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.
San Francisco is more important to the Bay Area than Philadelphia is to the East Coast, or it's neighbors directly to the north or south of the city. People want to live and work and visit the area because of San Francisco.
Again, why are you comparing SF to just the Bay Area but Philly to the entire East Coast? That makes no sense and you clearly have no explanation for such a uneven comparison.
Quote:
Given the nature of today's technology, there's no need to be located in a specific area like there would have been 10, 15, 20 years ago. Computer work can be done from anywhere.
Silicon Valley could have dispersed when internet speeds started to pick up and working from "home" was a more feasible option (even more so now). But it hasn't. Why? I can only think it's because San Francisco is right there, and what it offers in terms of "city" is enough to keep people working in traditional office parks and high rises when said job could be accomplished just as easily from the convenience of someone's home, or coffee shop.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. So peeople can make semi-conductors from their home? This simply isn't true and if this was the actually case then why aren't a lot more people working from home all over the nation? San Francisco is 30-40+ miles away from the heart of Silicon Valley too. And if so many people could work from home, what difference does it make if SF is there or not? How would SF make people go work in office parks? Why couldn't they just work from home IN Sf or visit it on weekends when they have time off?
Quote:
Take Philadelphia out of it's place on the Eastern Seaboard, and there are still plenty of reasons to still live in the area that was once occupied by Philadelphia.
Same for SF and one of those reasons would be good jobs.
Quote:
Philadelphia depends more on it's location in a string of metro areas. San Francisco doesn't need it's metro area to remain relevant or to be a desirable place to live
It most certainly does, maybe even more so than Philly and other cities. Good jobs make a place desirable to live as well. SF is still a great city w/o Silicon Valley, but probably wouldn't be as wealthy or relevant as it is.
Quote:
My thoughts.
And it's such a bizarre thought process too. You keep comparing SF to just its metro but Philly to the entire eastern seaboard. You also seem to be blinded by how pretty and urban SF to realize that it's Silicon Valley that is the actual economic powerhouse of the Bay Area and not the City of SF. People care a lot more about jobs and making a living than cute little neighborhoods, beautiful views, and nice restaurants.
Again, why are you comparing SF to just the Bay Area but Philly to the entire East Coast? That makes no sense and you clearly have no explanation for such a uneven comparison.
This makes absoluteky no sense at all. So peeople can make semi-conductors from their home? This simply isn't true and if this was the actually case then why aren't a lot more people working from home all over the nation? San Francisco is 30-40+ miles away from the heart of Silicon Valley too. And if so many people could work from home, what difference does it make SF is there or not? How would SF make people go work in office parks? Why couldn't they just work from home IN Sf or visit it on weekends when they have time off?
Same for SF and one of those reasons would be good jobs.
It most certainly does, maybe even more so than Philly and other cities.
And it's such a bizarre thought process too. You keep comparing SF to just its metro but Philly to the entire eastern seaboard. You also seem to be blinded by how pretty and urban SF to realize that it's Silicon Valley that is the actual economic powerhouse of the Bay Area and not the City of SF. People care a lot more about jobs and making a living than cute little neighborhoods, beautiful views, and nice restaurants.
Actually I think some pretty fair points here
On where they are comparable, neither Philly nor SF are the largest economic engines of their respective metros.
For the Philly metro sadly that is now actually Montogmery County to the west and places like KOP, Conshy, Plymouth Meeting, And the 422 corrider (suburban office parks too)
Again, why are you comparing SF to just the Bay Area but Philly to the entire East Coast? That makes no sense and you clearly have no explanation for such a uneven comparison...And it's such a bizarre thought process too. You keep comparing SF to just its metro but Philly to the entire eastern seaboard. You also seem to be blinded by how pretty and urban SF to realize that it's Silicon Valley that is the actual economic powerhouse of the Bay Area and not the City of SF. People care a lot more about jobs and making a living than cute little neighborhoods, beautiful views, and nice restaurants.
I'm not a person who likes to account for metro areas when talking about a city. I prefer city limits. Many, many, many other people do like to (especially on city-data). With that in mind, I have read numerous threads talking about Philadelphia and there are some people that are a bit perturbed by the fact that Philadelphia is getting slighted in their metro numbers and size due to it's location on the East Coast. The Bay area is not touching another city's metro area like Philadelphia is on the East Coast.
If Sacramento can be factored into a discussion on San Francisco and it's metro area (according to Google maps about 88 miles apart), then I think it certainly sounds reasonable enough to think about Philadelphia being 93 miles away from New York and 98 miles away from Baltimore. If San Francisco was 93 miles from LA and 98 miles from Portland, then I think "San Francisco, the metro" would be comparable to "Philadelphia, the metro". If Philadelphia was 377 miles away from New York, and 632 miles from Baltimore (the distances of SF to LA and Portland, respectively), then San Francisco and the Bay Area could be compared to Philadelphia and it's region.
That's why I say I'm leaning towards "not comparable", although I'm not voting. If using "stupid, dumb, arbitrary, etc" city boundaries, I would say that, yes, they are comparable. But if talking about metro areas, then there seems to be too much of a difference and leads to the cliched "Apples to Oranges" appraisal of the situation.
Take Philadelphia and it's metro area out of it's place on the East Coast and its 186 miles from New York to Baltimore, and that distance could be traversed any number of ways.
