Why is SF referred to as "The City"

[Franklyn]

<shakes head, sees again for umpteenth time how sensitive city supporters are to the comments of others>

The OP has been answered. The city is still intact. The curious parochialism of a few of its denizens confirmed. The earth still spins on its axis and all's well. Thought Krudmonk was overly generous using the term "great reputation" but will accept that as a long-term view [without snickering overly much about the last few mayors].

And Rah, you giving your counter-opinion [first post] is cool. We just have different "feels", probably, but that's life.

I'd like to point out, however, that "the city" has been MOSTLY successful because it was once the historical gateway and mercantile center serving an immensely rich geographical area, both the rest of the bay itself and the delta, Central Valley and Sierra beyond. If it weren't for that the "success" of the city would probably be vastly smaller - by several magnitudes. At one time city dwellers understood, appreciated and nutured that relationship. For the last half century or so that attitude has eroded, giving way to the eventual successes of the other cities on the Bay. Including, imo, San Jose. Somehow some city folk don't want to acknowledgte this, but it doesn't keep it from occuring. Imo.

Cheers.

[LexusNexus]

It's unfortunate that SJ folks are so sensitive about this topic, but there really is no comparison between SJ and SF when one thinks of cities. SF is an incredibly, dynamic, world-class city. SJ doesn't belong in the same conversation with SF, NY, LA, Chicago.

SJ is a nice big town...a big Campbell.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Alexus

It's unfortunate that SJ folks are so sensitive about this topic, but there really is no comparison between SJ and SF when one thinks of cities. SF is an incredibly, dynamic, world-class city. SJ doesn't belong in the same conversation with SF, NY, LA, Chicago.

Isn't your board full of people saying that SF isn't in the same league as Chicago and New York? Why let the **** continue to roll downhill?

[LexusNexus]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

Isn't your board full of people saying that SF isn't in the same league as Chicago and New York? Why let the **** continue to roll downhill?

Perhaps, and that is their perogative on this board. I learn from and respect the differing opinions. I don't have to agree and because I disagree doesn't make them wrong.

Of course if you feel strongly about SJ, you can be a lot more explicit about what makes San Jose unique for those of us who seem unable to recognize or appreciate its virtues.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Alexus

Perhaps, and that is their perogative on this board. I learn from and respect the differing opinions. I don't have to agree and because I disagree doesn't make them wrong.

Of course if you feel strongly about SJ, you can be a lot more explicit about what makes San Jose unique for those of us who seem unable to recognize or appreciate its virtues.

You're free to believe what you want, but I just mean that it's kinda dumb to draw these arbitrary distinctions when they don't even hold up universally. Just as I am free to discuss the benefits of SJ life, you could do the same for your city, beyond the played, vague notions of "world class," "culture," "diversity," "European," etc.

I won't partake in boosting SJ, though, because I'm 99% defender and 1% braggart. For the same reason, I won't jump into those NYC/Chicago hate threads because I'm a debater and not a hater (pardon the rhyme).

[LexusNexus]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

You're free to believe what you want, but I just mean that it's kinda dumb to draw these arbitrary distinctions when they don't even hold up universally. Just as I am free to discuss the benefits of SJ life, you could do the same for your city, beyond the played, vague notions of "world class," "culture," "diversity," "European," etc.

I won't partake in boosting SJ, though, because I'm 99% defender and 1% braggart. For the same reason, I won't jump into those NYC/Chicago hate threads because I'm a debater and not a hater (pardon the rhyme).

What's "kinda dumb" is to engage in the sort of semantic hair-splitting that enables you to consistently criticize those who don't consider SJ much of a city, especially when compared to other places they have lived or visited, such as SF, NY, Chicago, and LA. SJ is what it is and your defending the city 99% of the time implies that the city hasn't yet earned the right to be called "world class", as that term is meant universally. If you have some insights into SJ that make you so stuck on its virtues, then disclose them here in the level of detail to give others the benefit of your unique perspective being an advocate for the city. It's quite simple.

Frankly, I'd like to know your meaning of the word "world class." What qualifies a city for this category and which cities do you feel fit your description, one that should be shared "universally"? What is your idea of "culture" and how does SJ measure up in this category to other cities mentioned? Where does "diversity" fit in this discussion and comparisons of cities and what distinguishes SJ from your standpoint? Give some details, not cryptic criticisms. If someone disagrees, so what? Such is life.

Live and let live.

[SEAandATL]

San Francisco is the urban core of the SF/San Jose/Oakland metro area, the Bay Area. Even though S.F. is actually the 4th most populous city in California, it always has and always will feel like California's 2nd city.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by mrzod

There's SFO.. I dont see why an airport would hinder growth ?

If you want to see how the presence of an airport can significantly affect the vertical development of a city, visit San Diego.