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.
Maybe I am just too much of a city lover to care about the debate over MSA populations. But, I could really care less about the suburbs. IMO, whether SJ is part of SF's msa is besides the point.
What makes SF great in my book is the core areas like North Beach, Hayes Valley, Union Sq, etc. The rest of the Bay area (with a few exceptions) is sprawl like any large metro area.
Same with Philly, I like it because of Rittenhouse, Old City, etc. Not Cherry Hill, King of Prussia.
I guess when I look for cities that I prefer, I look for 2 things
1) how vibrant and pedestrian friendly are they?
2) how well kept are they?
From what I can tell, having never actually visited, SF probably wins on both counts.
I like Philly and would place it over most cities. But I just can't find a reason to place it over SF.
It seems like Philly has been making progress in the right direction, but it fell further then other big urban cities (SF, NY, Bos, Chi) and has been slower to come back. Hopefully over time it can close the gap.
I guess when I look for cities that I prefer, I look for 2 things
1) how vibrant and pedestrian friendly are they?
2) how well kept are they?
From what I can tell, having never actually visited, SF probably wins on both counts.
I like Philly and would place it over most cities. But I just can't find a reason to place it over SF.
It seems like Philly has been making progress in the right direction, but it fell further then other big urban cities (SF, NY, Bos, Chi) and has been slower to come back. Hopefully over time it can close the gap.
Thanx for an informative opinion; without the rhetoric of some posters.
I am not sure how to take that? I would be the first to admit I am not an expert on either city.
I just though the conversation had gotten bog down with unproductive side topics.
I completely agree that San Francisco and San Jose are one metro but a lot of people are discounting the fact that Philly and New York, which are the two biggest cities on the entire East Coast, lie only 45 miles apart.
Who is discounting this fact? Who are you even talking about here. Show me these people who amount to "a lot" in your book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
How can you say that this area is less integrated or powerful.
Who said anything even remotely implying that Philly and NYC are less powerful?? What are you even talking about? Have you been reading a different thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
I don't really care about tv affiliations or whatever else people are using to make their point. Of course New York and Philly have separate identities. New York is the biggest city in the most powerful country in the world. And of course San Jose will be integrated into SF metro simply because it's not a very influential city.
Thank you for acknowledging this fact. If some of your other East Coast folks could follow suit this conversation could finally progress into something useful.
That has been our whole point. Philly and NYC have separate identities and have their own independent metros even though they are very close to each other, while SF and SJ comprise different sections of the same metro. Its really not that difficult and I have no idea why some of your brethren are making it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
Philadelphia's and New York's GDP are 9th and 2nd in the world respectively. San Francisco's is 15th and San Jose and Oakland are not even in the top 100. Give credit where credit is due
Exactly. And I ask that you do the same. You're not exactly giving credit where it is due here if you try to split up the Bay Area into little separate segments when it all comprises part of the same economy. Why don't you list the Bay Area's GDP here in order to make it a fair comparison. Otherwise show us the ranking of North or West Philly's GDP or maybe Staten Island's or the Bronx's by themselves. Probably wouldn't rank so high there would it? So if we're going to make apples-to-apples comparisons here, let's due just that. And let's actually give credit WHERE IT IS DUE.
Chestnut Hill neighborhood of Philadlephia. This neighborhood was built in the 18th + early 19th century.Meanwhile out in the Bay Area The Hupa Indian tribe was bartering hallucinogentic mushrooms to the trappers for bear fur.
So you try and act as though you intend to have a rational discussion here, but you can't refrain from throwing a jab at SF as though Philly's longer history matters at all to us. Grow up dude. That's pathetic. Smh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
Guys we are starting to chase the tail here. Lets just agree that alot of the one-time posters were fraudulent and declare Philadlephia the winner, although SF is a great city nonetheless.
Hahaha keep dreaming. You guys got your a$$es handed to you in this comparison and you don't even have the courage to admit it. The Philly homers here are pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caymon83
Nice post. You lay out a clear argument for Philly and give some context to back up your assertion. The pics are great as well. This thread had hit the skids for a while. Hopefully, this is a sign of better things to come.
I thought it was a nice post too for the most part, until he showed that he didn't have the capability to post it w/o trying to take SF down a notch via his juvenile comment. They shouldn't front like they want to actually discuss this maturely if they won't hold up their end of the bargain.
