Does the Bay Area hurt San Francisco? (Los Angeles, San Jose: house, school)

[edsg25]

This may seem like a strange question to ask, but in some ways, does the very nature and structure of the Bay Area hurt San Francisco since the WWII years?

Let me explain:

San Francisco is a city of global importance. It is major city by any measure. That importance comes from many unique factors that make SF such a special place.

But it also comes from another source: the huge population of the Bay Area. Relatively SF is a small city, but the Bay Area gives it the numbers to make its status real.

So the Bay Area based on population and importance is quite similar to Chicagoland. But there is a main difference: Chicagoland is totally dominated by one city, Chicago. And the areas that spread away from it are clearly suburban Chicago. And while city and suburbs compete, there is no question what is the city and the role it plays in the metro area. Suburban Chicago is loaded with business and money, but it is still in so many ways dependent on Chicago.

And that's where my "does the Bay Area hurt San Francisco?" comes in. The Bay Area is far more fractured and far less unified and centralized than Chicagoland.

And while certain communities in the Bay Area function to a degree like SF suburbs, the term "suburban San Francisco" is virtually unheard. The Bay Area is a string of subregions, divided by bay and hilly topography. Three major cities, SF, Oak, SJ, share the region. Yet the parts closest to SF and most attached to it...the Peninsula and Marin....still form worlds of their own. East Bay has always had economy and identity of its own. Today, the South Bay through its Silicon Valley is a power house and SF is forced to compete with it.

I think some of the criticism that San Franciscans give their city in being anti-business and close to paralysis stem from the fact that SF is far less able to control what happens in the Bay Area than (again the same comparison) Chicago is in Chicagoland. There are more power centers in the Bay Area that create real urban opporunities that can be attractive to businesses in the city to relocate.

The whole 49er relocation issue brings this to light. In many cities, having a team build a stadium outside city limits would be considered suburban and still part of the city. Certainty that is the case in places like Dallas. But in SF, the 49ers possibly going to Santa Clara puts them in another world and South Bay sees itself in competition with SF, not in union with it.

I'm not trying to overstate my case and maybe I'm not even being that clear, but for all of San Francisco's global status, within its own metro area, it is a rather small part and is forced to compete in ways that cities that have a larger percentage of their metro population do not have to.

Am I nuts on this one....or have I raised valid points?

(for the record, the two cities I know best and have been most connected to my whole life...through living in both and having always had a lot of family and friends in both...are Chgo and SF. They are my two favorite cities and I find both to be incredibly special. I love SF and nothing I said here is to be seen as a put down in any way.)

[youngchamp]

wtf are u talking about... nobody in the bay area would ever question what the premier city in the area is.. oakland and san jose do not compare to san francisco and oakland is always playing second fiddle to SF.. san jose has 2 sports teams, 1 nobody cares about, and despite the sharks being the most successful team in the bay area (record wise, last decade or so) the main topic of discussion is always the Giants and the 49ers.
what is this "competition" you're talking about... the south bay "competing" with san francisco... this is nonsense. people from the bay area are proud of the region they live in, of course people from sf, oakland, richmond etc are also proud of their specific city, but the area as a whole has an identity (i.e people from lesser known cities like colma tellin people from other cities they're from the "bay area" so people know where they're from). SF is enhanced by what it is surrounded by; its proximity to wine country to the north, silicon valley to the south, the east bay etc.

[Archan]

I was born and raised in the bay area. I think it is great to have to many cities within the greater metro area. I currently live in Atlanta, where there is Atlanta metro and then a whole lot of nothing. The variety that the bay area has just adds to its charm. Not that it was planned that way, just a result of a unique topography.

I think Chicago is great too, but it doesn't offer the variety of the bay area.

[Lifeshadower]

I don't think it hurts San Francisco at all; if anything, I think it helps enhance the Bay Area and SF. Let me explain:

The problem whenever a city centralizes too much land and population is that it becomes less reactive toward delivering goods and services to the nice taxpayers of the area. Instead, you have a faceless bureaucracy running everything from behind the scenes while being oblivious to the facts-on-the-ground. If the Bay Area adopted a borough system like NYC, then I would support it because it decentralizes a lot of the control of services, judicial system, and school system at the county level WHILE keeping the SF name throughout the Bay Area and coming to a common consensus whenever an issue affecting the whole Bay Area arises. However, having an aggressive annexation scheme, like LA, Phoenix, and Houston, will harm the Bay Area in the long run. I firmly believe in bringing government closer to the people in order to be more responsive, and having a bunch of smaller municipalities to take up the tasks helps us out in that. We can already see the beginnings of some kind of county-level system when it comes to the BART (decisions are made by COUNTY representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties [Link BART - Government and Community Relations | ] ) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG : [Link ABAG Home Page | ]). Regionalism is very much in the vein of the whole Bay Area, and I could see more services beginning to be shared amongst the 5 core counties.

