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.
Guys, here is why everyone is being blatantly stupid. The main point of "including" the "Bay Area" is not to include Silicon Valley, per se (though I love how all of these non Bay Area residents are trying to argue points when they don't know the facts), it is to point out that the region is a cohesive region the size of Chicagoland and beyond, and SF anchors this region like Chicago anchors its.
This is wrong, and it's ironic you're criticizing others for misstating facts, when you are the only one doing so.
The fact is that the Bay Area is not analogous to Chicagoland. If it were, the Census would designate it as a metro area. The Bay Area does not have sufficient commuting numbers to form a metropolitan area, therefore attempts at comparing the two are not apples-to-apples.
These are not "our" facts, or the facts of "outsiders"; these are US Census bureau facts. The Census uses the same metrics for the entire U.S., so you cannot claim some sort of bias.
This is wrong, and it's ironic you're criticizing others for misstating facts, when you are the only one doing so.
The fact is that the Bay Area is not analogous to Chicagoland. If it were, the Census would designate it as a metro area. The Bay Area does not have sufficient commuting numbers to form a metropolitan area, therefore attempts at comparing the two are not apples-to-apples.
These are not "our" facts, or the facts of "outsiders"; these are US Census bureau facts. The Census uses the same metrics for the entire U.S., so you cannot claim some sort of bias.
Haha that's rich.
Newsflash: the Census Bureau also measures Combined Statistical Areas. No matter how much you people howl and scowl about Chicago and Milwaukee being analogous to San Francisco and San Jose, they are NOT because they dont meet the prerequisite criteria.
So you may continue in vain to try and disassociate SF and the rest of the Bay Area but really its to no avail as it wont stop us from stating the contrary to be true.
And the federal government agrees with us.
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
I didnt make this up^ Its not a figment of my imagination.
Guys, here is why everyone is being blatantly stupid. The main point of "including" the "Bay Area" is not to include Silicon Valley, per se (though I love how all of these non Bay Area residents are trying to argue points when they don't know the facts), it is to point out that the region is a cohesive region the size of Chicagoland and beyond, and SF anchors this region like Chicago anchors its.
Chicago also has a strong pull on Milwaukee and SF has a strong pull on Sacramento. Overall, both cities are built to anchor a wealthy prosperous region of 10 million people. That's why both cities are peers. Both cities and their regions are very similar in age, too, and both were "west" at the time of their founding and initial growth. In reality, both have some very inherent similarities that set them apart from northeastern metros, and both anchor regions larger than any outside of NYC and LA.
Many of the corporations in greater Chicago are HQ'd in its suburbs. Its industrial base is decentralized, especially heading south to Indiana. Chicago just isn't the same without "Sears" or US Steel or its vast extremely wealthy northern, northwestern, and far western suburbs. Nobody's trying to brag about the merits of Lake Forest or Schaumburg, but the fact that they are there in Chicagoland has bearing on Chicago!
Silicon Valley and the wealth it produces has amazing effect on San Francisco. There is no denying that. It's idiotic to think otherwise.
People in Lake County outside of Chicago feel just as attached to their main city as people all around the Bay Area generally feel attached to San Francisco. San Jose doesn't have the same dettached identity that Oakland does. People from Oakland are pretty proud, even if they come to SF a lot - they even have their own sports teams. People in SJ will never tell you they're from "San Jose" - they'll tell you Bay Area or SF, and they all come to hang out in SF on the weekends because there is nothing in SJ to do. The two sports teams that SJ has are the SF Niners (the main regional football team) and the Sharks, the region's only hockey team.
Anyway, I digress. You can stay IN the city limits your whole time living in a city, which would be stupid and only immobile people do. Or you can explore. And for that Chicago can't touch the Bay Area or northern CA, which has so much to offer residents who live there. That's as much an amenity for residents as the stuff IN the city limits. Are you people going to try to take that away, as well? lol
^^This post. Thank you! At least someone understands the Bay Area. I am not sure how it can confuse people so much. Sure, the arbitrary political boundaries of the cities, counties, and MSAs make it a mess, but in the end it really isn't much different from every other metropolitan area in the country. It has an old urban core (SF and Oak), and sprawling suburbs with corporate HQs. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.
I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.
It's hard to understand because it isn't true. The data don't support your claims.
If you live in Cupertino, SF isn't "your city" the way Chicago is "your city" if you live in Morton Grove. It isn't the same thing. The Census confirms this.
Which, along with the South Shore in Indiana, not to mention the CTA hub and spoke system, funnel folks from 250 plus stations into the same giant hub of a metro.
SF is simply the most prominent of several hubs in the Bay Area. As a stand alone entity, it is no way comparable to Chicago at least on scale alone.
Also, kind of off topic, but will San Jose ever eclipse SF in stature? If the region is as cohesive as everyone claims (only been to SF, sorry), it's kind of odd that the primate city isn't the most populous. Given population trends, the 49ers' new move, etc. will San Jose pick up the mantle, in say, 25 years?
Short answer, likely no. SJ, like I said, only is the most populous because it annexed a ton of SF's and Silicon Valley's sprawl into its city proper. That doesn't make it the new center of the region, it just makes it a large bedroom community with a small historic core. Certainly it has a bigger downtown than any Chicago burb (well, maybe tie with Evanston idk), but that doesn't mean that alone makes it the new central city. San Jose is doing a great job (along with other south bay and peninsula suburbs) of adding density along the Caltrain corridor. But now that the valley is pretty much filled up, new sprawl may start to head to the east into the Central Valley and maybe even north into Sonoma again.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't SJ have like 6 million sq ft of office space downtown and SF have like 80 million sq ft or something? There is still a pretty huge gap. Given the current boom is SF: http://vimeo.com/70447799 I don't think the gap will be closing anytime soon.
The "San Francisco" 49ers have moved to Santa Clara, the city directly north of San Jose. I think the only way one could argue SJ could catch up is if SF stands still, but that isn't the case. While it is true that because of the large amount of annexed land SJ is adding more people than SF, if you look at the number of people being added per square mile, SF is still adding more than SJ. The point is San Francisco is adding density faster than San Jose. Not that density is the be all end all, but it doesn't look like San Jose will ever be able to catch up to San Francisco's entrenched central city status, at least not in my lifetime. Heck most of San Jose's claim to fame lies in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc. Any of these could be just as easily considered SF burbs as SJ burbs, and given commuting patterns, San Jose is actually "a suburb" of these cities.
Last edited by Folks3000; 10-02-2014 at 01:28 PM..
It's hard to understand because it isn't true. The data don't support your claims.
If you live in Cupertino, SF isn't "your city" the way Chicago is "your city" if you live in Morton Grove. It isn't the same thing. The Census confirms this.
Ummm how does the census confirm it? haha. Have you not heard of the magical object called a CSA? I am totally willing to bet you, if you ask anyone in Cupertino how to get to "The City" they will give you directions to San Francisco. Absolutely, without a doubt. Seriously, have you ever met people from the Bay Area? When I go down to Sunnyvale to stay with a friend, each day we went out to SF her parents asked me "Are you guys going to The City today?" When I asked where my friend from San Jose was from, she simply said "the burbs" until I pressed her for a more detailed answer.
I don't think the census bureau can take "their city" away from them.
Last edited by Folks3000; 10-02-2014 at 01:27 PM..
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.
