Why is the actual Bay Area merged with San Francisco? (San Diego: high school, living)

[sav858]

The Bay Area is ONE interconnected and interdependent metropolitan area pretty much anyway you look at it. People live and work all over the place and aren't confined to their specific region. You have the North BAY, East BAY, South Bay, then SF and the Peninsula so why wouldn't you call it the Bay Area collectively? I understand how you feel SF is very different than the rest of the Bay Area and it is, but so is Berkeley. Those two cities are little bubbles and tend to give the Bay Area a bad name sometimes with some of the crap they pull but they are still part of the Bay Area and help make this place what it is.

And the Bay Area isn't the only large metropolitan area that has differences with respect to culture, vibe, atmosphere, etc...in the same metro area. Look at the NY Metro Area and how different NJ, Long Island, and Connecticut are from NYC and each other. Look at Los Angeles and the difference between LA and Orange County; ever heard of the "Orange Curtain"?. In San Diego, North County is very different from South County. And if you really want striking differences within the same metropolitan area then look at South Florida and the Miami Metropolitan region; Miami-Dade County is a whole another world compared to Broward County and Palm Beach County.

Some of you may get tired of being filed under San Francisco but many of us don't mind or care at all. It's our main city that represents this regions, as it should be. Even if you don't agree with the lifestyle, politics, or whatever of SF it is still as much as part of the Bay Area as the East Bay, South Bay, North Bay, or Penninsula.

[rah]

I guess I'll add that when I say the culture in SF and the east Bay are the same, I'm not talking about the kind of stuff you hear coming from the SF board of supervisors and the mayor. Their views don't really reflect what many San Franciscans believe. Most of them and their followers just happen to be an extremely vocal and powerful minority. As far as other things go though, it's all pretty much the same. Oakland and Berkeley are just as liberal, if not more liberal in some ways than SF. Also, of course there are more conservative areas of the bay, where there will be more people who disagree with a lot of things going on in SF...but they would have to disagree with things going on in other Bay Area cities too. It's not like SF is the only extremely liberal or "different" place out here, so I'm just a little confused why you singled it out, magusat999...well, aside from the fact that SF is the namesake of the Bay Area, and you're associated with SF whether you like it or not. I guess that could be frustrating for some people...But, the fact is, you are associated with us, and it's not for no reason. It's for quite a few reasons.

[rah]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

LOL. I drive from SF to the East Bay 5x/week, and it's only 12 minutes from my house to Oakland without traffic... no different than driving 8-10 miles anywhere else, except for the fact that I can't take a back-road. It's the bridge or nothing, which means I sit in a lot of traffic! Anyway, I understand the East Bay is very different from the city, but they are all part of the Bay Area metro. People from both Malibu and Compton will say they live in "the LA area," and those are worlds apart too. Guess you'll have to suffer being associated with us crazy San Franciscans... hehe.

haha, yeah I know. You can actually get across the Bay Bridge very fast when there's no traffic. Berkeley to the Mission in under 30 minutes...and that's supposed be far away?

[happ]

Originally Posted by rah

I guess I'll add that when I say the culture in SF and the east Bay are the same, I'm not talking about the kind of stuff you hear coming from the SF board of supervisors and the mayor. Their views don't really reflect what many San Franciscans believe. Most of them and their followers just happen to be an extremely vocal and powerful minority. As far as other things go though, it's all pretty much the same. Oakland and Berkeley are just as liberal, if not more liberal in some ways than SF. Also, of course there are more conservative areas of the bay, where there will be more people who disagree with a lot of things going on in SF...but they would have to disagree with things going on in other Bay Area cities too. It's not like SF is the only extremely liberal or "different" place out here, so I'm just a little confused why you singled it out, magusat999...well, aside from the fact that SF is the namesake of the Bay Area, and you're associated with SF whether you like it or not. I guess that could be frustrating for some people...But, the fact is, you are associated with us, and it's not for no reason. It's for quite a few reasons.

Find it interesting that "some" San Franciscans refer to the City Council\Mayor as the "minority" The fact that every politician in San Francisco is liberal [except Senator Feinstein & I wish she'd retire, already Now Feinstein is considering running for governor & would probably win].