Just look at what happened in LA in 2002. The City of LA portion of the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood wanted to split from the City of LA because it wasn't receiving enough attention from the inefficient city government. (Source: Measure F: Special Reorganization of the San Fernando Valley Area of the City of Los Angeles - Los Angeles County, CA ) Even though the measure was defeated, it serves as a lesson that having a geographically huge city centralized at the core isn't the way to go either.

Isn't the state of California a funny place? SF is too decentralized, LA is too centralized. The State of California is an inept government generally speaking, but they really know how to collect taxes when it needs to be done.

In terms of harming San Francisco as a 'prestigious destination' because its perceived to be much smaller than it really is, most people who come visit end up knowing better. Most people in the Bay Area know they are one area, and most people in America and around the world know the Bay Area as 'San Francisco', for better or for worse.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by youngchamp

wtf are u talking about... nobody in the bay area would ever question what the premier city in the area is.. oakland and san jose do not compare to san francisco and oakland is always playing second fiddle to SF.. san jose has 2 sports teams, 1 nobody cares about, and despite the sharks being the most successful team in the bay area (record wise, last decade or so) the main topic of discussion is always the Giants and the 49ers.
what is this "competition" you're talking about... the south bay "competing" with san francisco... this is nonsense. people from the bay area are proud of the region they live in, of course people from sf, oakland, richmond etc are also proud of their specific city, but the area as a whole has an identity (i.e people from lesser known cities like colma tellin people from other cities they're from the "bay area" so people know where they're from). SF is enhanced by what it is surrounded by; its proximity to wine country to the north, silicon valley to the south, the east bay etc.

thanks for the civil response. of course SF is enhanced by the Bay Area. there is no quesiton of that. To me it is the ultimate metro area in the nation; there is no place like it.

I lived in SF when I was young. I have family there. I love the city. And you give me "WTF" when I didn't say anything negative at all about the city.

All I said was that SF is a far smaller portion of its metro area than the typical US city and that the nature of the Bay Area differs from other metro areas in that it tends to fall into subregions...SF, Peninsula, Silicon Valley/South Bay, SJ, East Bay, Marin, Wine County/North Bay that are subworlds of their own. Even the term "suburban" has little meaning in the Bay Area and there is no real "suburban SF".

So please, champ, explain why my questions were offensive to you, why you saw criticism of SF where there wasn't, and why you thought that I was saying SF didn't also benefit from the greatness of the Bay Area (it does.)

Look, you can say whatever you want and I won't be hurt. But I will tell you this: I would never address you on an issue like you did me. I would trea you with respect even if I disagreed with you.

And for others: I wasn't comparing how great Chicago is in comparison to SF. I love them both. And there is no way in 15 degree chill right now that I am about to tout the joys of Chicago over San Francisco. I'd take standing naked facing the Pacific in the Richmond or Sunset or Parkmerced over what I have here.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

I don't think it hurts San Francisco at all; if anything, I think it helps enhance the Bay Area and SF. Let me explain:

The problem whenever a city centralizes too much land and population is that it becomes less reactive toward delivering goods and services to the nice taxpayers of the area. Instead, you have a faceless bureaucracy running everything from behind the scenes while being oblivious to the facts-on-the-ground. If the Bay Area adopted a borough system like NYC, then I would support it because it decentralizes a lot of the control of services, judicial system, and school system at the county level WHILE keeping the SF name throughout the Bay Area and coming to a common consensus whenever an issue affecting the whole Bay Area arises. However, having an aggressive annexation scheme, like LA, Phoenix, and Houston, will harm the Bay Area in the long run. I firmly believe in bringing government closer to the people in order to be more responsive, and having a bunch of smaller municipalities to take up the tasks helps us out in that. We can already see the beginnings of some kind of county-level system when it comes to the BART (decisions are made by COUNTY representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties [Link BART - Government and Community Relations | ] ) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG : [Link ABAG Home Page | ]). Regionalism is very much in the vein of the whole Bay Area, and I could see more services beginning to be shared amongst the 5 core counties.

Just look at what happened in LA in 2002. The City of LA portion of the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood wanted to split from the City of LA because it wasn't receiving enough attention from the inefficient city government. (Source: Measure F: Special Reorganization of the San Fernando Valley Area of the City of Los Angeles - Los Angeles County, CA ) Even though the measure was defeated, it serves as a lesson that having a geographically huge city centralized at the core isn't the way to go either.

