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.
1) New York City
2) Jersey City, NJ
3) Newark, NJ
4) Yonkers, NY
5) Hempstead, Long Island
6) Washington DC
7) Arlington, VA
8) Tysons Corner, VA
9) Silver Spring, MD
10) Miami, FL
LOL, too bad the US Census and Federal Government disagree with you.
Anyways, even with Silicon Valley, it still doesn't make SF feel very cosmopolitan and international. There is a huge element of Americans who agree with me.
Miami, DC, Las Vegas, Chicago, and even Houston have arguments over SF.
You know very little about the Bay Area region. Let me educate you from your blind hatred.
San Jose at the start of the 1950's was mainly an agricultural town with a population of 95,000 (San Francisco at the same time was 775,000!!). The land in San Jose was cheap and most urban areas in the 1950's began to grow immensly (San Jose had grown in 20 years to a population of 459,000 in 1970) and experienced that growth from urban sprawl. Santa Clara Valley was the outer edge of the SAN FRANCISCO metropolitan area which meant affordable housing. The further from the metropolitan center "SAN FRANCISCO" the cheaper the housing . Keep in mind this is before Silicon Valley's existance. There was alot of unincorporated area around San Jose which the city began to annex.
San Jose is nothing more than a large suburb of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area that has gotten large enough to be "assumed" as it's own separate city/metro. History proves that it is not. Silicon Valley didn't just locate there because it's "San Jose". They located there because in the second half of the 1970's and through the mid 80's land there was the cheapest they could find that was still undeveloped that was as close to SAN FRANCISCO as they could locate.
I can still remember in 1979 once you got passed Capitol Expressway going south on the 101 freeway it wasn't even a freeway. It was Monterey Road.
So please stop saying San Francisco has nothing to do with Silicon Valley. I will reiterate: The reason Silicon Valley is in San Jose is because that was the only part of the SAN FRANCISCO Metro area that still had large amounts of undeveloped parcels of land.
Ofcourse LA will have more O&D its a much larger metro, but even then I believe Miami is number 4 in the country with O&D traffic. LA has more Asia flights, but Miami will get a few in the coming years. Miami covers Latin America, even smaller cities, in a way Los Angeles never will in relation to Asia. Los Angeles doesn't have the location via Asia like Miami does via South America, other cities are just as close to Asia as Los Angeles. Chicago really isnt any farther than LA. The're about the same in relation to Europe, although Miami may surpass Los Angeles in the future. I'll give LA an edge right now but Miami is growing faster and has already surpassed LA in international passenger traffic, and that doesn't even include Fort Lauderdale which has around 4 million international passengers.
To be honest, With a smaller percentage of Asian populations compared to the other big four metros, airline partnerships/codesharing, and possible aircraft range issues given the distance I will think it will be quite some time before Miami will see an Asian flag carrier offering passenger direct services.
You know very little about the Bay Area region. Let me educate you from your blind hatred.
San Jose at the start of the 1950's was mainly an agricultural town with a population of 95,000 (San Francisco at the same time was 775,000!!). The land in San Jose was cheap and most urban areas in the 1950's began to grow immensly (San Jose had grown in 20 years to a population of 459,000 in 1970) and experienced that growth from urban sprawl. Santa Clara Valley was the outer edge of the SAN FRANCISCO metropolitan area which meant affordable housing. The further from the metropolitan center "SAN FRANCISCO" the cheaper the housing . Keep in mind this is before Silicon Valley's existance. There was alot of unincorporated area around San Jose which the city began to annex.
San Jose is nothing more than a large suburb of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area that has gotten large enough to be "assumed" as it's own separate city/metro. History proves that it is not. Silicon Valley didn't just locate there because it's "San Jose". They located there because in the second half of the 1970's and through the mid 80's land there was the cheapest they could find that was still undeveloped that was as close to SAN FRANCISCO as they could locate.
I can still remember in 1979 once you got passed Capitol Expressway going south on the 101 freeway it wasn't even a freeway. It was Monterey Road.
So please stop saying San Francisco has nothing to do with Silicon Valley. I will reiterate: The reason Silicon Valley is in San Jose is because that was the only part of the SAN FRANCISCO Metro area that still had large amounts of undeveloped parcels of land.
I don't need to be from there to know one thing:
The Federal Government, whom I pay my taxes to and could do whatever they want since they are more powerful than you or I, and the ultimate authority in defining metropolitan areas, states that Santa Clara County is its own metropolitan area.
Do you have a problem with people in San Jose wanting to develop their own identity? Maybe its time for them to finally become a metro of their own and finally forever leave the obviously degrading existence of being part of San Francisco's orbit.
I'm glad that Silicon Valley is there It shows that even medium-small metro areas like San Jose (with 1.7 million people) are still important.
which leaves us one short of ten. Orlando and Las Vegas are interesting picks, but the cities themselves have little international flair whereas the sites within those cities are very popular vacation destinations. Honolulu is also an interesting possible pick due to its very diverse population and popularity as a vacation destination. The major metros of Atlanta, DFW, Philly, and Detroit get a fair bit of international travelers and have moderate amounts of diversity, but aren't quite the sort of hubs the other cities are (though close or better than Houston and Seattle by some metrics) nor quite the international tourism draw (though they do get a lot of domestic tourism).
