Talk:San Francisco Bay Area

Outer East Bay

The article refers to east Contra Costa & Alameda county towns like Walnut Creek, Concord, San Ramon, Dublin, and Livermore as part of the "Outer East Bay", but now we must include other towns from Tracy and Manteca to Rio Vista to Vacaville. Not including these areas in the population and region is negligent since these are big commuting areas into the more central parts of the Bay Area.

intro wording

There's a reason why Washington and Baltimore are listed as separate metro areas. Same thing with New York and Bridgeport, or Toronto and Hamilton, or Mexico City and Toluca, or Los Angeles and Riverside, or Boston and Worcester. While it is understandable that many people from the area would want to boost the size of their metro area, San Jose is large enough and attracts enough workers from the surrounding areas to be a separate metro area. The region is properly a group of adjacent metropolitan areas with overlapping labor markets. --Polaron | Talk 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are taking the word "metropolitan" too deep. In this article it only means that the Bay Area exsist as a whole not seperately like you are implying. And please do not assumed that we just want our place to boost our size. Geographically and physically San Francisco and San Jose are connected in continous urban built up area. Esecially the urban areas immdiately surrounding the Bay. The area also shares a lot of things not only commuting patterns/employment etc. But also Designated Market Area and Sport Franchises. Any residents in the Bay Area would know that San Jose and San Francisco function as one. I would know because I live here. Your argument about technicalities can be true in the Census metropolitan area defenition article or something but not here as we are trying to simplify everything as possible for the readers to understand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.41.32 (talk)

It is misleading to say that the entire region is a single metropolitan area because that usage is not consistent with most other parts of the country and the world. The same thing you say about the Bay Area can be said about the other pairs of metro areas I listed above. How about we just leave off mention of "metropolitan areas" at all? Another option may be to use "metropolitan region", which is the term sometimes used to describe adjacent, interacting metropolitan areas. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see you really have a big deal using the word "metropolitan area", I uderstand. Ok how about "Is a diverse area encompasing primarily by the continous built up urban area immediately surrouding the San Francisco Bay"? Just do not imply that San Francisco or San Jose are not connected at all. Ok metropolitan region is good.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.41.32 (talk)

The "San Francisco Bay Area" is neither a "Metropolitan Area" nor a "Consolidated Statistical Area" as defined by the census bureau. It might be better not to use either of those terms to avoid people thinking they're the same thing.

For the record, the Association of Bay Area Governments includes only nine counties (no Santa Cruz or San Benito) while the "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland" CSA includes eleven counties. Since this article is about the Bay Area and not about the SJ-SF-OAK CSA, I would suggest that it only include nine counties.--DaveOinSF 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The best consensus definition I've seen is the "nine Bay Area counties" that is used by ABAG. Its a bit clumsy, in that includes some outlying areas of Solono, Napa, and Sonoma counties that are rather remote from the Bay Area proper, while leaving out much of Santa Cruz county, which is arguably to a large degree a commuter suburb of Silicon Valley, and culturally, very "Bay Area". Nonetheless, its a useable, verifiable, and non-subjective definition which is worth sticking with.