Isn't the state of California a funny place? SF is too decentralized, LA is too centralized. The State of California is an inept government generally speaking, but they really know how to collect taxes when it needs to be done.

In terms of harming San Francisco as a 'prestigious destination' because its perceived to be much smaller than it really is, most people who come visit end up knowing better. Most people in the Bay Area know they are one area, and most people in America and around the world know the Bay Area as 'San Francisco', for better or for worse.

thanks for such a thoughtful and intelligent response.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

I don't think it hurts San Francisco at all; if anything, I think it helps enhance the Bay Area and SF. Let me explain:

The problem whenever a city centralizes too much land and population is that it becomes less reactive toward delivering goods and services to the nice taxpayers of the area. Instead, you have a faceless bureaucracy running everything from behind the scenes while being oblivious to the facts-on-the-ground. If the Bay Area adopted a borough system like NYC, then I would support it because it decentralizes a lot of the control of services, judicial system, and school system at the county level WHILE keeping the SF name throughout the Bay Area and coming to a common consensus whenever an issue affecting the whole Bay Area arises. However, having an aggressive annexation scheme, like LA, Phoenix, and Houston, will harm the Bay Area in the long run. I firmly believe in bringing government closer to the people in order to be more responsive, and having a bunch of smaller municipalities to take up the tasks helps us out in that. We can already see the beginnings of some kind of county-level system when it comes to the BART (decisions are made by COUNTY representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties [Link BART - Government and Community Relations | ] ) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG : [Link ABAG Home Page | ]). Regionalism is very much in the vein of the whole Bay Area, and I could see more services beginning to be shared amongst the 5 core counties.

Just look at what happened in LA in 2002. The City of LA portion of the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood wanted to split from the City of LA because it wasn't receiving enough attention from the inefficient city government. (Source: Measure F: Special Reorganization of the San Fernando Valley Area of the City of Los Angeles - Los Angeles County, CA ) Even though the measure was defeated, it serves as a lesson that having a geographically huge city centralized at the core isn't the way to go either.

Isn't the state of California a funny place? SF is too decentralized, LA is too centralized. The State of California is an inept government generally speaking, but they really know how to collect taxes when it needs to be done.

In terms of harming San Francisco as a 'prestigious destination' because its perceived to be much smaller than it really is, most people who come visit end up knowing better. Most people in the Bay Area know they are one area, and most people in America and around the world know the Bay Area as 'San Francisco', for better or for worse.

thanks for such a thoughtful and intelligent response. I agree with much of what you have said. For the record, I believe that San Francisco is far more benefitted from its Bay Area location than it is hurt by it.
In so many ways, SF's reputation is enhanced by its location. Look at one area...education....and realize that to much of the world, Cal and Stanford, in East Bay and on the peninsula respectively, are San Francisco. That Oakland has major port facilities makes SF a major port.

And I am in complete agreement with you on city size. Cities that are too big stop functioning as cities. You are right about NYC. It is hard to have a common purpose when you are tying together the almost exurban extremes of Staten Island to the virtual city (like it once was in reality) of Brooklyn, to suburban Queens to the mean streets of the Bronx to the world unto itself that is Manhattan. That's no city; that's a region. You have a region like that in California, too: you can't combine basin, valley, and far flung harbor while you surround Bev Hill & Santa Monica and call yourself a city. LA, like NYC, are formidible places with so much going for them, but they have morphed into something far beyond a city. Both are regional in nature.

So SF's population never was an issue to me. The only issue I had was its percentage of Bay Area population, which remains small and that size can cut down its influence in its own area, especially considering that it is the second largest city in the Bay Area.

So of course SF wouldn't trade a Bay location to go at it alone. That would be insane.

But internally, within the workings of the Bay Area, aren't there ways that SF is put in a disadvantage that other cities that are more along the line of one city with the suburbs beyond don't have.

When I look at the Bay Area, I see (repeating myself)...

• Three major cities...San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose

• Other subregions...Peninsula, Silicon Valley, East Bay, Marin

• Big Bay in the middle with limited crossings and hilly terrain, both which contribute to a degree of separation (try driving from Pacifica to Half Moon Bay and see how few options there are to cross to the bay side of the peninsula)

In such a setting, there is a degree of competition between disparate parts. South Bay's growth in recent years has made it an entity of its own in many ways. Clearly it has competed with SF, especially in high tech, computer related fields.

And while SF is loved by many around the world and across the nation, it would be hard to deny that many in the other parts of the Bay Area don't have a great love of the city and see it dysfunctional in many ways (and, of course, many others see the opposite).

