Talk:San Francisco Bay Area
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Francisco Bay Area article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 West Bay???
- 2 San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area
- 3 "metropolitan region"
- 4 RE: Metropolitan Region
- 5 SF Bay Area - More Musically Diverse than just Rock and Hip Hop
- 6 Something wrong with the listed population
- 7 Nine Counties or Twelve Counties? Both sources only list 9 Bay Area Counties...
San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area
I created the article San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area to cover the federal CSA definition. At the same time, I trimmed this article down somewhat, taking out details of Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, leaving the various definitions. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I consider this an important step toward distinguishing the CSA from the traditional 9-county region. Failure to make that distinction has exacerbated past edit wars. —Stepheng3 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the wording in the lead from "metropolitan region" to "area of population". "Metropolitan region" doesn't really mean anything and it's too easily mistaken for "metropolitan area" which the SFBA is NOT. The closest thing to what it is is regarded as a combined statistical area, which is just the Census Bureau's means for grouping together a number of adjacent metro areas that cannot properly be thought of as only having one urban center, which is the case here. The SFBA should therefore be regarded as an area of population, made out of joining a number of adjacent metropolitan areas, but itself is not a metropolitan area.--Louiedog (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
RE: Metropolitan Region
I respectfully but vehimently disagree. I have researched the subject thoroughly. Even the OMB and U.S. Census Bureau have conflicting definitions or descriptions of what define Metropolitian areas (or how they each define them). Any (large) area of continuous/congruent/uninterupted population is a metropolitan area. A "Greater" area, is just a larger metropolitan area. Forget about the Census Bureau or OMB definitions for a moment. Research the definition in encyclopedias and historical and cultural accounts and you will get a better understanding on the issue.
The San Francisco Bay area is most definitely a "metropolitan area" as much as and until there is a large enough break in population (geographically), between popululation centers (ie. the Sacramento CSA for example), or to it's rural limits. Whatever the intent, defining smaller metropolitan areas within a larger metropolitan area (or CSA if we use the government's definition) is extremely difficult and utilizes seriously flawed methods to quantify or define smaller populated areas (MSAs) within a larger populated area (CSA). The factors they choose to include and exclude when defining a "MSA", are ill-conceived at best. Some are very logical and some completely illogical.
Take for example the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, MSA; Fremont is much closer to San Jose and has more historical and economic ties to San Jose and Silicon Valley, than Oakland. If they were going to do it that way, then San Francisco should be it's own MSA as (it is it's own county), and Fremont to Rodeo including all of the East Bay area (including Oakland) west of the Diablo Range it's own metropolitan area. The Peninsula, -it's own metropolitan area. All the cities east of the Diablo range from livermore to Antioch, it's own metropolitan area (Contra Costa), etcetera. Fremont is in Alameda county and part of the East Bay. It has minimal relation to San Francisco by any quantification, except by tying Oakland (and therefore Alameda County) to San Francisco. I'm assuming they did that because historically some of the commuting population of southern Alameda County including Fremont, work in San Francisco.
Then the OMB/Census Bureau, when calculating what should be considered the CSA, included Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties even though the latter two counties don't touch the Bay itself. Illogical? Not at all, because no one said that the CSA had to include only counties that touch the bay. They look at much more data than simple geographic data. San Benito and Santa Cruz County are historically, economically, and culturally tied to the South Bay so much so that they took that into consideration when creating the CSA definition. You might only know that though if you grew up here or lived here for your entire life. Many residents of those counties work in San Jose and Silicon Valley and commute there as well. The only question then is, why didn't they include Monterey county? OR, if you're going to include Santa Cruz and San Benito counties in the SFBAY CSA, then you could just as easily exclude them from the SFBAY CSA, and include them (as) in the classic defintion of the "Monterey Bay Area", of which Santa Cruz County is definitely a part of. So you would have Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and San Benito County as a Metropolitian Statistical Area (or at least the first two). The Salinas MSA, is basically defined as Monterey County (or vice versa). The San Francisco MSA should be defined the same way, or could even be defined as San Francisco and the Peninsula (or SF and the northern half of the Peninsula, or SF and all the Peninsula) considering they are connected by land and economically, historically, culturally, commuters etc. Of Course Silicon Valley by definition is not only the Santa Clara Valley, but includes much or most of the Peninsula, and also Milpitas and Fremont etc. There are many high-tech companies in Fremont that spread out as an extention of the Valley when land in the valley became scarce and too more expensive.
Combining San Francisco and Oakland from some perspectives makes minimal sense. It is understandable though, for the same reason it's understandable why they included Santa Cruz County and San Benito County in the CSA; but Fremont as part of the SF MSA? I'm sorry for rambling, but a couple of years ago I looked in detail at data compiled by the OMB and the Census Bureau (for days), and was throughly confused. That still hasn't changed. So I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm simply engaging in discussion and debate (though be it by myself at this point :) I hope my diatribe was somewhat interesting and engaging and not boring. Peace. -John Jcheckler (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
SF Bay Area - More Musically Diverse than just Rock and Hip Hop
It seems a shame to me that in the Wiki article only Rock and Hip Hop are mentioned as music in the SF Bay Area. There is a depth of other styles of world class music here including (but not limited to): an amazing jazz scene, an amazing Latin music scene, world class symphonies and operas,etc., etc. 15 October 2012 126.96.36.199
- Ive noticed this article is heavily weighted towards certain aspects of the Bay Area, and tried to remove the most egregious details, esp around metal/punk. This kind of summary article should focus on only the most notable facts, with lots of "see also" and "main article" links. jazz and classical are huge here, you are quite correct.(mercurywoodrose)188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Something wrong with the listed population
The link from "Ranked 6th in the U.S." (to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas) actually goes to a table containing the MSA listed as 11th. Not sure if this article is supposed to be about the MSA or the CSA or neither, but it should probably either link to the correct table, or state the correct position.
- The ranking is unsourced, so I say delete it until someone provides a source. On a related note, does anyone know where I can find the list of counties included in the MSA? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Nine Counties or Twelve Counties? Both sources only list 9 Bay Area Counties...
Not sure why the Wikipedia page lists 12 Bay Area Counties. Both sources, ABAG and BayAreaVision.org, only have 9 Bay Area counties listed. The following three are not considered Bay Area Counties:
San Benito Santa Cruz San Joaquin
If these are Bay Area counties than they should be cited by a reliable source. This is a pretty egregious error that has no support in the sources. It makes the whole San Francisco Bay Area page page seem uncredible.Ktmackish (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)ktmackish
- Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem. I have rolled back the article to its correct nine-county version. On October 26, someone editing from ;Pennsylvania was confused by the two versions; they thought the article was about the federal government version which is 12 counties: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area. The popular definition is only nine counties. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Though San Benito, Santa Cruz and San Joaquin counties are adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Area, and accordingly linked to that area, they are not described by reliable sources as a part of the Bay Area. There is an inherent logic to the nine county definition, as those counties actually border the San Francisco Bay. That may be slightly arguable in the case of Napa County, but in truth, the lower Napa River is an estuary of San Francisco Bay. It does not consistently flow downstream, but flows back and forth with tidal changes. And the southwest portions of Napa County are San Francisco Bay wetlands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)