U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2013, 01:50 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,097 posts, read 23,529,707 times
Reputation: 6128

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isebiel View Post
Just looked at some ranks. San Francisco is 8th most populous in the USA, 4th most populous in California (after LA, San Diego, and San Jose.)
Actually, SF is 13th most populous in the United States.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,559,246 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Actually, SF is 13th most populous in the United States.
And is the financial and cultural hub of the 6th most populous CSA in the country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 12:22 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,509,826 times
Reputation: 2510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
San Jose is actually larger than San Francisco?

San Jose is the 10th largest city in the United States.
City limits are arbitrary and mean basically nothing. If SF's city limits were as massive as San Jose's (which is only as big as it is because it was able to annex tons of neighboring towns, not to mention it never would have grown so much if SF, and thus, Stanford, never existed) it would have something like 1.6 million residents, and include all of Oakland, Daly city, Alameda, south San Francisco, Berkeley, Castro Valley, Albany, San Leandro, Brisbane, Colma, etc in addition to San Francisco.

If you look at metro areas and urban areas, which is how you should actually measure a city's size, SF is way bigger than San Jose:

MSA:
SF: 4,391,037
SJ: 1,865,450

Urban Area:
SF: 3,281,212
SJ: 1,664,496

Of course SF and SJ should really be combined into the same MSA/urban area, but that's another topic. And if you need some more reasons why SF is truly the bigger city, here: San Francisco gains 200,000 residents every day due to commuters and other visitors, while San Jose loses 5% of its population to suburban jobs. So during the day San Francisco actually has around 100,000 more people than San Jose does (and in a much smaller area as well). San Francisco is the largest single center of employment in the Bay Area. It eclipses San Jose when it comes to amount of office space and companies that are based there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Three.

Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose.
San Jose and San Diego are not really bigger, except in their arbitrary city-limit populations. SF has a larger metro and urban area than both of them, a bigger downtown than both, is far denser and more built up in the core, has a larger GDP, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
The only thing "big" about SF is the nickname of its baseball team.
If a city of 800,000 with an urban area of 3.3 million (over 5 million when counting the entire Bay Area), an MSA of 4.3 million and a CSA of 7.5 million (so really SF is a city of 3-7 million depending on how you want to measure it) is considered "small" in America, than literally every city in this country that is not NYC and LA is "small".

Last edited by rah; 02-06-2013 at 12:36 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 01:19 PM
 
920 posts, read 1,630,810 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
When will people get it through their head that SF is a huge metropolis of 7,000,0000 in the greater area? Our city limits are tiny, yes, 7 x 7 square miles, but other cities have giant boundaries making them appear more populated. SF is like a NY part 2. Kind of annoying, anyone else feel the same way? The Bay Area = SF.
Oh, hell no, NYC is an old, dilapidated place, with new paint once in awhile. The City was destroyed in the earthquake and fire of 06. Much of it is brand new compared to NYC.

And the city isn't small, it's that the people got big....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,097 posts, read 23,529,707 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
And the city isn't small, it's that the people got big....
Naw - just their heads.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
460 posts, read 893,883 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
City limits are arbitrary and mean basically nothing. If SF's city limits were as massive as San Jose's (which is only as big as it is because it was able to annex tons of neighboring towns, not to mention it never would have grown so much if SF, and thus, Stanford, never existed) it would have something like 1.6 million residents, and include all of Oakland, Daly city, Alameda, south San Francisco, Berkeley, Castro Valley, Albany, San Leandro, Brisbane, Colma, etc in addition to San Francisco.

If you look at metro areas and urban areas, which is how you should actually measure a city's size, SF is way bigger than San Jose:

MSA:
SF: 4,391,037
SJ: 1,865,450

Urban Area:
SF: 3,281,212
SJ: 1,664,496
If you extend SF's city limits to its immediate and rather densely populated urban and suburban areas, you get over 1.4 million in an area of just 121 square miles or what I consider to be an area typical of medium-sized American city. This area also includes a lot of parks such as Golden Gate and Chabot that contain no residents. Density is still relatively high by American standards at 11,800 people per square mile including parkland.
- Oakland (390,000 over 56 square miles)
- Berkeley (113,000 over 10.5 square miles)
- Daly City (101,000 over 7.7 square miles)

San Jose is larger than all of SF and its immediate dense areas combined at 177 square miles and yet its population is still 984,000 versus the hypothetical 1.4 million of SF and its vicinity.

Lastly, I quote from 18Montclair about comparing sustained densities among cities:
"... the only places that have a larger and more widespread area of high population density than the Bay Area are Chicago, Los Angeles and New York."

SF is a medium-sized city with extremely high density in some areas only rivalled by Manhattan in this country.

Last edited by AngusHsu; 06-05-2013 at 06:34 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 05:13 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
88,077 posts, read 82,033,077 times
Reputation: 92262
In area, it is a small city. So what? Who cares?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 02:09 PM
 
12,824 posts, read 21,594,132 times
Reputation: 10966
The overall Bay Area conurbation easily exceeds megacity criteria.

The political unit known as "The City and County of San Francisco" is a fraction of said megacity.

There is an odd history that explains this. It involves the fact the SF seceded from the former "San Francisco County" (name was then changed to San Mateo County) back in 1856, cutting off all annexation potential. That is almost unheard of with other cities.

Setting aside this political abnormality, functionally speaking, "San Francisco" is a major "city."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2013, 11:14 PM
 
Location: South Eastern Oklahoma
12 posts, read 22,144 times
Reputation: 13
The Bay Area MSA has 8.3 million+ people. San Francisco is the main hub of that MSA. Land wise SF is small but it isn't a small city. It's part of the fifth largest MSA in the country. IMO it is like Manhattan and the rest of NYC just spread across more land.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2013, 01:25 AM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,863,665 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
When will people get it through their head that SF is a huge metropolis of 7,000,0000 in the greater area? Our city limits are tiny, yes, 7 x 7 square miles, but other cities have giant boundaries making them appear more populated. SF is like a NY part 2. Kind of annoying, anyone else feel the same way? The Bay Area = SF.
San Jose is not San Francisco, neither is Pittsburgh, or Palo Alto, or Morgan Hill, etc, etc...

San Francisco isn't even the biggest in the bay area.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top