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.
Many refer to the Greater Philadelphia region as "the Delaware Valley."
Not only does that phrase not refer to the core city, it could be confused for referring to one of the states comprising it (it's also a "tri-state" area, and there are some organizations in the region that use that term as well) as well.
Not to mention that south of Trenton, the Delaware River doesn't flow through a "valley." It's a tidal estuary at Center City Philadelphia.
Definitely not the "most" unique, and I don't think that's something that can be quantified concisely anyway...
I long ago gave up inveighing against the use of "unique" with comparative or relative adjectives, even though technically speaking, the word doesn't admit to such modifiers; if "unique" means "there's only one of these, there's nothing else like it," how can it possibly admit to comparison or degree?
But that usage has now seeped too far into the popular lanugage to stamp it out.
I long ago gave up inveighing against the use of "unique" with comparative or relative adjectives, even though technically speaking, the word doesn't admit to such modifiers; if "unique" means "there's only one of these, there's nothing else like it," how can it possibly admit to comparison or degree?
But that usage has now seeped too far into the popular lanugage to stamp it out.
Been to SF many times. I love the friendliness of the SF people, I love the whole eco-system surrounding SF(unmatched in this department by any other cities in the country), I love the beauty of the North Beach, Nob Hill, Presidio and Marin County(Sausalito), I love the hipness of Haight Ashbury.....Yes, SF Bay Area is unique in a way that it has city feeling(Financial District, Union Square....) without the expense of sacrificing natural beauty. The numerous high hill roads within the city makes it a pain to walk around(vs NYC, Boston), but at the same time, it truly makes the city landscape unique and enjoyable. I would say it is quite unique and fascinating to see how so many varieties and things get packed into a fairly small city.
But if you are talking about the greatest metro, NYC for me is by far the greatest metro in the country, possibly in the world.
Last edited by SnobbishDude; 07-31-2019 at 09:30 PM..
All things considered I would say South Florida actually gives The Bay Area a good run for it's money in how "unique" both areas are. Miami, Singapore and Honolulu are the only large tropical cities in the entire first world.. Also the demographics of the Miami metro are easily the most unique out of any metro in the entire U.S. South Florida has the longest line of high rises in the entire world by faar. There are so many other totally unique things about the area if you really stop and think about it that it's actually pretty crazy.
Even the way it looks. You got Redwoods, Mountains, Hills, Bay, Ocean, Flatland, Fog, Microclimates. You got wine country, Tech spots, farm spots,.
I don't think there's much that can impress a person from the bay area. They have it all.
For the record, there are a few other metro areas besides the Bay, the Metroplex, and the Twin Cities that are at least sometimes referred to by a name that is not the name of one of the cities or states - the Research Triangle, the Beltway (DC), and the Gateway Region (North Jersey) come to mind.
For the record, there are a few other metro areas besides the Bay, the Metroplex, and the Twin Cities that are at least sometimes referred to by a name that is not the name of one of the cities or states - the Research Triangle, the Beltway (DC), and the Gateway Region (North Jersey) come to mind.
"The Beltway" is used only with the modifying nouns "inside" or "outside" attached to it.
It's not a descriptor for the region, but rather a description of a mindset and a class of people, specifically, the politicos, policy wonks and commentariat who work "inside the Beltway."
The descriptor for the Greater Washington region that more closely fits - but doesn't really - is "the DMV" (District, Maryland, Virginia). It doesn't fit, of course, because Washington is also the District of Columbia.
But also, once again, there's "the Delaware Valley" too.
For the record, there are a few other metro areas besides the Bay, the Metroplex, and the Twin Cities that are at least sometimes referred to by a name that is not the name of one of the cities or states - the Research Triangle, the Beltway (DC), and the Gateway Region (North Jersey) come to mind.
I actually identified the Twin Cities as being one of two metro areas (the Bay Area obviously the other) where the name of the cities is not commonly, overwhelmingly used in the area name (as such "Metroplex", a more limited usage) would not count.
I compared the Twin Cities and the Bay Area as different because the name "Twin Cities" is a direct reference to Mpls and StP. The Bay Area is named holistically, all parts equal within the whole.
As OP when I made my original post, I mentioned other metro areas that could be considered "towards the extremes, but not the extremes. These included New York, Washington,etc.
I should have included LA. To me what makes LA different (and this would hold true for both city and county) is the way it creates places that truly are "places apart". In LA, the basin and the valley are two different worlds. The only place you can see both is from Mulholland Drive which runs between them. They are cut off visually in a way unparalleled in any other metro area. But them, LA is unusual in being the only US metro area where real mountains run through its center...and that a central city actually has mountains within city limits.
The Basin is far, far more separated from the Valley than Manhattan is from Brooklyn or SF from Oakland.
Unless I am wrong, I can't think of any other city on the US mainland other than Los Angeles that has an elevation range of 5000 ft within city limits. And those Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mts. are, as noted, in central Los Angeles. (the Bay Area, in contrast, sees its mountains pretty much along the periphery in places like Mt. Tamallpais and Mt. Diablo. The strip along the Pacific starting around Pacifica and running at least down to Half Moon Bay requires a mountain crossing to get the heavily settled areas on the bayside of The Peninsula. But Pacifica-to-HMB is not a particularly well developed area due to its geographic isolation.
I'll go on a limb on this one and say Los Angeles more so than any global city on the oceans and the seas touches a coastline but has a core as far away from it as the Pacific is to DTLA. Maybe LA is even the only coastal city that began life as an inland city. LA spread to its waterfront, not away from it.
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.