I still think Philadelphia would loose; but at least it would be fairer.
This is the first true thing any one of you Philly boosters has said on this entire thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
I agree, but be fair,winter can get cool,dismal,foggy and rainy.
Where, in Philly?? SF does get rainy in the winter, but fog is occasional and more common in the summer, which is what keeps our temps so moderate in the West Bay. Cool I'll give you (not cold) since we have about as comfortable a winter as one could hope for and have it still feel like winter. Dismal is definitely not a word I would use to describe any of our weather.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Winter in Philadelphia is a blistering freezer compared to San Francisco-which is very mild by comparison.
And as far as rain, Philly summers are far wetter than SF winters.
Exactly. Our moderate weather makes every season very livable. And we still get a great variety w/o having to experience extremes.
And I prefer to have my summers sunny and w/o rain, the way they should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
We go skiing in the Sierras, which hosted a Winter Olympics. Lake Tahoe has no peer in the east.
Noone has disputed that...but some posters simply are not mature enough for intelligent debating; trying to inflame the board with inconsequential rhetoric and childlike statements.....like nowstale.
Or pittston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
Have any posters noticed that the city-data forum for California has many sub-forums???? San Jose is one sub-forum and golly gee San Francisco has a SEPERATE sub-forum.
Maybe our "esteemed" posters, with an opposite viewpoint, would like to state their case to our Administrator as well as the Census Bureau....just asking???? State your case; to the appropriate agencies and websites...I'm sure you can convince them of your case with your informed information.
Well golly gee there's all the proof you need then, say no more! If you'd spent any time on those forums maybe you would have noticed a discussion or two about how there didn't need to be 2 separate forums for each city and how the San Jose one ends up being a pretty dead forum since there is no need to split them up. But I'm sorry, I don't mean to get in the way of you talking out your a$$.
I like how you keep fronting like you want to just have a normal discussion, yet every time someone posts something to steer the discussion in a new direction you thank them and then reference those who you claim "highjacked" the thread (as you've spelled it lol), further preventing the discussion from progressing. And then you carry on the SF msa debate by throwing little useless tidbits like this one. Bravo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngchampion
oakland would also have its own forum.. oakland is not SF, but oakland and SF are a part of the same bay AREA
Pitts will conveniently ignore this fact though in order to try and further push his/her agenda. Even though you've just shut down its latest argument.
See what they have down for San Francisco metro population? 7.3 million...
Not to mention wikipedia, most travel guides, etc, etc...
It is common knowledge and absurd to dispute.
I agree, and so does anyone with functional brain matter and an objective opinion. Those who have an opposing agenda, however, will fight tooth and nail to deny this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
I think second guessing the Census Bureau is ludicrous and anarchistic.
I think arguing with natives of an area about what constitutes the metropolitan area they reside in is idiotic and obnoxious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
I only count three????????????????
Well that's higher than I would have expected you to be able to count, so I guess that's at least a small victory for you!
Btw, notice that none of those three is Philly? Just wanted to make sure that didn't slip past you the way so much other knowledge has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
Since they cannot debate on an even playing field, than it ruins my thread.
Your thread has been a farce since the beginning as you were never willing to let SF's true metro area be included in the discussion. You only allowed for a handicap in favor of Philly, and threw jabs at SF once Philly started losing. Then when we spoke up about your uneven parameters, you chose to ignore our complaints and kept things unfair for SF. No fair comparisons can be made when you're not making one to begin with and then whining over and over again about how it is YOUR thread, and then playing the victim here. YOU ruined your own thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
but the children just keep repeating their ludicrous arguements like a broken record. More intent on their own pitiful agendas, than an honest comparison of both cities.
Kind of hard to do much else when you other children keep repeating your own ludicrous, incorrect arguments like broken records. Of course you have no other motive here since you're willing to listen to differing points of view, right?? LMAO an honest comparison here would most likely make you break out in hives.
Last edited by jman650; 08-31-2009 at 05:39 AM..
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.
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.
If you'd spent any time on those forums maybe you would have noticed a discussion or two about how there didn't need to be 2 separate forums for each city and how the San Jose one ends up being a pretty dead forum since there is no need to split them up. But I'm sorry, I don't mean to get in the way of you talking out your a$$.
