Does the Greater San Francisco Bay Area CSA becoming a megacity concern any of you? (Los Angeles: apartment)

[Trafalgar Law]

Hello everyone. I am asking this familiar question across the City-Data local forums. I am asking this same question for every place in North America that is more or less in line or on a trajectory towards crossing 10 million people at the metropolis level; which would make them all megacities.

I want to get a local's perspective on whether they view the area crossing 10 million people as a benefit or a deterrent. I am looking to compare the perspectives and opinions that local individuals hold from each city and seeing how people in different places respond to the same situation.

The San Francisco Bay Area will cross 10 million people in the next few decades and is growing at a rate that sets into motion the possibility of it becoming a true megacity metropolis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

I figure some people would hate the increased traffic, congestion, strain on infrastructure, and other challenges that fast growth and large population present to a city. I would imagine the people in this camp would think that what comes with that size is not worth it.

I also think other people would value the increased global portfolio, the entrance of more brands, companies, retail, restaurants, services, airlines, jobs and other things that come with a big city, especially a megacity. I would imagine these people would think that what comes with that size is worth it.

Thank you in advance everyone!

[BayAreaHillbilly]

I voted "Other." I don't have a problem with the fact of being a megacity. However I am greatly concerned about the long standing terrible situation whereby the Bay Area is balkanized into a fragmented series of relatively small communities none of which is proportional to the overall mega city. The namesake city is not even at 1M people and the largest city by population barely exceeds 1M. Meanwhile there are all these suburbs who pretend we still live in the days of farm towns separated by orchards, ranches and wheat fields, or at best, operate as if it were still the 1960s and everyone who didn't work locally rode trains, ferries and buses in to DTSF. This entire terrible situation can be blamed on SF - a city that stupidly seceded from the county it was a member of, thereby cutting off its own nose to spite its face, preventing all possible annexations and growth beyond a ridiculously small perimeter.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

I voted "Other." I don't have a problem with the fact of being a megacity. However I am greatly concerned about the long standing terrible situation whereby the Bay Area is balkanized into a fragmented series of relatively small communities none of which is proportional to the overall mega city. The namesake city is not even at 1M people and the largest city by population barely exceeds 1M. Meanwhile there are all these suburbs who pretend we still live in the days of farm towns separated by orchards, ranches and wheat fields, or at best, operate as if it were still the 1960s and everyone who didn't work locally rode trains, ferries and buses in to DTSF. This entire terrible situation can be blamed on SF - a city that stupidly seceded from the county it was a member of, thereby cutting off its own nose to spite its face, preventing all possible annexations and growth beyond a ridiculously small perimeter.

As I was driving north from my hockey game last night in the southern part of San Jose, I passed through most of the city and thought to myself just how big SJ's city limits are and how small SF's are. And I thought how that has probably radically affected the way the region grew/developed.

If SF was the size of SJ's city limits, where I live in San Mateo would still likely be part of the city of SF. Even though I can very clearly see the downtown skyline from my apartment window in SM, it's crazy to think about that fact. Especially when you consider how people on the peninsula sometimes like to pretend that SF is some far off distant place (even though it's like a 15-20 min drive away).

I think you're right, the decision of SF to split off from San Mateo county was probably a gigantically-important point in history for the region - I'd like to read up about the history of this and why it happened the way it did...I do wonder if spite was involved (I wouldn't be surprised...).


Bay Area balkanization needs to die - it's holding back a lot of things. It's not just holding back development of infrastructure/housing, but it's literally costing tax payers a lot of money because we have so many redundant systems all over the place for each little city/county...

I do love how there's a lot of character/pride to each distinct region in the Bay Area (it's one of the better qualities of the region), but we take it wayyyyyyy too far (to insular degrees). If SF had been able to grow south, I don't see how some of the cities south of SF couldn't have maintained some of their character while being incorporated into the City? They could have become "boroughs", if you will, with their unique character - but still part of SF (gaining all of the great things about being part of a larger city, such as improved transit).


Everyone (at least at the gov't level) wants to pretend that their little part of the Bay Area is separate/distinct, even though we're probably more connected than ever as region due to housing costs pushing people out in all directions (sometimes VERY far out). And I don't realistically see how the region moves forward in great ways without addressing this issue.


