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.
Dallas and Houston? SF CSA is like 8.4 million, I don't think any city in Texas is in the same league. Heck LA's CSA has more people than the CSAs in the Texas Triangle combined. True Dallas and Houston are adding a bit more people than San Francisco Bay by numerical gains, but that will only last as long as Texas cities stay cheap.
The San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland CSA is the 5th largest, yes.
I frankly always thought it was rather odd that SF wasn't the largest city in its CSA though. Obviously it's better known, more desirable, and more urban than San Jose, but San Jose still has more people. Odd, isn't it?
The San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland CSA is the 5th largest, yes.
I frankly always thought it was rather odd that SF wasn't the largest city in its CSA though. Obviously it's better known, more desirable, and more urban than San Jose, but San Jose still has more people. Odd, isn't it?
City limits are kind of arbitrary and don't mean that much, and not just when it comes to SF and SJ.
One of the reasons for San Jose being so big is that it annexed tons of neighboring towns, something that SF was never able to do. If you could expand SF's city limits to match SJ's in area, SF would have a much larger population. And for the record, during the day SF grows by 200,000+ people to about 1.1 million residents, while SJ's population drops by 5% to around 925,000. SF has has a larger job base and economy...Just look at downtown office space, for example: SF has around 80 million square feet, while SJ only has around 10 million. Basically, San Jose is bigger than SF is terms of the amount of land area and residents within the city limits, but SF is a bigger city in every other way.
And it's not that odd that SJ grew so large either. San Jose was always a population center in the Bay Area, though it had an economy based on agriculture and for a long time was a small city. But as the Bay Area grew in the post WWII years, the south bay was a natural place for lots of expansion. The existence of Stanford university, and especially the tech industry (which was spawned largely by Stanford and military research in the area) helped things along. Then you have SJ expanding its city limits/annexing neighboring towns along the way, while development in SF is restricted by geography, and by 1990 SJ ends up with more residents within the city limits than SF does.
City limits are kind of arbitrary and don't mean that much, and not just when it comes to SF and SJ.
One of the reasons for San Jose being so big is that it annexed tons of neighboring towns, something that SF was never able to do. If you could expand SF's city limits to match SJ's in area, SF would have a much larger population. And for the record, during the day SF grows by 200,000+ people to about 1.1 million residents, while SJ's population drops by 5% to around 925,000. SF has has a larger job base and economy...Just look at downtown office space, for example: SF has around 80 million square feet, while SJ only has around 10 million. Basically, San Jose is bigger than SF is terms of the amount of land area and residents within the city limits, but SF is a bigger city in every other way.
And it's not that odd that SJ grew so large either. San Jose was always a population center in the Bay Area, though it had an economy based on agriculture and for a long time was a small city. But as the Bay Area grew in the post WWII years, the south bay was a natural place for lots of expansion. The existence of Stanford university, and especially the tech industry (which was spawned largely by Stanford and military research in the area) helped things along. Then you have SJ expanding its city limits/annexing neighboring towns along the way, while development in SF is restricted by geography, and by 1990 SJ ends up with more residents within the city limits than SF does.
^^Right here! I wonder when the MSAs will merge and this stupid problem will finally be gone.
Dallas and Houston? SF CSA is like 8.4 million, I don't think any city in Texas is in the same league. Heck LA's CSA has more people than the CSAs in the Texas Triangle combined. True Dallas and Houston are adding a bit more people than San Francisco Bay by numerical gains, but that will only last as long as Texas cities stay cheap.
Not exactly:
LA CSA 2010-13: +474,923
SFBA CSA 2010-13: +316,518
Heck LA's CSA has more people than the CSAs in the Texas Triangle combined.
DFW and HOU aren't growing much faster than SFBA nowadays, but LA isn't outpacing all of them in raw numbers COMBINED nowadays.
Plus, is Stockton really that connected to the Bay Area? It doesn't feel like it is, nor is development really connected between the two.
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.