As for the issue of whether San Jose/Silicon Valley is the Bay Area – it certainly always was considered as such historically, and its still falls into the "9 County" definition. Thirty year ago, San Jose was considered simply a remote suburb of San Francisco; the growth of Silicon Valley in the last thirty years has made many people think of it as a separate entity from the San Francisco-Oakland area. This is somewhat different from Baltimore and Washington DC, which both have histories as major cities going back 200 or more years, but who's suburban growth and relatively close driving distances have brought the two cities much closer together. Peter G Werner 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated on and off for the past two years, and the consensus usually comes down to mentioning that it's disputed. It appears that it depends on who you ask, in particular with regard to Santa Cruz County. Some California state agencies list it as in the Bay Area (e.g. the State Park system), while others (e.g. ABAG) don't. Santa Cruz residents also themselves seem to usually self-identify as in the Bay Area more than the rest of the Bay Area identifies them as part of itself. So I think the current explanation, that it's disputed and different people say different things, is the only reasonable one. --Delirium 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling San Francisco the "cultural center" of the region makes other areas sound like backwaters. I'd say it's the most famous/recognizable and with good reason, but it's not the focus of daily life for many Bay Area residents. --krudmonk 0:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• San Francisco and San Jose actually do make up one metropolitan area. The population of each of the cities does not determine if it is its own metro area, it's whether they fuction as one entity and lie in close proximity to each other; and these two cities do. It also means it man go from being the "San Francisco Metro area" to the "San Francisco-San Jose Metro area". They fit the definition of one metro area because they do lie near each other. Also there are scores of people who live in San Jose and work in San Francisco; also vice-versa. There are people who live in Oakland and work in San Jose or San Francisco; and of course, vice versa. The cities share sports teams such as Golden State Warriors or San Francisco Giants; television and radio stations are picked up in all three cities (Oakland included) regardless of the actual city the station broadcasts from; and the daily newspapers are distributed in the surrounding areas, especially the larger San Francisco paper. The local subway/rapid transit line travels from the outer suburbs, to Oakland, San Francisco, and to the airport, with talk of extending it to San Jose. The local BART subway line (and regional train lines) would only encompass San Jose because it is indeed part of the metro area.

• Another point to make - I'm not sure why some people in San Jose (not all) have some sort of ill-will towards San Francisco. I also have noticed this with Phoenix and Scottsdale AZ as well. Its not necessary. Its important to remember that San Jose has grown in population partly due to San Francisco. SF is a desirable city: physically beautiful, financially strong, rich in history, and with some of the highest real estate prices in the nation. Some could not afford that. Others wanted to be near it if not in it. If it were not for San Francisco being an attraction for people to settle in/by, millions of people would not have settled in surrounding areas like Oakland, San Jose, and some of the other towns in the region that were more affordable, but also allowed them to be in proximity to SF. With this growth in outlying areas came employers, and that in turn brought transportation options: freeways, subways/rapid transit, massive bridges, ferries. But SF was still the financial and cultural focal point of the area, nothing wrong with that. Its kind of comparable to Manhattan. When people couldn't afford or did not want to settle in Manhattan (and this is still true today), they settled in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, to have close proximity to Manhattan. With the building of bridges, subways/elevated lines, expressways, and tunnels, population grew in the outlying areas, but Manhattan was still the cultural and financial strength of the area. Nothing wrong with that. The only difference is New York annexed these areas, while San Francisco did not annex Oakland or towns south of it including San Jose. If SF had annexed, then it would have been comparable in land size to Los Angeles, but with much more people than LA because SF has a greater density rate. In fact, it would be the second largest city in the country. SF would then be like Manhattan, SJ like Brooklyn, Oakland like the Bronx, and the other towns in between like Queens. But as it stands they are all independent cities comprising the metro area, and its important to remember that SF brought attention and international stature to the Bay Area which fueled its growth and the growth of surrounding cities, so to have negative attitudes toward it seems unwarranted.

San Jose, the first civil settlement in California, was founded because San Francisco is so desirable? Sorry, but Manhattan and Brooklyn are divided by a river. SJ and SF are separated by 40 miles.

