Naming US metropolitan areas

[jd3189]

There was a proposal early on to unite SF with Oakland and other nearby cities/ counties into one city, similar to NYC’s consolidation more than 100 years ago. If that happened, would San Francisco still remain the largest city in California and the West Coast or would LA still overtake it?

[mhays]

I suspect that would have affected who cleaned the streets, and not much else.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by jd3189

There was a proposal early on to unite SF with Oakland and other nearby cities/ counties into one city, similar to NYC’s consolidation more than 100 years ago. If that happened, would San Francisco still remain the largest city in California and the West Coast or would LA still overtake it?

LA is another story, concerning appropriate boundaries. If you cut out western SF valley and added Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Inglewood, Monterey Park and some others the city would be over 5.3 million people. So it would be the clear #2 in the nation with an expanded Chicago (+Oak Park, Evanston, Skokie, Cicero etc., you would have a little over 3.1 million people being #3. Then would come San Francisco at #4.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by mhays

I suspect that would have affected who cleaned the streets, and not much else.

San Francisco would have a higher standing for sure. Other than jest, not sure what you mean.

[mhays]

It would place higher on a list. But the city wouldn't function much differently. I can't imagine it would have grown much differently in either direction.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

I suspect that would have affected who cleaned the streets, and not much else.

Large single municipal entities can have advantages when it comes to throwing political weight around within their states.

For instance, within Illinois, the 2nd most powerful government official in the state, after governor, is arguably the mayor of Chicago. The city is home to ~1/4 of the state's people, so it automatically becomes a really big political deal by default due to its size alone.

If Chicago hadn't gone on a late 19th/early 20th century annexation binge and was now just a relatively small central city of a half million people or so, it wouldn't have the clout within the state that it has.

A similar dynamic plays out in New York.

[mhays]

That's typically more a factor of the electorate, which isn't affected (at the state level) by municipal divisions.

In my state, BTW, the King County executive is the #2 most powerful politician.

[ThePhun1]

In multinodal Texas, a city's size only marginally makes it more important. Neither the mayor or county official of any place weilds a substantial source of power and we have some giant cities. I'd assume California is the same, grated LA County officials have to have some gusto. That's like managing a state in and of itself.

[ocman]

For San Jose to play a supporting role to SF, SF has to be the indisputably more dominant economic and population center and the gravitational center for San Jose commuters for substantial reasons beyond fun and tourism. And that hasn’t been true for a very long time. SF is the world-class city, but that still doesn’t change the relationship. The fact that San Jose is a much bigger city by at least 200K people, and that it is the indispensible center of silicon valley makes it even more clear that they’re two different ecosystems. San Jose just doesn’t have that reliant role on SF other than public image representation for sports and identity purposes.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mhays

It would place higher on a list. But the city wouldn't function much differently. I can't imagine it would have grown much differently in either direction.

I'm not sure about that. As others have noted, there is the political clout. San Francisco would also have greater control over planning and development patterns across the region. Some decisions regarding infrastructure (sewage and source) might have been gone differently with Oakland under a unified government.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ocman

For San Jose to play a supporting role to SF, SF has to be the indisputably more dominant economic and population center and the gravitational center for San Jose commuters for substantial reasons beyond fun and tourism. And that hasn’t been true for a very long time. SF is the world-class city, but that still doesn’t change the relationship. The fact that San Jose is a much bigger city by at least 200K people, and that it is the indispensible center of silicon valley makes it even more clear that they’re two different ecosystems. San Jose just doesn’t have that reliant role on SF other than public image representation for sports and identity purposes.

Is San Jose really the indispensable center of Silicon Valley or just the largest city?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ocman

For San Jose to play a supporting role to SF, SF has to be the indisputably more dominant economic and population center and the gravitational center for San Jose commuters for substantial reasons beyond fun and tourism. And that hasn’t been true for a very long time. SF is the world-class city, but that still doesn’t change the relationship. The fact that San Jose is a much bigger city by at least 200K people, and that it is the indispensible center of silicon valley makes it even more clear that they’re two different ecosystems. San Jose just doesn’t have that reliant role on SF other than public image representation for sports and identity purposes.

Not in the business world. It's one ecosystem. Silicon Valley is in the middle and shared by all.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Just the largest. Mountain View, Cupertino, (arguably) Santa Clara and Palo Alto (if you consider it Valley as opposed to Peninsula) are all more indispensable, IMO.

They're more powerful in combination. As a single city, concentration of tech in San Jose is still more numerous. Especially if you go further with the role of San Jose as the county seat of Santa Clara County. And in that case, the population reaches near 2M.

[MolsonExport]

wiki

[SIGSEGV]

This is one small data point, but it's somewhat telling:

Top Caltrain Stations by weekday ridership (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ain_stations):


San Francisco 15,427
Palo Alto 7,764
San Jose 4,876
Mountain View 4,810
Redwood City 4,212

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

This is one small data point, but it's somewhat telling:

Top Caltrain Stations by weekday ridership (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ain_stations):


San Francisco 15,427
Palo Alto 7,764
San Jose 4,876
Mountain View 4,810
Redwood City 4,212

It suggests the Bay Area, as expected, has much more diffuse commuting patterns than, say, Chicago. I imagine Stanford plays a big role, but it's kinda amazing that puny Palo Alto has half the passenger count as SF. Imagine if Evanston or Hyde Park carried half the passengers of the downtown Chicago stations.

Bay Area really is a region rather than a traditional metro area, with an universally identifiable, dominant center.

[mhays]

It has one main downtown, but many subcenters. And of course its main sprawl office center is massive.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It suggests the Bay Area, as expected, has much more diffuse commuting patterns than, say, Chicago. I imagine Stanford plays a big role, but it's kinda amazing that puny Palo Alto has half the passenger count as SF. Imagine if Evanston or Hyde Park carried half the passengers of the downtown Chicago stations.

Bay Area really is a region rather than a traditional metro area, with an universally identifiable, dominant center.

My point was more to show that San Jose was not even top fiddle in Santa Calra County, rather than to show that San Francisco is not nearly as dominant as it should be, but I guess both are true!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Literally zero mention of East Bay stations. Interesting.

Well, Caltrain doesn't go to the East Bay, and BART and Caltrain aren't really comparable.

[roddyricchthagod]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Literally zero mention of East Bay stations. Interesting.

Are you from some glorious future where Caltrain goes across the bay?