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.
That's because the name of the actual bay is San Francisco Bay. Kind of like how the Mississippi Valley is not necessarily reliant on the State of Mississippi, despite being called the Mississippi Valley. Its called so because it is in a valley made by the Mississippi River, likewise the area is called the SF bay Area because it is the area around San Francisco bay, it was so before the urban conglomerate took over, the bay was named 7 years prior to the city. (as is true with nearly every political entity with the same name a geographic entity. )
Read the OP. And believe me when I say countless people on this site (and even in sparing op-eds in published websites/journals) have called it a suburb to San Jose or to Silicon Valley (which in their uneducated minds is teeny tiny area where all of "tech" is...which was the case 20+ years ago). Others have declared SJ the main city/center of the Bay Area. Still others insist that there is no tech outside of the northern reaches of Santa Clara County/southern reaches of San Mateo County (the ancient definition of Silicon Valley), and thus no tech whatsoever in SF city limits or other parts of the Bay Area.
I say all this because, while the Bay Area/SF has been in the spotlight for a while and does receive a lot of praise, clearly there is some odd form of jealousy or anger towards it and there is either a conscious attempt on some people's part, and perhaps subconscious on others', to "cut it down to size". This is actually a thing, and I've even noticed it both on and off-C-D.
i dont think it is hatred maybe just ignorance.
i'm from east coast and i know nothing about la but i at least heard of san francisco giants/49-ers. (i learned recently that golden state is actually in san fran and not la).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
Okay a I am not trying to cut SanFran to size I said the word suburb like snake may have negative connotations but isn't a negative word. Snake used to plain and simple mean the animal with know legs but due to the way snake is fired in the bible the word probably almost became synonymous with evil, liers etc. In Australia suburb means a suburb because city boundaries are very small in Australia look up city of Perth, city of Melbourne and city of Sydney. They all are divided into smaller entities with several "mayors" I know this because some Nigerian cities have or (had) a similar set up hence the suburbs are called everything but the central city district. So they are suburbs, I will admit I always thought the word for word definition was a town/city adjacent to a city that it is smaller than. I am sorry if you think I am trying to belittle the great city of San Francisco (I'm not being sarcastic it is one of the most highly acclaimed cities in the U.S) but even the official or maybe unofficial name of the CSA is ranked by population of cities, same with MSA's. So I beg to differ that they don't care at all about city populations. Why do you think the nicknames of the place is The Bay Area or In DFW The Metroplex? because the fact that the other cities or suburbs in the region are so powerful that the area can't just be called Dallas area or SanFran area that would be an insult to the other cities so it is now called the Metroplex. I'll admit that I'm wrong on the definition of a suburb. Let's leave it at this and get back if you want you can post after this to get the last reply but I will leave it as it is.
...
i read another thread a while ago about how the census bureau has a new england definition for metro and a definition for the rest of the country due to age of cities and laws against annexation.
i think for ne it was something like any municipality with more than 10,000 ppm that borders the main city or another city with 10,000 ppm.
and for the rest it was defined by at least 50 % of people in a particular city commute to the main city everyday.
is there a way to get:
Quote:
x = (metro gdp) - (city gdp)
if not maybe something like:
Quote:
(avg gdp per person) = (metro gdp) / (metro population)
(city population gdp) = (avg gdp per person) * (city population)
x = (metro gdp) - (city population gdp)
Last edited by stanley-88888888; 07-14-2015 at 10:25 AM..
That's because the name of the actual bay is San Francisco Bay. Kind of like how the Mississippi Valley is not necessarily reliant on the State of Mississippi, despite being called the Mississippi Valley. Its called so because it is in a valley made by the Mississippi River, likewise the area is called the SF bay Area because it is the area around San Francisco bay, it was so before the urban conglomerate took over, the bay was named 7 years prior to the city. (as is true with nearly every political entity with the same name a geographic entity. )
If we are talking about suburbs based on MSA Oakland or Long Beach or some of the bigger OC suburbs would top this list.
