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.
Hey, I'll do anything I can to shamelessly remind New Yorkers that the U.S. Census Bureau has now included Pike County, PA as the NYC CSA and will also likely soon add Monroe County, PA as well. Most New Yorkers don't want to admit that their sprawl is now overtaking NEPA.
Hey, I'll do anything I can to shamelessly remind New Yorkers that the U.S. Census Bureau has now included Pike County, PA as the NYC CSA and will also likely soon add Monroe County, PA as well. Most New Yorkers don't want to admit that their sprawl is now overtaking NEPA.
Not to mention, SF's density (and these other cities) has increased greatly since the 2000 census.
So daly city is slightly more dense than chicago, Oakland is less dense than LA, and bezerkeley is about as dense as providence rhode island. Like I said, you factor those hand picked cities with SF and the city on a whole would be less dense.
And I don't see how sf increasing density is relevant to this. A lot of cities are increasing density and have been. Sf just has no room as it is backed by water in 3 directions, with an incredibly small land mass.
Theyre not hand-picked. They are the closest cities to SF...more could be added like South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Albany etc and all are at about 7000-9000/ sq mile. The point is saying SF is a "small city" is misleading. If the political boundaries were drawn differently SF would be a much larger city and still be dense (although, less so than it is now). Part of what gives it such a big city feel is that it is surrounded by a lot of dense urban area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
So daly city is slightly more dense than chicago, Oakland is less dense than LA, and bezerkeley is about as dense as providence rhode island. Like I said, you factor those hand picked cities with SF and the city on a whole would be less dense.
And I don't see how sf increasing density is relevant to this. A lot of cities are increasing density and have been. Sf just has no room as it is backed by water in 3 directions, with an incredibly small land mass.
Theyre not hand-picked. They are the closest cities to SF...more could be added like South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Albany etc and all are at about 7000-9000/ sq mile. The point is saying SF is a "small city" is misleading. If the political boundaries were drawn differently SF would be a much larger city and still be dense (although, less so than it is now). Part of what gives it such a big city feel is that it is surrounded by a lot of dense urban area.
No they are hand picked. And the fact that you are trying to push Albany, south city, san bruno, shows even more how desperate you are getting. Trying to pass off small city suburbs as part of the city.
"Political boundries" ? Why do you keep trying to add other cities in the bay area to Sf. These are not parts of sf. That is what makes the bay area unique, it is a bunch of small cities and a few small suburbs, instead of one large one with many suburbs.
SF is small, in square feet and in population, sure its dense, but that is about it.
Most of the bay area's density is due to the fact that it is constrained by mountains, not because it is highly populated.
NY and LA are examples of metro areas that are very populated. Sf isn't even on the radar. Even when you add in far flung valley towns like stockton and fairfield...even sac.
Youre missing the point completely. I know they have separate congressmen, that was my point saying IF the political boundaries were drawn differently (i.e. if Oakland was a Borough). And, no, they arent hand-picked. The original 3 (plus Emeryville, which is also quite dense) are the closest in proximity to SF.
I threw in the other random examples to prove my point that there is density in SF's surrounding areas, and if SFs political boundaries were redrawn it could easily be a dense city with app. 2+ million people.
And to call the 5th or 6th largest CSA in the country small is ridiculous. 7.5 million is more than most states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
No they are hand picked. And the fact that you are trying to push Albany, south city, san bruno, shows even more how desperate you are getting. Trying to pass off small city suburbs as part of the city.
"Political boundries" ? Why do you keep trying to add other cities in the bay area to Sf. These are not parts of sf. That is what makes the bay area unique, it is a bunch of small cities and a few small suburbs, instead of one large one with many suburbs.
SF is small, in square feet and in population, sure its dense, but that is about it.
Most of the bay area's density is due to the fact that it is constrained by mountains, not because it is highly populated.
NY and LA are examples of metro areas that are very populated. Sf isn't even on the radar. Even when you add in far flung valley towns like stockton and fairfield...even sac.
Youre missing the point completely. I know they have separate congressmen, that was my point saying IF the political boundaries were drawn differently (i.e. if Oakland was a Borough). And, no, they arent hand-picked. The original 3 (plus Emeryville, which is also quite dense) are the closest in proximity to SF.
I threw in the other random examples to prove my point that there is density in SF's surrounding areas, and if SFs political boundaries were redrawn it could easily be a dense city with app. 2+ million people.
And to call the 5th or 6th largest CSA in the country small is ridiculous. 7.5 million is more than most states.
No I see what you are saying, but it makes no sense. Why on earth are you trying to incorporate non existant burrows into Sf's sphere of influence. Oakland and Sf are2 entirely different entities shaped entirley by two different factions of the economy. The fact that you just keep naming of cities that happen to be near Sf as some how part of Sf is just silly.
Only outsiders that are corporate types not from the bay area call the region "sf". Most people who have lived or even visited understand the term and concept of the bay area.
San Fran is not even the biggest city nor does it have the largest economy in that region. That honor goes to San Jose. All Sf has is density an airport in a near by suburb, and a couple bad sports teams. It really is not on the same level as other big cities, not even San Jose.
No I see what you are saying, but it makes no sense. Why on earth are you trying to incorporate non existant burrows into Sf's sphere of influence. Oakland and Sf are2 entirely different entities shaped entirley by two different factions of the economy. The fact that you just keep naming of cities that happen to be near Sf as some how part of Sf is just silly.
Only outsiders that are corporate types not from the bay area call the region "sf". Most people who have lived or even visited understand the term and concept of the bay area.
San Fran is not even the biggest city nor does it have the largest economy in that region. That honor goes to San Jose. All Sf has is density an airport in a near by suburb, and a couple bad sports teams. It really is not on the same level as other big cities, not even San Jose.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
No I see what you are saying, but it makes no sense. Why on earth are you trying to incorporate non existant burrows into Sf's sphere of influence. Oakland and Sf are2 entirely different entities shaped entirley by two different factions of the economy. The fact that you just keep naming of cities that happen to be near Sf as some how part of Sf is just silly.
Only outsiders that are corporate types not from the bay area call the region "sf". Most people who have lived or even visited understand the term and concept of the bay area.
San Fran is not even the biggest city nor does it have the largest economy in that region. That honor goes to San Jose. All Sf has is density an airport in a near by suburb, and a couple bad sports teams. It really is not on the same level as other big cities, not even San Jose.
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.
"Political boundries" ? Why do you keep trying to add other cities in the bay area to Sf. These are not parts of sf. That is what makes the bay area unique, it is a bunch of small cities and a few small suburbs, instead of one large one with many suburbs. 
