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.
The connections that drive the votes, however, are indeed economic and geospatial, not cultural. Hence my comments about LA and San Diego.
Edited to add: Wait, or am I merely reinforcing your point? Why would Baltimore and Washington be considered separate if San Francisco and San Jose are not? The only reason I can think of is historical: Both Baltimore and Washington were distinct metropolitan centers for more than a century, and up until the 1960s, Baltimore was the bigger and more important of the two. The decline of manufacturing is what has drawn metropolitan Baltimore into Greater Washington's orbit.
It does seem like Baltimore and DC are more economically independent of each other than SF and SJ at the moment.
As for geographic distance, see my other post. Geographic distance is a hard, measured, quantitative fact that cannot be debated. So it should not be a big factor in this discussion. (You can only debate opinions, not facts.)
--SF-SJ have the same situation as DC-Baltimore: same CSA, different MSA, so SF-SJ should be discussed.
--Geographical distance should NOT be a big factor in this discussion. Geographical distance is a hard, quantitative, numeric fact. You can debate opinions, but there's no point in debating facts.
1. Given that, San Francisco and San Jose should have been included in this poll. They probably weren't because of a general East Coast ignorance of the role San Jose played in the development of the tech industry and thus reshaping the San Francisco Bay Area economy. I'll bet that there are still some on this forum whose image of SJ was formed by a Burt Bachrach/Dionne Warwick pop hit song.
2. Right. Which is why none of the international border cities should be included (and none were); they're all next-door neighbors, and as such, function as parts of a single integrated cross-border metropolis.
1. Given that, San Francisco and San Jose should have been included in this poll. They probably weren't because of a general East Coast ignorance of the role San Jose played in the development of the tech industry and thus reshaping the San Francisco Bay Area economy. I'll bet that there are still some on this forum whose image of SJ was formed by a Burt Bachrach/Dionne Warwick pop hit song.
2. Right. Which is why none of the international border cities should be included (and none were); they're all next-door neighbors, and as such, function as parts of a single integrated cross-border metropolis.
Boston-Providence was also excluded, so I don’t think East Coast ignorance is to blame for this one.
The idea that Silicon Valley somehow belongs to San Jose and not San Francisco due to an arbitrary county line...people aren't understanding how cities work in the real world. It's the main business suburban area of the whole area, not just one side of the line.
The idea that Silicon Valley somehow belongs to San Jose and not San Francisco due to an arbitrary county line...people aren't understanding how cities work in the real world. It's the main business suburban area of the whole area, not just one side of the line.
It's not even an arbitrary county line, San Francisco was never the engine that produced the industry until really the mid 2000's when social media hit. Up until that point it simply feed off of San Jose's output.
Tech was born in Palo Alto, a suburb of San Jose. The tech industry spread east ward towards the lower bay (i.e San Jose) after which the whole tech bubble was created around San Jose due to all the magnet schools pumping out tech developers. Only after that tech bubble burst did it truly march up north to San Fran-Oakland.
Is silicon valley now even distributed between both absolutely, but up until the last decade it wasn't.
Palo Alto is between the two. Silicon Valley has always gotten commuters from both directions, not to mention shared TV stations, sports teams, and so on.
The idea that Silicon Valley somehow belongs to San Jose and not San Francisco due to an arbitrary county line...people aren't understanding how cities work in the real world. It's the main business suburban area of the whole area, not just one side of the line.
I agree. Where does a Santa Clara Co. city like Palo Alto belong? Along with a series of suburbs in San Mateo County, places like Hillsborough and Sa Mateo and all located on The Peninsula and The Peninsula has always been the man area for SF oriented suburbs, far ahead of the second group in Marin, places like Sauceletto, Tiburon, Belvedere
As someone who actually lives in San Francisco, the two cities, while different in many ways (especially spatially), have a really close relationship. They share regional government authorities (CalTrain/BART), workers, and many residents in SF and SJ read each cities' major newspaper. In addition, it's also one major media market and this is not even including Oakland. It also helps that the two mayors for each city are good friends and don't really "compete" with each other.
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.