Maybe my question was asked wrong: maybe I should have asked if there are some disadvantages to go along with the many advantages of a Bay Area locale for The City.

But I have to be honest: I do see a degree of marginization of San Francisco by other parts of the Bay Area being able to move things forward in a way the city isn't always able to do so.

as for this thread, if you guys think I'm full of crap on this one, fine; let the thread die and I won't mind a bit.

[youngchamp]

i wasnt offended dude, so dont mind the wtf its just random internet jargon.

i think you being a non bay area native, u have this weird view of how things are here. there is no "competition" aside from sports teams, and it can be barely called "competition" seeing as how you see people at A's vs Giants games wearing half giants and half a's hats + jerseys. and i am telling you this as a bay area native. i grew up in SF, i now live in the east bay, and there is no "animosity" or anything that would come from 2 regions that would be "competing" with each other like illinois and wisconsin (with greenbay and chicago) or detroit and ohio etc. i live 15 minutes away from SF, about 30 from san jose.. the city's location (SF) to other big cities is an advantage, and SF being (very clearly) the premier city in the bay area, there is no such thing as it competing with oakland or san jose, on anything. tell me what the competition is? SF has never been a place for "high tech"... it is a financial city, hence the financial section of downtown. silicon valley is a group of cities from redwood city to santa clara, explain how a group of cities is in "competition" with SF?
if any major city is "disliked" in the bay area it's oakland, but it isnt the kind of dislike that would cause friction between people from oakland and SF or any other city. people from San Jose and oakland will tell you that SF is the major player in the bay area, and many people from the smaller cities go to SF for lack of good nightlife and whatever else in their small towns.

btw, the bay is interconnected with like what.. 9+ bridges, then you have bart connecting the peninsula with the east bay so i would hardly say there are "limited" crossings. and at any point, no matter where im at in the bay area, im at most 15-20 minutes from 3 major US cities. the bay area as a whole has 1 identity... if i tell a person from out of state im from fremont they'll look at me like i'm an alien.. if i tell them i'm from the bay, they know what that means.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by youngchamp

i think you being a non bay area native, u have this weird view of how things are here.

gee, and i thought living in parkmerced and going to freddy berk school (it was run by SF State, not SFUSD) and on to Aptos Jr High and accepted at Lowell HS counted for something. Not to mention all the relatives in places like SF, down the peninsula, in Petaluma, down in San Jose, and a few cousins in Berkeley and San Leandro.

That my mother's family traveled through Russia to reach SF at the turn of the century (that would be 20th, not 21st) and have deep roots in the city doesn't count for anything.

Hell, I even say the Giants play at Seals Stadium for what it is worth and went on rides at Playland at the Beach.

Well connected by bridges? North of the San Mateo County line you have only three ways to get out of SF without going by boat: north on the GGB and east on BART or the Bay Bridge. The distance between the Bay Bridge south to the SM Bridge clearly indicates another crossing to east bay makes sense.

What really makes little sense of what you say is that opinions are all over the place on how people in the Bay Area and SF itself see The City. I tend to go along with those who think it is absolutely great; SF has always been my favorite city and when I didn't live there I vistied frequently. But that doesn't prevent loads of San Franciscans to be frustrated with the city and believe that nothing gets accomplished in it due to gridlock and special interests. Nor does it prevent other people in the Bay Area to not relate to SF or not even like it. It's also hard to ignore that fact that many in Oakland find San Franciscans arrogant and that many in SF consider Oakland to be a joke.

All I'm saying is there is a real mix of feelings about the city for I've heard them from San Franciscans and other in the Bay Area.

Sorry, champ, what the hell do I know; you're right...I don't have a clue about San Francisco.

[edsg25]

[quote=youngchamp;12199182

i think you being a non bay area native, u have this weird view of how things are here. [/QUOTE]

gee, and i thought living in parkmerced and going to freddy berk school (it was run by SF State, not SFSU) and on to Aptos Jr High and accepted at Lowell HS counted for something. Not to mention all the relatives in places like SF, down the peninsula, in Petaluma, down in San Jose, and a few cousins in Berkeley and San Leandro.

That my mother's family traveled through Russia to reach SF at the turn of the century (that would be 20th, not 21st) and have deep roots in the city doesn't count for anything.

Hell, I even say the Giants play at Seals Stadium for what it is worth and went on rides at Playland at the Beach.

Sorry, champ, you're right...I don't have a clue about San Francisco.

But I also differ with you in a really significant way:

If your opinions and how you perceive things differs from mine, I won't tell you that you're wrong or tell you your San Francisco is not as long as mine; I'll just tell you I see it differently than you do. Perceptions are perceptions; not facts.