The Federal Government, whom I pay my taxes to and could do whatever they want since they are more powerful than you or I, and the ultimate authority in defining metropolitan areas, states that Santa Clara County is its own metropolitan area.
Do you have a problem with people in San Jose wanting to develop their own identity? Maybe its time for them to finally become a metro of their own and finally forever leave the obviously degrading existence of being part of San Francisco's orbit.
I'm glad that Silicon Valley is there It shows that even medium-small metro areas like San Jose (with 1.7 million people) are still important.
hmm. Let's see here:
1.San Francisco and San Jose share the same television media affiliates: NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX, etc.
2.Both cities have the same radio stations in their Arbitron ratings books.
3.There is high density with no rural breaks of any kind to separate the two areas.
4. Both utilize the same mass transit system (Caltrain and BART). The San Jose extention will be completed by 2017.
5. More ppl in San Jose's so called metro utilize San Francisco's airport far more than their own. 95% of all international travelers from the San Jose area use San Francisco International airport.
Is that normal for two distinctive metropolitan areas?
Just because some geek in the Census Bureau has calculated that the commute traffic patterns in the region came up short (and that is debatible on the accuracy of that finding) that somehow these are two different metro areas? That is laughable!
This post is what detracted you. You responded to a comment by forumer westhou who said "looks like only coastal cities". The man is from Houston so obviously he's NOT just talking Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Last I looked at a map he was right, Houston is coastal.
Chicago and Dallas aren't though so he was wrong about saying every place is on the coast.
This post is what detracted you. You responded to a comment by forumer westhou who said "looks like only coastal cities". The man is from Houston so obviously he's NOT just talking Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Last I looked at a map he was right, Houston is coastal.
Chicago and Dallas aren't though so he was wrong about saying every place is on the coast.
Technicly Chicago can be included as a "coastal inland port". Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes are intertwined providing sea passage through the St. Lawrence Seaway into the Atlantic Ocean. Chicago area isn't the traditional port with heavy container movement as Long Beach, Savannah, Oakland, Seattle, but I believe the area is still a bulk materials port (Grains, ore, etc.). I could be wrong though. We need a Chicagoan to chime in on this.
1.San Francisco and San Jose share the same television media affiliates: NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX, etc.
2.Both cities have the same radio stations in their Arbitron ratings books.
3.There is high density with no rural breaks of any kind to separate the two areas.
4. Both utilize the same mass transit system (Caltrain and BART). The San Jose extention will be completed by 2017.
5. More ppl in San Jose's so called metro utilize San Francisco's airport far more than their own. 95% of all international travelers from the San Jose area use San Francisco International airport.
Is that normal for two distinctive metropolitan areas?
Just because some geek in the Census Bureau has calculated that the commute traffic patterns in the region came up short (and that is debatible on the accuracy of that finding) that somehow these are two different metro areas? That is laughable!
Go write to your local congressman and complain to them about how the Federal Government, again who knows way better than you, defines metropolitan areas.
In my mind and the mind of every well read poster on this site, San Francisco MSA has 4.3 million people. Whenever someone even INSINUATES that San Jose is part of that metro, I will be there to post the reality.
To be honest, With a smaller percentage of Asian populations compared to the other big four metros, airline partnerships/codesharing, and possible aircraft range issues given the distance I will think it will be quite some time before Miami will see an Asian flag carrier offering passenger direct services.
True, but Miami already has regular cargo flights from Asia- Cathay Pacific and Korean Air- many times passenger flights follow- plus Asia has growing business ties to South America and there is also Orlando and other attractions that can fill seats. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Miami gets an Asian Flag carrier within the next two/three years- rumors are Tokyo Narita.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,043,908 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215
Ok first we're talking about cities, then you switch to using the "Bay Area" moniker.
Silicon Valley has nothing to do with SF, since its mostly located in San Jose's metropolitan area. Look, you live in Australia, its like if someone tried to claim that Wollongong was part of Sydney or a place like Geelong was part of Melbourne's vincinity. Sure, they're adjacent, but not part of another.
San Francisco itself relies on tourism, and most of that is domestic. Sure, its diverse (another thing that's overrated about SF) but its clear that most of the people who visit there are American. It's more of a domestic tourist magnet than an international one, given that Los Angeles is just right there, a much larger and much cooler place to visit, along with Las Vegas.
Agreed. Aside from the foreign born statistic (which BTW is another thing about SF that shouldn't be accounted for since the vast majority of SF's foreign born are from China, Mexico, or the Philippines), it doesn't feel that international. Having lots and lots of Asians =/= internationalness. If that's the case, then Vancouver beats out almost every American city including Chicago, Houston, and DC.
It just lacks that international panache. It really does.
The Bay Area is the SF metro area, so I consider it part of San Francisco for the purpose of this discussion. Just as I would also include the entire Houston metro area and all that it contains and all it's importance in this comparison.
Actually, for many people overseas SF is more popular than LA. I'm looking at it from the outside, and have spoken to many people from all different countries about this so I know. Being American there are some things you might not know unless you've spoken to a lot of non-Americans.
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.
.