San Francisco's last mayoral battle was between a liberal Democrat -Gavin & a socialist\Green Councilman - Gonzales. The socialist lost by just a few votes comparatively. People in San Francisco are basically socialists & so is Berkeley. Also ever notice that all the Bay Area counties vote overwhelmingly Democratic? [San Francisco county is the city\ San Mateo\ Santa Clara\ Alameda\ Contra Costa\ Solano\ Marin]. The Bay Area is nirvana for Democrats. So in politics the Bay is consistent.

Raised in Chico & attended school in the East Bay, I fully knew that the identity for the entire Bay is San Francisco, it is referred to as "the city" as far away as Salinas -over 100 miles. San Francisco is where it all started for California & all Californios love "the city" And I live in LA

[sonarrat]

Ironic that the most socialistic of cities is also the one where you most need a good capitalistic career to survive it.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Ironic that the most socialistic of cities is also the one where you most need a good capitalistic career to survive it.

LOL

So true.

[rah]

Originally Posted by happ

Find it interesting that "some" San Franciscans refer to the City Council\Mayor as the "minority" The fact that every politician in San Francisco is liberal [except Senator Feinstein & I wish she'd retire, already Now Feinstein is considering running for governor & would probably win].

San Francisco's last mayoral battle was between a liberal Democrat -Gavin & a socialist\Green Councilman - Gonzales. The socialist lost by just a few votes comparatively. People in San Francisco are basically socialists & so is Berkeley. Also ever notice that all the Bay Area counties vote overwhelmingly Democratic? [San Francisco county is the city\ San Mateo\ Santa Clara\ Alameda\ Contra Costa\ Solano\ Marin]. The Bay Area is nirvana for Democrats. So in politics the Bay is consistent.

Raised in Chico & attended school in the East Bay, I fully knew that the identity for the entire Bay is San Francisco, it is referred to as "the city" as far away as Salinas -over 100 miles. San Francisco is where it all started for California & all Californios love "the city" And I live in LA

When i say minority, i mean it in the sense of the city's officials banning plastic bags, banning cigarettes, worrying about people's trash sorting, etc, etc, rather than focusing on real issues that face the city first. Believe me I'm not conservative by any stretch....it's just that most of the stuff you hear in the news coming from the mouths of the supervisors and the mayor has much more to do with their own personal political agendas than the interest or will of the people of SF.

[happ]

Originally Posted by rah

When i say minority, i mean it in the sense of the city's officials banning plastic bags, banning cigarettes, worrying about people's trash sorting, etc, etc, rather than focusing on real issues that face the city first. Believe me I'm not conservative by any stretch....it's just that most of the stuff you hear in the news coming from the mouths of the supervisors and the mayor has much more to do with their own personal political agendas than the interest or will of the people of SF.

OK, I understand your point. It's pretty much the same thing in LA where the 15-seat city council is Democrats = 13 Republicans = 1 & Greens = 1. There are times I disagree with the city politicians but mostly they seem interested in the needs of the people [ie requiring hotels near LAX to pay fair wages to the maids\cleaning staff or stopping any more fast food businesses to open up in certain neighborhoods because kids are getting fat w/ diabetes].

As far as smoking bans\ plastic bags etc. - most large cities in California are enacting the same restrictions as San Francisco.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Ironic that the most socialistic of cities is also the one where you most need a good capitalistic career to survive it.

Ironic, but not surprising.

It's largely because the socialist policies in place in San Francisco (and in California in general) make living here more expensive. The same is true in the socialist countries of Europe.

[davnlndy2]

My first experience in SF was at 'Baker's Acres', a community of sorts in Pacific Heights comprised of about 150 folks who worked in downtown SF. All single. It was a boarding house that served b'fast and dinner. Within a year I had to move to Berkeley. Exhaustion. Since that time I have tried to relocate to NYC, Seattle and Los Angeles. Each time to return to 'The Bay Area'. When traveling I tell folks I live in San Francisco and almost always I am asked,..."what part ?" The world seems to know that the city stretches from San Jose to Marin and beyond. One of the charms of the bay area.