Take San Francisco and if you're so inclined, it's metro area, out of the Bay and 186 miles gets you where? Not quite Reno? Chico? Fresno? There isn't anything holding back or over shadowing San Francisco in it's place on the West Coast, and more specifically the Bay Area, in my opinion. Not true with Philadelphia though. As I said before I've read posts that bemoan the fact that Philadelphia isn't credited with more people in the "official" metro area due to it's location, or commuting patterns, or influence, or density, or urban area, or whatever.
As far as Silicon Valley being the driving economic force, I don't have a problem with that. But I do think that being attached to San Francisco has a lot to do with it's creativity and successes. Isn't San Francisco outside the box? Free thinking? Relaxed? Birthplace of the hippies?
And none of those traits, qualities, or amenities in San Francisco helped to establish or influence the environment that fostered Silicon Valley? That is: If the Valley was near Boise, would the results be the same? Or Dallas? Or Cincinnati? Anchorage? Would the types of people who make Silicon Valley thrive be eager, willing, or hesitant to work out of Louisville? Or Omaha? Indianapolis?
In summary:
*If* the strict, rigid, and arbitrary city boundaries are used to define both places in question, then I would say they are reasonably comparable.
*If* the just as arbitrary metro limits are used to define both places in question, then I would say they are not reasonably comparable because their arbitrary metro areas are in completely different situations that leads to the "Apples to Oranges" argument.
Take Philadelphia and it's metro area out of it's place on the East Coast and its 186 miles from New York to Baltimore, and that distance could be traversed any number of ways.
Take San Francisco and if you're so inclined, it's metro area, out of the Bay and 186 miles gets you where? Not quite Reno? Chico? Fresno? There isn't anything holding back or over shadowing San Francisco in it's place on the West Coast, and more specifically the Bay Area, in my opinion. Not true with Philadelphia though. As I said before I've read posts that bemoan the fact that Philadelphia isn't credited with more people in the "official" metro area due to it's location, or commuting patterns, or influence, or density, or urban area, or whatever.
Ok, I see what you're saying more now and why you made that comparison originally. I still don't really think it's fair as metros out west are much farther apart in general due to being settled much later. Yes the region around Philly, which inlcudes DC and NYC, give you better options than the Bay Area in that same radius.
Quote:
As far as Silicon Valley being the driving economic force, I don't have a problem with that. But I do think that being attached to San Francisco has a lot to do with it's creativity and successes. Isn't San Francisco outside the box? Free thinking? Relaxed? Birthplace of the hippies?
And none of those traits, qualities, or amenities in San Francisco helped to establish or influence the environment that fostered Silicon Valley? That is: If the Valley was near Boise, would the results be the same? Or Dallas? Or Cincinnati? Anchorage? Would the types of people who make Silicon Valley thrive be eager, willing, or hesitant to work out of Louisville? Or Omaha? Indianapolis?
Now that you put it this way I see what you are talking about and that actually is a very good question and you do have a point. There was some book or article/report than examined this, I can't remember who wrote it. But it asked the question about these popular creative places, whether or not these popular, great cities make places innovative or whether innovatation makes these places great. Basically the chicken or egg scenario, which came first. I don't recall the conclusion or if there really was an answer to that question but indeed all the things SF is known for could have played a role in the Bay Area being the center of tech and innovation. I really can't give an opinion on that as I haven't really thought about it too much but you definitely have a point and I understand why someone would feel that way.
Ok, I see what you're saying more now and why you made that comparison originally. I still don't really think it's fair as metros out west are much farther apart in general due to being settled much later. Yes the region around Philly, which inlcudes DC and NYC, give you better options than the Bay Area in that same radius.
It completely depends on what you want as close proximity. If you are in Philly, why do you want to go to another big city? Unless its a specific destination. Its about destinations, and if you look at it that way San Francisco has singularly unique destinations within close proximity. Lake Tahoe, Sequoias, Napa Valley, Redwoods, Monterey Bay/Carmel, Yosemite, Big Sur, those are all world class destinations within two hours.
It completely depends on what you want as close proximity. If you are in Philly, why do you want to go to another big city? Unless its a specific destination. Its about destinations, and if you look at it that way San Francisco has singularly unique destinations within close proximity. Lake Tahoe, Sequoias, Napa Valley, Redwoods, Monterey Bay/Carmel, Yosemite, Big Sur, those are all world class destinations within two hours.
Perhaps you don't like to visit different cities. I do. And while SF has some great getaways in its vicinity, I definitely enjoy the unique destinations within a few hours drive of Philadelphia: NYC, DC, Baltimore, Annapolis, Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry, quaint resorts such as Cape May and Rehoboth Beach, Maryland's Eastern Shore, the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, the Pocono mountains, Brandywine Valley, Hudson Valley, Lancaster Amish country, rolling countryside populated with covered bridges, etc.
Perhaps you don't like to visit different cities. I do. And while SF has some great getaways in its vicinity, I definitely enjoy the unique destinations within a few hours drive of Philadelphia: NYC, DC, Baltimore, Annapolis, Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry, quaint resorts such as Cape May and Rehoboth Beach, Maryland's Eastern Shore, the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, the Pocono mountains, Brandywine Valley, Hudson Valley, Lancaster Amish country, rolling countryside populated with covered bridges, etc.
The point is there is no advantage for Philly in this regard.
1. LOL did you add "bay area is very desirable. Philadelphia metro is very undesirable" to his post? Because I pressed the triangle to the right of his quote and it took me back to his post and he never said that nor was it edited to say that. Stop trying to make this a bigger deal than it already is.
2. You must be expecting a reply from him but he's no longer a member.
3. Terrific pictures of the Philly region.
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.