Based on MSA it would go
Fort Worth
Oakland
To avoid this confusion of cities in their own rights part of another cities urban area we can state that the city cannot have a history of being its own metropolitan or micropolitan area, ruling out cities like Fort Worth and Oakland etc and probably up to 3 large cities in the LA area that to further this even more a suburb cannot for example contain a university that was built before 1940 or something similar and finally saying a suburb can not have in the history of it city having a larger census than the city it is a suburb of, or Built before the city it was a suburb of. This will help many old towns that are established and older than the principal cities like Galveston that were established so often have a very urban feel to it. Also to classify on this list and eliminate many artificial CBDs that aren't really independent suburbs, a suburb must have over 50,000 people to qualify as this in terms is more of a town and not an artificial city.
By doing this we eliminate it to almost generic suburbs.
Some of this criteria would eliminate a lot of the suburbs in the Northeast, even the ones that grew primarily after WW2. There are some pretty extreme examples too, like Yonkers, which is a suburb of NYC, but it is actually older than the city of Philadelphia.... :\
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
NYC has Strong Island.
A lot of Long Island was actually settled back in 1600s and 1700s.
AMC's TV series Turn, about the spies in the Revolutionary War era, actually takes place on Long Island.
That's because the name of the actual bay is San Francisco Bay. Kind of like how the Mississippi Valley is not necessarily reliant on the State of Mississippi, despite being called the Mississippi Valley. Its called so because it is in a valley made by the Mississippi River, likewise the area is called the SF bay Area because it is the area around San Francisco bay, it was so before the urban conglomerate took over, the bay was named 7 years prior to the city. (as is true with nearly every political entity with the same name a geographic entity. )
Well the 49ers are still the San Francisco 49ers despite playing in Santa Clara, CA, a suburb of mainly San Jose. Perhaps one day they'll shift name to San Jose 49ers, though it won't have the same historical reference, and clearly the owners and the League felt there was a need to keep San Francisco the associated city, at least for the time being (and probably well into the future).
But we can continue to argue that San Francisco is a suburb of San Jose JK
The other bet is that if and when the Warriors move to their new arena in San Francisco, they will change name from Golden State Warriors to San Francisco Warriors. I've heard it said that "Golden State" was a crafty way not to use Oakland as the associated city (and the Warriors were formerly in SF).
Either way, outside of just tech, San Francisco has global name appeal and recognition. No matter how large San Jose gets population wise, it will never be the dominant city of the entire region, though clearly it dominates the South Bay and is strongly associated with tech (and basically tech alone).
I would say that logically one should exclude all 3 main cities: SF, Oakland, and SJ from "suburb" status. SJ is large enough geographically where one could perhaps say they live in "suburban San Jose" and the whole area looks rather suburban, and SF technically sends more commuters to Santa Clara County than it receives from Santa Clara County, so perhaps on a technicality it could also be a suburb of Santa Clara County (and Oakland clearly sends many commuters to SF, so technically it could be a "suburb" of SF). But you'd have to start calling Brooklyn a suburb for this to start making sense.
Maybe it could be argued that Berkeley, but then if you're basing off of size, Berkeley at 115K people is only about the 8th largest city in the metro that isn't one of the main 3. To see how complicated this gets for the Bay Area:
Sort by size. It probably won't be too long before you have 2 cities of at least 1 million people and another over 500K people all in one metro area. Even in greater New York, after NYC you have "little" Newark at 280K people. Even Greater Los Angeles has more of a divide - as sprawled and large as it is with so many notable burbs, LA is still about 20% of the population of the area (whereas SF is only about 10% of its Bay Area population), and Long Beach is the #2 at 12% the population of LA (462K) and only about 2.5% of the area. So it gets really convoluted for the Bay Area, but if you want to look at "suburbs", then you have to go for the obvious choices.
In my opinion, the strongest Bay Area burbs (economy, size, name recognition, etc etc), in order, are:
Palo Alto
Berkeley - some might consider a "city"
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Redwood City
Strong contenders might include Walnut Creek, Menlo Park, Santa Rosa, Mountain View, Cupertino, and a few others.