Also, the ill will stems more from the SF/Oakland end of the Bay Area.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.234.141 (talk) 19:42, March 18, 2009

What's wrong with the current wording? The Bay Area includes the following Census-defined metro areas, and, if you define it as a CSA has 7.2 million people.--Loodog (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, point seems to have been raised. The current wording is useful because it puts the SFBA, which we are struggling to define exactly, in terms of exactly defined MSAs and a CSA.--Loodog (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that SF and SJ are 40 miles apart. Many people drive or commute 40 miles to and from work in scores of cities across the country and world. SF and SJ are in the same metro area, but here's another issue some may be looking: The Census Bureau counts metro areas by MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) and CSA (Combined Statistical Area). MSA means they take a city with a sizable population (like San Jose; Baltimore; Riverside, CA; or Newark, NJ) and count that city's population and the cities that are immediately by it. CSA means they realize that cities like San Jose, Baltimore, Riverside, or Newark are part of a larger metropolitan region where arts and culture, business, transportation (like subways, suburban commuter rail lines, port facilities, airports), education, media (like tv, radio, newspapers) are shared by the entire area. This is what makes SF and SJ part of the same metro area; the MSA is just under the CSA umbrella. Other countries use their own version of CSA's. That why Tokyo-Yokohama is ranked largest in the world at 35 million people. If it were not for the CSA count, the United States would have no cities ranking among the world's largest because we would not be using the same criteria as the other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Inner east bay vs outer east bay

Is it neccesary to divide this? It seems like mostly opinion of one who lives in the "inner" east bay. I've never heard people make the distinction of inner/outer east bay before. Things like the "building stock" being pre-and post WW2 are innacurate...both Livermore and Pleasanton have a large section of homes built in the Victorian era. Both cities had train stations that lead to those buildings springing up prior to the war. Also, it's contradictary to say that the areas are rural but still dominated by the upper-middle white class. Who do you think farms the rural areas? Certainly not the upper-middle white class. There is a huge migrant worker population working in the area's grape vineyards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.144.240 (talk) 11:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Doesn't seem necessary to separate inner bay and outer bay. I've never heard those phrases used by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Citation Cops

Where are they when you need them? I came across this article today for the first and for the most part the content is excellent. (OK, the music section sucks!) But about 90% of all that is asserted here is unreferenced, one of the worst major articles I have come across in this regard.--Fizbin (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

The lead section of this article needs major clean up, I have attempted to clean it up several times but keeps getting reverted.. thanks.. South Bay (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, though more than just the lead section needs improvement. I've been debating whether to have a go at it but I don't have time at the moment to do a good job. At least the stuff about whether LA or SF is best is gone. --Sophitessa (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removal

I removed the sentence referencing San Francisco being eclipsed by Los Angeles in terms of cultural significance. While it may be true, it's not really relevant, since the article doesn't try to assert San Francisco's particular ranking in that area. Dtcomposer (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and it doesn't seem Los Angeles has surpassed San Francisco in the category of culture. It has surpassed SF in population indeed (but LA takes up much more land than SF so that's expected), and it has surpassed SF in terms of tonnage move at each metro areas port facilities. But when it comes to arts and culture, rich history, great museums, SF seems stronger. Transportation is better in SF too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, wrong you guys. LA has a culture of 14.5 and SF is 15.9, so clearly SF is higher.--Loodog (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Map incorrectly highlights Santa Cruz County

According to the article, Santa Cruz County is not one of the nine counties in the Bay Area. The map incorrectly highlights Santa Cruz county. 75.17.118.142 (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll see there are two maps at the top of the article; one which highlights the traditional nine-county concept of the Bay Area, and one which highlights the eleven-county CSA as defined by the Census Bureau (which includes Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties). Further down in the article is discussion about the inclusion or exclusion of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties in the Bay Area. Dtcomposer (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removal

I removed the exhaustive paragraph about the cost of living, largely just because of its original research and unverified claims.. South Bay (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Highest point in Bay Area

The article states that Mount Hamilton (3080 feet) is the highest point, however Mount Diablo is also in the Bay Area, as it's defined in the article.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/mount-diablo-1 Mount Diablo is a mountain in Contra Costa County, California in the San Francisco Bay Area, located south of the town of Clayton and northeast of Danville. It is an isolated 3,864 feet (1,178 m) upthrust peak that is visible from most of the San Francisco Bay Area and much of northern California.