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 Jose is to San Francisco what Milwaukee is to Chicago.
Wrong. Milwaukee and Chicago have their own suburbs and little interactions between them.
San Jose is on a commuter rail line into San Francisco, and is going to be connected to Downtown SF via BART too (the Chicago El certainly doesn't go to Milwaukee, nor does Metra).
Thing of it this way, if Milwaukee never existed would that area where Milwaukee and its suburbs are today be filled with development from Chicago? No, because even today Chicago's suburbs don't really reach much further than Waukegan/Kenosha.
If San Jose never existed, would the Santa Clara Valley still be filled with tract homes, suburban office parks, suburban-style apartments, etc.?
Wrong. Milwaukee and Chicago have their own suburbs and little interactions between them.
San Jose is on a commuter rail line into San Francisco, and is going to be connected to Downtown SF via BART too (the Chicago El certainly doesn't go to Milwaukee, nor does Metra).
Thing of it this way, if Milwaukee never existed would that area where Milwaukee and its suburbs are today be filled with development from Chicago? No, because even today Chicago's suburbs don't really reach much further than Waukegan/Kenosha.
If San Jose never existed, would the Santa Clara Valley still be filled with tract homes, suburban office parks, suburban-style apartments, etc.?
Absolutely!
The Hiawatha goes between Milwaukee and Chicago multiple times daily. (Maybe you didn't know this?) It's continuous development between the cities....Chicago and Milwaukee suburbs meet. People from Chicago are buying condos in Milwaukee's Third Ward, and living there on week-ends. There are a LOT of interactions between the cities, that you maybe don't know much about??
About your comment in bold, Chicago's suburbs don't go beyond Kenosha, as then you are in Milwaukee suburbs. Kenosha used to be a part of Milwaukee's MSA....now it's a part of Chicago's MSA.
Wrong. Milwaukee and Chicago have their own suburbs and little interactions between them.
San Jose is on a commuter rail line into San Francisco, and is going to be connected to Downtown SF via BART too (the Chicago El certainly doesn't go to Milwaukee, nor does Metra).
Thing of it this way, if Milwaukee never existed would that area where Milwaukee and its suburbs are today be filled with development from Chicago? No, because even today Chicago's suburbs don't really reach much further than Waukegan/Kenosha.
If San Jose never existed, would the Santa Clara Valley still be filled with tract homes, suburban office parks, suburban-style apartments, etc.?
Absolutely!
Of course all Coastal within 50 miles of the Coast would have seen development till you get more far northern Cali perhaps? Honestly, San Jose is the 3rd most populated city in California after LA and San Diego so ..... San Jose dates back to the 1700s and was even a State Capital city of California before Sacramento.
So it did not need San Francisco to be. It was in its own right. What occurred is Silicon Valley was in its backyard and boom!
Milwaukee is also a city in its own right. It remains a city in its own right that no one claims Chicago will absorb anytime soon. Their cores are 90 miles apart and yes their suburbs come together in Wisconsin with Chicago making inroads but the full distance is too great to think of a California or Texas commute makes sense. Neither city needs the other to be what it was. If Chicago was not? It does reason Milwaukee would have developed into where Chicago is also as you infer with San Jose. So then too Milwaukee the premier lower Lake Michigan Great lakes city instead.
The Hiawatha goes between Milwaukee and Chicago multiple times daily. (Maybe you didn't know this?) It's continuous development between the cities....Chicago and Milwaukee suburbs meet. People from Chicago are buying condos in Milwaukee's Third Ward, and living there on week-ends. There are a LOT of interactions between the cities, that you maybe don't know much about??
About your comment in bold, Chicago's suburbs don't go beyond Kenosha, as then you are in Milwaukee suburbs. Kenosha used to be a part of Milwaukee's MSA....now it's a part of Chicago's MSA.
This is no comparison to San Francisco and San Jose, not even close.
Of course all Coastal within 50 miles of the Coast would have seen development till you get more far northern Cali perhaps? Honestly, San Jose is the 3rd most populated city in California after LA and San Diego so ..... San Jose dates back to the 1700s and was even a State Capital city of California before Sacramento.
So it did not need San Francisco to be. It was in its own right. What occurred is Silicon Valley was in its backyard and boom!
Milwaukee is also a city in its own right. It remains a city in its own right that no one claims Chicago will absorb anytime soon. Their cores are 90 miles apart and yes their suburbs come together in Wisconsin with Chicago making inroads but the full distance is too great to think of a California or Texas commute makes sense. Neither city needs the other to be what it was. If Chicago was not? It does reason Milwaukee would have developed into where Chicago is also as you infer with San Jose being the then premier lower Lake Michigan Great lakes city instead.
I do know plenty that commute between the two cities, though...both ways. The 90 miles you speak of, is misleading, I believe. That's from the center of Chicago's downtown to the center of Milwaukee's downtown. Many, many, many other parts of each city's MSA either touch, or are maybe a twenty minute drive away. Not everyone who commutes, lives in the center of one city, and has to go to the center of the other city. If one commutes, you would live in Kenosha, Grayslake, or other northern Chicago suburbs.
I do know plenty that commute between the two cities, though...both ways. The 90 miles you speak of, is misleading, I believe. That's from the center of Chicago's downtown to the center of Milwaukee's downtown. Many, many, many other parts of each city's MSA either touch, or are maybe a twenty minute drive away. Not everyone who commutes, lives in the center of one city, and has to go to the center of the other city. If one commutes, you would live in Kenosha, Grayslake, or other northern Chicago suburbs.
Yes of course you are right. Why I said core to core was 90 miles and yes the suburbs meet. So that says some commuting. Just CSA's have that 15% baseline of commuters. That makes it less likely unless suburbs of one to perhaps one of the cores. Seems commuting is far more accepted for a couple hours is the Sunbelt or West Coast vs I would say most Midwestern cities? Will leave it as a ?
When you see from orbit from a satellite the light pollution of the Chicago/Milwaukee region.... they look like one blob.
You mean despite a pandemic, despite an economic slowdown, despite sky high prices, the Bay Area still tops the national average as far as how quickly homes sell? In a market everyone is supposed to be fleeing? You sure about that?
Sorry, dear, but you can't try to wow us with time-to-sell stats for the Bay Area, and then forget the fact that those stats are ~50% worse compared to the same time last year. Not to mention demand cratering for rentals in SF, Oakland and SJ giving all of them double-digit drops in rent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
San Francisco is the only major metro that at best is expected to have zero foreclosures as a result of the pandemic, this is astounding considering this region locked down first.
Same with this, you're leaving out the fact that the spread for SF is suspiciously large, and the median has it performing worse than Boston, Seattle and even Detroit.
I am not one of the people saying that Chicago's CSA is more economically important than the Bay Area. But I also think San Francisco specifically is in for a very bumpy ride and its economy is going to suffer. Signs are pointing in that direction right now and being in denial won't help.
Milwaukee to Chicago is all suburbs....there is a lot of unpopulated area between SF and Sacramento.
As someone who has driven back and forth between Chicago and Milwaukee, I can say with zero equivocation that that 'all suburbs' claim may be something by non-western standards, but I thought it was really empty compared to what you see between San Francisco and San Jose, which is 40 miles closer first of all, and completely developed in all developable lands, with around 5,000+ population density for just about the entire drive.
Remember, San Francisco and San Jose are 2nd and 3rd most densely populated urban areas in the US, behind only Los Angeles-this is totally visible if you drive between the 2 cities.
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.
