual image.
Suburban areas being identified as a sub-region isn't unique either. NYC's suburbs are usually broken down as (North) New Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut, and Westchester County. LA usually as the SF Valley, Orange County, Inland Empire, etc.. And those sub-regions are probably a lot more well known than the Bay Area's as they are portrayed in the media much more often in both TV and movies. South Florida is the same way with Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade.
for the record, I'm a Chicagoan, born and raised, with a strong connection to San Francisco (lived there for awhile when I grew up). And for the record, Chicago ranks right up there with San Francisco in my book.
was I putting San Francisco or the Bay Area on a pedestal like our LA buddy seems to think? Not in the least. Did I suggest that the Bay Area is a greater place than Metro LA or that SF is a greater city than LA? not in the least. Los Angeles is a major, blockbuster city by any measure.
I realize that I may not have made myself clear so I will give it one more shot….
my suggestion is not that the Bay Area is the greatest metro. My suggestion is merely that the Bay Area projects an area wide image unlike any other, that (again this is only my opinion) is projects a sense of true region and the parts don't come across as much as core city and suburban areas) but all parts contributing to the vision people have of the place.
I realize that this is hard to explain and I may have done a lousy job in doing so, but I simply was not putting down any metro area or making any suggestion of the Bay Area being superior (don't know where LA Guy got this). As noted, Metropolitan New York, Chicagoland, and the Los Angeles Area come across as central city and suburbia in how they are viewed and the identity come mainly from the Big City in their cores. Even in areas with 2 major cities (D/FW, Mpls/StP) they come across as being the two cities and their suburbs.
to me, the Bay Area differs in nobody speaks of suburbs but of subregions (SF, Peninsula, Marin, SJ/SV, Oakland/East Bay, Wine Country, etc. and that what is projected is a metro imagine of lands around the bay.
My apology. I didn't get a sense of superiority from your post to begin with, but more of a sense of SF as center of the world that comes of from many SF homers. Not necessarily Bay Area homers, as I don't find it as common with people from Berkeley, Oakland, East Bay, San Jose etc...mostly just the denizens of the city of San Francisco.
That aside, I will have to disagree with you, as both the Bay Area and Greater LA are similar in this regard. Both are known for their primary cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they definitely have their subregions. Plus, this is the first thread where I see someone making an argument that Los Angeles has a central city setup alike New York and Chicago. Los Angeles is widely known to be a poly-center city, though which I (a biased homer) can appreciate, many view as a negative. Los Angeles has the Central LA area, the Westside, East LA, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, the Gateway cities + Long Beach and Orange County, Ventura and the IE. Only very recently, has there even a shift towards a center through the revitalization of downtown and surrounding nabes. Still, "LA" can mean ANYTHING.
Having that said, if you are speaking solely of identity, the name the "Bay Area" does appear to be all-encompassing. The closest we have for Greater LA is "the Southland", but that is more of a moniker amongst locals, and not really well known outside California.
The question really should be: how many major areas ARE set up where it's just city/suburb without there being an independent identification for the suburbs?
My apology. I didn't get a sense of superiority from your post to begin with, but more of a sense of SF as center of the world that comes of from many SF homers. Not necessarily Bay Area homers, as I don't find it as common with people from Berkeley, Oakland, East Bay, San Jose etc...mostly just the denizens of the city of San Francisco.
That aside, I will have to disagree with you, as both the Bay Area and Greater LA are similar in this regard. Both are known for their primary cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they definitely have their subregions. Plus, this is the first thread where I see someone making an argument that Los Angeles has a central city setup alike New York and Chicago. Los Angeles is widely known to be a poly-center city, though which I (a biased homer) can appreciate, many view as a negative. Los Angeles has the Central LA area, the Westside, East LA, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, the Gateway cities + Long Beach and Orange County, Ventura and the IE. Only very recently, has there even a shift towards a center through the revitalization of downtown and surrounding nabes. Still, "LA" can mean ANYTHING.
Having that said, if you are speaking solely of identity, the name the "Bay Area" does appear to be all-encompassing. The closest we have for Greater LA is "the Southland", but that is more of a moniker amongst locals, and not really well known outside California.
no need to apologize, Rudy. As for "but more of a sense of SF as center of the world that comes of from many SF homers," which can be true, I'm going to suggest something here that I think many would disagree with, but that I definitely see: I think in many ways, SF has less pull in its own metro area than most key cities do their own. I say that not only because SF is second in size to SJ in the metro area, but that it shares focus with more places than would be the case in a typical metro area. I think SF's pull is strongest on the Peninsula and in Marin, less so in both the East Bay and SJ/SV (South Bay).
I agree with you about LA's complexity, but I think there is a definite overlap in how people see the LA Area with the way they see Metro NY (Tri-State) and Chicagoland…..they come across in people's minds as still being (respectively) LA & its suburbs, NY & its suburbs, & Chgo & its suburbs. The Bay Area projects more of an image unto its own, comes across more as a place than as a city and its hinterlands.
Even in metro areas with more than one major city, they still come across as (in the case of the Twin Cities) Minneapolis, St. Paul and their suburbs or (in the case of the Metroplex) Dallas, Ft. Worth, and their suburbs. I don't see the Bay Area that way and, as I stated elsewhere, never heard the term "San Francisco suburb" or "suburban San Francisco."
What image does the Peninsula, Marin County, and the East Bay project?
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.