Napa has name recognition, Fremont is the largest by population, and Berkeley could conceivably be considered a city even though by population it's smaller than many area suburbs. If Berkeley is a suburb, it can vie in my opinion for #1 with PA.
washington dc and its surrounding suburbs. Tysons corner, va is the 12th largest business district in the country and rapidly growing. The metro area gdp is around $465 billion and the 61 sq mi city of dc gdp is $113 billion of that. Leaving $352 billion of that to the msa's suburbs. Which is larger than economies like seattle or atlanta entirely.
Well the 49ers are still the San Francisco 49ers despite playing in Santa Clara, CA, a suburb of mainly San Jose. Perhaps one day they'll shift name to San Jose 49ers, though it won't have the same historical reference, and clearly the owners and the League felt there was a need to keep San Francisco the associated city, at least for the time being (and probably well into the future).
But we can continue to argue that San Francisco is a suburb of San Jose JK
The other bet is that if and when the Warriors move to their new arena in San Francisco, they will change name from Golden State Warriors to San Francisco Warriors. I've heard it said that "Golden State" was a crafty way not to use Oakland as the associated city (and the Warriors were formerly in SF).
Either way, outside of just tech, San Francisco has global name appeal and recognition. No matter how large San Jose gets population wise, it will never be the dominant city of the entire region, though clearly it dominates the South Bay and is strongly associated with tech (and basically tech alone).
I would say that logically one should exclude all 3 main cities: SF, Oakland, and SJ from "suburb" status. SJ is large enough geographically where one could perhaps say they live in "suburban San Jose" and the whole area looks rather suburban, and SF technically sends more commuters to Santa Clara County than it receives from Santa Clara County, so perhaps on a technicality it could also be a suburb of Santa Clara County (and Oakland clearly sends many commuters to SF, so technically it could be a "suburb" of SF). But you'd have to start calling Brooklyn a suburb for this to start making sense.
Maybe it could be argued that Berkeley, but then if you're basing off of size, Berkeley at 115K people is only about the 8th largest city in the metro that isn't one of the main 3. To see how complicated this gets for the Bay Area:
Sort by size. It probably won't be too long before you have 2 cities of at least 1 million people and another over 500K people all in one metro area. Even in greater New York, after NYC you have "little" Newark at 280K people. Even Greater Los Angeles has more of a divide - as sprawled and large as it is with so many notable burbs, LA is still about 20% of the population of the area (whereas SF is only about 10% of its Bay Area population), and Long Beach is the #2 at 12% the population of LA (462K) and only about 2.5% of the area. So it gets really convoluted for the Bay Area, but if you want to look at "suburbs", then you have to go for the obvious choices.
In my opinion, the strongest Bay Area burbs (economy, size, name recognition, etc etc), in order, are:
Palo Alto
Berkeley - some might consider a "city"
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Redwood City
Strong contenders might include Walnut Creek, Menlo Park, Santa Rosa, Mountain View, Cupertino, and a few others.
Napa has name recognition, Fremont is the largest by population, and Berkeley could conceivably be considered a city even though by population it's smaller than many area suburbs. If Berkeley is a suburb, it can vie in my opinion for #1 with PA.
Palo Alto is probably one of 5 most powerful suburbs in the nation, as far as business Id rank it first in the nation, as far as finance, Id rank it first, as far as institutions, Stanford and it's medical and research centers put Palo Alto in the top 3, etc.
Palo Alto is one of the few suburbs to appear in global rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
But here's the rub. This ranking is based solely on the office locations of the companies listed below:
Ranking of GAWCs Most Strategic Global Cities, 2012: North America 1 New York 3 Chicago 6 San Francisco 7 Los Angeles 16 Miami 20 Washington DC 24 Toronto 26 Mexico City 27 Dallas 39 Boston 45 Houston 46 Palo Alto
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,187,739 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
Where do you get GDP per city?
I was thinking the same thing. Every list I have lists by MSA.
Monty, BEA maybe?
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.
JK
