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.
And calling SF the third city as if it comes remotely close to measuring up to Chicago or any other real city that has industry that actually isnt tourist related for that matter is laughable.
And calling SF the third city as if it comes remotely close to measuring up to Chicago or any other real city that has industry that actually isnt tourist related for that matter is laughable.
And calling SF the third city as if it comes remotely close to measuring up to Chicago or any other real city that has industry that actually isnt tourist related for that matter is laughable.
bay area is actually close to passing chicagoland in gdp...despite about 3 million less people.
Not in the West Coast. To be honest I didn't realize that term was used for Manhattan until about 10 years ago, although it obviously makes sense. I was talking to this dude who was from CT once time who was here in SF for some summer program and was staying in the Presidio. So I asked him if he had "gotten to explore The City at all," and he started talking about NYC so I got confused lol. I began to notice Manhattan/NYC being called that frequently after that, but up until that point I had never noticed it, and I was accustomed to SF being called that (of course only by locals here).
But that is the term people in NorCal have used for SF for over 150 years, beginning back when it was the only major city in the entire area. Now it sticks in the craw of some San Jose residents since their city has more recently grown to have a larger population, but the rest of Northern California uses it, as do plenty of SJ residents depending on who you talk to. I even know some people in Sacramento and Stockton who say it. Its just the term many of us use around here.
Not in the West Coast. To be honest I didn't realize that term was used for Manhattan until about 10 years ago, although it obviously makes sense. I was talking to this dude who was from CT once time who was here in SF for some summer program and was staying in the Presidio. So I asked him if he had "gotten to explore The City at all," and he started talking about NYC so I got confused lol. I began to notice Manhattan/NYC being called that frequently after that, but up until that point I had never noticed it, and I was accustomed to SF being called that (of course only by locals here).
But that is the term people in NorCal have used for SF for over 150 years, beginning back when it was the only major city in the entire area. Now it sticks in the craw of some San Jose residents since their city has more recently grown to have a larger population, but the rest of Northern California uses it, as do plenty of SJ residents depending on who you talk to. I even know some people in Sacramento and Stockton who say it. Its just the term many of us use around here.
SF is not unique as "the city" though. Any major city will be called "the city" within their metro and surrounding areas. Here in Nova Scotia, Halifax is "the city" Although many of the Ontario kids think it's a joke to consider anything but Toronto "the city". Boston, is rarely called just "the city" and more often referred to as "in town" probably because of the proximity to New York (which is obviously what I and most people unbiased to another city, would consider "the city").
All this is pretty trivial though. Any city can be "the city" depending on context. I was only addressing that 18Montclair had the gall to capitalize it, making it seem ridiculously snobby even my Montclair's standard.
SF is not unique as "the city" though. Any major city will be called "the city" within their metro and surrounding areas. Here in Nova Scotia, Halifax is "the city" Although many of the Ontario kids think it's a joke to consider anything but Toronto "the city". Boston, is rarely called just "the city" and more often referred to as "in town" probably because of the proximity to New York (which is obviously what I and most people unbiased to another city, would consider "the city").
All this is pretty trivial though. Any city can be "the city" depending on context. I was only addressing that 18Montclair had the gall to capitalize it, making it seem ridiculously snobby even my Montclair's standard.
I understand, and it makes sense for the term to be used in many places in that context. But the capitalization is what is used in our local vernacular here too, such as in the SF Chronicle, so it wasn't Montclair being arrogant. If you read articles on SFGate you will see it written as "The City" when they are differentiating between SF and another local city. Maybe it seemed out of place to you here in C-D, but if you look on the SF forum in here you'll likely see it. I do it myself as well. Its not about trying to be snobby or anything, its just the way it is written. I can totally understand why you see it that way though.
Sf is also the only place in the bay area that really resembles a what most people would regard as a city. As small and insignificant as it may be.
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.
