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.
Not to mention, did you know that Brooklyn was consolidated into NYC in 1898? Its very possible for cities to consolidate...of course it wont happen due to political reasons but the hypothetical that SF could consolidate its surrounding urban neighbors (which it shares borders with) is not that far-fetched. And it proves the point that to say SF is small without considering the context of the huge surrounding Bay Area is ridculous.
What does brooklyn have to do with SF? Manhattan on It's own is an entity and is over a million people. Brooklyn has a larger population than any bay area city. Not relevant to the conversation. Get over it dude, Oakland was never a part of Sf and ceased being a suburb of Sf once world war 2 happend and the port of Oakland got busy.
And of course it proves a point that sf is small. Sf has less than 800,000 people in a region of 7 million. Roughly 10% of the bay area lives in sf.
30% of Chicago lands population lives in chicago
38% of metro new york lives with in nyc city limits
17% of greater la lives in la
as I said before, what makes the bay area the bay area is the fact that it really is a bunch of small cities and a few suburbs merged into a metro.
by the way the largest conglomerate of people reside in greater silicon valley (ie the Fremont-palo alto corridor)
Last edited by LakeShoreSoxGo; 05-03-2009 at 07:17 PM..
Small cities? You think cities with nearly 1 million and 800,000+ respectively are small? And where else in the country are two cities this large (SF and SJ) within an hour of each other.
Even Oakland, with 400,000, isn't small.
Theres a reason cities like SF and Boston (which technically has an even lower population) *feel* like very big cities. They are the cultural, financial, and (in terms of daytime population) population centers of a very large, dense urbanized area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
What does brooklyn have to do with SF? Manhattan on It's own is over a million people. Brooklyn has a larger population than any bay area city. Not relevant to the conversation. Get over it dude, Oakland was never a part of Sf and ceased being a suburb of Sf once world war 2 happend and the port of Oakland got busy.
And of course it proves a point that sf is small. Sf has less than 800,000 people in a region of 7 million. Roughly 10% of the bay area lives in sf.
30% of Chicago lands population lives in chicago
38% of metro new york lives with in nyc city limits
17% of greater la lives in la
as I said before, what makes the bay area the bay area is the fact that it really is a bunch of small cities and a few suburbs merged into a metro.
by the way the largest conglomerate of people reside in greater silicon valley (ie the Fremont-palo alto corridor)
Small cities? You think cities with nearly 1 million and 800,000+ respectively are small? And where else in the country are two cities this large (SF and SJ) within an hour of each other
I love how you can't even use any facts or reply to my points. Sf is terribly small 800,000 people is not a large city on a global scale. 1 million is getting there but still not so big. 400,000 people is small, sacramento small. Get over it man, SF really is not a big or influential city. It's just a dense small city. The bay area is relevant because of silicon valley.
Seriously, NYC is "the" city of the world. SF not so much. I do agree that SF is amazingly dense and offers an urban experience that many U.S. cities would die for. But comparing it to NYC in terms of density (urban landscape, population or skyscraper wise)? No way.
Seriously, NYC is "the" city of the world. SF not so much. I do agree that SF is amazingly dense and offers an urban experience that many U.S. cities would die for. But comparing it to NYC in terms of density (urban landscape, population or skyscraper wise)? No way.
nothing in the u.s. competes with nyc for that... chicago, sf and boston compete with the #2 spot depending on what kind of lifestyle you live, where you go, etc... a very similar lifestyle can be had that nyc offers, is it as much stuff as nyc??? no...can you do everything nyc has to offer in a lifetime? no. does it have to be? no... nyc is beyond most peoples expectation and goes above and beyond what most people need for urban lifestyle. the 3 above are still great bustling cities, nyc takes it to a level only a handful on the planet do, personally I'd say only London and Paris ... Tokyo is too well, Japanese, not as cosmopolitan as those 3.
Actually, the contiguous urban Bay Area is comparable to Chicagoland in terms of population (7.5 million vs 9 million). Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City etc are urban and basically connect right to SF.
If political boundaries were drawn differently SF could easily have a population of 2 million and still be quite dense.
Im very clearly replying to your points with facts. For example, in the 2pac argument I had several quotes that shut down your argument that 2pac never represented the bay.
As for this argument, you're so hung up on political boundaries and cutting down the entire bay area (besides Silicon Valley) that youre making nonsensical claims based on subjective rubbish.
The Bay Area as a whole is one of the most formidable metropolitan areas in North America, with many distinct regions and a very diverse economy, with SF as its centerpiece and Oakland and San Jose as its anchors. Culturally, technologically, financially, etc, all of the reasons listed in the previous posts show how it has exerted influence over the years. And to top it off San Francisco has a remarkably cosmopolitan, urban feel to it.
Your depiction of SF as a small dense, isolated town is absurd. Yes the city boundaries are small in area, but SF is the crown jewel of a vast network of cities (the Bay Area), which has brought to the world everything from the Black Panthers to Silicon Valley. From the culture that defined the 60's to a rap icon like 2pac. From the gay rights movement to the most notorious prison in US history. And it goes on and on...
No, definitely not as much as NYC or LA (obviously in my original post I was being facetious. Of course its not denser than NYC). Probably not DC because of its huge political influence. Between Chicago and the Bay Area is debatable (and has been debated many times). To me, the Bay Area is more important on a national scale than Chicago, although I understand others might disagree. But either way--you lose all credibility when you try and marginilize the Bay Area and San Francisco to the extent that you do. For whatever strange reason that you hate SF and the Bay Area (is it because we have 2 NFL teams and you only have 1?) at least try and be somewhat reasonable in your assessment. So far, you definitely have not been.
I love how you can't even use any facts or reply to my points. Sf is terribly small 800,000 people is not a large city on a global scale. 1 million is getting there but still not so big. 400,000 people is small, sacramento small. Get over it man, SF really is not a big or influential city. It's just a dense small city. The bay area is relevant because of silicon valley.
Last edited by JMT; 10-17-2013 at 07:15 AM..
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.