The answer to the OP's question is "Yes" - but with the caveat that we need to solve these regional problems as we grow - Naively I'm thinking (hoping?) that we do...

[Lockdev]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Everyone (at least at the gov't level) wants to pretend that their little part of the Bay Area is separate/distinct (even though we're probably more connected than ever as region due to housing costs pushing people out in all directions (sometimes VERY far out)). And I don't realistically see how the region moves forward in great ways without addressing this issue.


The answer to the OP's question is "Yes" - but with the caveat that we need to solve the regional problems as we grow - Naively I'm thinking (hoping?) that we do...

I normally don't agree with your political opinions, but this post is spot on.

If things don't change in the Bay Area, you're going to have a super mess on your hands.

There will be two problems that will plague the Bay Area if policies don't change: traffic and housing.

They actually feed off of each other. Lack of housing causes high prices, which causes people to live far away from their job, which causes traffic problems. It's also starting to cause good people to LEAVE the Bay Area.

For whatever reason, that common sense thinking tends to evade city leadership in the Bay Area.

[candalf]

Megacities are not created equal. Manila and New York, for instance, are both megacities but living there is not the same.

If more infrastructure, transportation and otherwise, is built to acommodate growth, a mega city can offer a high standard of living. If it is poorly regulated growth, there aren't many positives.

[I Love Buildings]

I want The Bay Area to become a mega-o-polis aswell OP.

[Trafalgar Law]

The thing with the San Francisco Bay Area is that it will continue to get larger. It has been coming in strong for 45 years now and there is no reason why that will stop anytime soon.

I think the San Francisco Bay Area will follow the model of Greater Los Angeles. Greater Los Angeles started going deeper and deeper inland, at this point the Inland Empire is as large as the San Francisco-Oakland MSA on a technical note. This inland movement for affordable, more abundant, and overall just cheaper housing has led to increased interconnections between the San Francisco Bay Area with Stockton and increasingly more now, Modesto. Stockton and Modesto as essentially to the San Francisco Bay Area what Riverside and San Bernardino are to Los Angeles.

There isn't really anything that can stop the San Francisco Bay Area from surpassing 10 million people. It will do that within 10-15 years at the most. So it is something that needs to be embraced because it will happen whether people on these forums want it to or not.

The Bay Area's specific challenges will be to provide more infrastructural upgrades to accommodate the millions of extra people that will be living in the area in the future. Housing of course remains the Bay Area's #1 priority and the housing market needs to be solved moving into the future, otherwise the Bay Area will begin moving into the housing situations that are prevalent in uber-dense and mega-populated Asian cities like Hong Kong. That's not a good thing and needs to be avoided.

[neutrino78x]

I support growth and greater density, so I think it is good here as well. +1 to I Love Buildings.

[Endless Requiem]

Originally Posted by Red John

The thing with the San Francisco Bay Area is that it will continue to get larger. It has been coming in strong for 45 years now and there is no reason why that will stop anytime soon.

I think the San Francisco Bay Area will follow the model of Greater Los Angeles. Greater Los Angeles started going deeper and deeper inland, at this point the Inland Empire is as large as the San Francisco-Oakland MSA on a technical note. This inland movement for affordable, more abundant, and overall just cheaper housing has led to increased interconnections between the San Francisco Bay Area with Stockton and increasingly more now, Modesto. Stockton and Modesto as essentially to the San Francisco Bay Area what Riverside and San Bernardino are to Los Angeles.

There isn't really anything that can stop the San Francisco Bay Area from surpassing 10 million people. It will do that within 10-15 years at the most. So it is something that needs to be embraced because it will happen whether people on these forums want it to or not.

The Bay Area's specific challenges will be to provide more infrastructural upgrades to accommodate the millions of extra people that will be living in the area in the future. Housing of course remains the Bay Area's #1 priority and the housing market needs to be solved moving into the future, otherwise the Bay Area will begin moving into the housing situations that are prevalent in uber-dense and mega-populated Asian cities like Hong Kong. That's not a good thing and needs to be avoided.

past performance is not indicative of future results