More so than any metropolitan area in America, did nature provide the Bay Area with so much in a physical setting (incredible beauty, wonderful climate, coastal access, enormous sheltered harbor) that its greatness was assured? Was it inevitable that (with its setting) San Francisco was going to achieve greaness?

IMHO, there is no metropolitan area in the world that is so situated to enhance the mixture of man and nature. The huge bay smack in the middle serves as an enormous amphitheatre to the hills that ring it on all sides. The steepest slopes (Mt. Tamalpais, Mt. Diablo) are shifted to the periphery, the city itself is a set apart peninsula where hills and water mix and views aren't blocked.

There are other spectacular locations...i.e. Hong Kong, Rio, Vancouver, but to a degree (particularly HK and Rio) their slopes dominant more than what you see in SF and the Bay Area where the hills and what is made by man serve more to enhance each other.

Is it just me...or is the Bay Area the most magnifcent setting in the world for a metro area, the best possible place to see the interplay between nature and man?

Did nature make you spam this forum with 11 of the first pages threads?

WTF i hit reply once

delete this shit yo

I think there was something called the California Gold Rush that had a lot to do with San Francisco being the great city it is.

For harbors, on the West Coast, San Diego and Puget Sound are equally good, but the SF Bay is the only one that opens inland via the Carquinez Straights, and then the riverine systems branching inland from the Delta to Sacramento, Stockton, and Marysville, which where the jumping-off points to the Mother Load.

So yes, geography (and fortuitous geology) had a lot to do with it.

I think even without the gold, the easy inland connections to an future agricultural area would still have ensured San Franciscos growth, but not as explosively as the Gold Rush did.

Did nature make you spam this forum with 11 of the first pages threads?
:lol:
edsg IS synonymous with big, long, thought evoking questions, but without them to keep things interesting, all we'd be doing is posting the same damn skyline shot of Chicago where its all blue in the distance off the lake shore. I have seen that picture in far too many threads. :nuts:

I think nature had a lot to do more with SF's longevity and modern day success rather than its initial growth. These days, its easier to pick where you want to live based on climate and attractive settings than it was in most of the 1900's. For a long time, SF had the benefit of being a main West coast port and one of the few large cities in the west for things to centralize around. The aesthetics and nature were great, but I think it didnt have that much to do with the city's greatness til the car became the dominant mode of transportation, and people could consider things other than economic opportunity for moving.

Did nature make you spam this forum with 11 of the first pages threads?

battsman, you can ignore anything i post. if you see my name on it, avoid going into it. i won't be the least insulted.

meanwhile, i hope you feel free to post anything you want. what i think of your posting is irrelevant. none of us are here for the approval of others.

was there something i wrote here offensive here?

which is worse, battsman,

• posting, even frequently

• passing judgement on other posters and feeling the need to share that with them.

do you get the idea...nobody wants to be hear "what you think of them"

you may think i'm full of shit. maybe i am. next time,do both of us a favor and just ignore what i post.

a little civility would be nice. although admittedly, it is in short supply.

I think nature had a lot to do more with SF's longevity and modern day success rather than its initial growth.

Hmm....its hard to say. Nature is nice, but people need jobs, too. Maybe it was an accident that infotech took off the way it did in the Bay Area, due to Stanford and SRI and Sand Hill Road, but maybe there was also an entrepeneurial culture there too.

Nature was a big draw in the 19th century as well. LA is probably famous for using this as a booster talking point, but The City did this as well. They held a Mid Winter Fair there in the 19th century (sort of a trade fair) as a way of showing off Californias mild climate.


Then there was that transcontinental railroad, which was boosted by Bay Area money men (the "Big Four", who, ironically, got their start in Sacramento),and cemented SFs position as the main city on the West Coast, but that wasnt a done deal.

There where multiple routes considered, and the Southern Route, from Memphis to the great harbor of San Diego was seriously considered (the Gadsden Purchase, which brought Tucscon and vicinity into the US, was made with this route in mind).

The Civil War intervened, however, and ultimatly the central route was chosen, from Omaha west, which helped Chicago as well as San Francisco.

By Bay area do you mean Chesapeake Bay area? I always find it interesting how Massachusetts is called the Bay state and S.F. is called the Bay area yet by far the biggest Bay in country is the Chesapeake located in Maryland with Baltimore sitting at its core.

I recall the local media in the Tampa/St Petersburg area called that metropolitan area the "bay area" too, after Tampa Bay, which is a pretty impressive body of water, too....though for there the "Oakland" (St Petes) is on the pennisula while the "San Franscisco" (Tampa) is on the "mainland".

Geography played a huge role in many areas development, though, I'd definitely debate the assumption that SF has (or ever had) the best location of any city in the United States, let alone the world. I don't think geography played a greater role than it did in say places like New York City, Boston, Chicago,...and so on. And, for those that saying it plays more in modern times, I'd dispute that too, as the age of aviation and the age of information technology has made physical location less and less important.

I recall the local media in the Tampa/St Petersburg area called that metropolitan area the "bay area" too, after Tampa Bay, which is a pretty impressive body of water, too....though for there the "Oakland" (St Petes) is on the pennisula while the "San Franscisco" (Tampa) is on the "mainland".
I'm not familiar with these cities - can you explain what you mean by the analogy to Oakland-st. Petersburg and SF-Tampa?

Because Tampa is more well-known? (aren't the two cities almost the same size though?) I thought St. Petersburg was pretty touristy, not industrial like Oakland. And isn't Tampa's port pretty important (like Oakland's)

Tampa is or was the larger city or the leading city of the two, also the older city...and St Petes was smaller with a less impressive downtown.

By Bay area do you mean Chesapeake Bay area? I always find it interesting how Massachusetts is called the Bay state and S.F. is called the Bay area yet by far the biggest Bay in country is the Chesapeake located in Maryland with Baltimore sitting at its core.

you bringup an interesting point. i realize that places like Tampa and, as you say, MD and MA can go by the name "Bay Area", but when that term is used nationally, it seems it virtually always stands for San Francisco.

in other words, is it safe to say San Francisco is the "default Bay Area"?

^^
I was shocked you didn't throw a question on the topic, and then I looked at the last post. :lol:
Oh so predictable, but you know how to keep a conversation moving.

Some amazing San Francisco photos from SSP. San Francisco really is the most beautiful city in the US!



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/2006%20Digital/06-004.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/2006%20Digital/06-005.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/2006%20Digital/06-006.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/2006%20Digital/06-008.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/2006%20Digital/06-009.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/2006%20Digital/06-010.jpg

westside, great pix...and unusual angles. cool. thanks for sharing.

in other words, is it safe to say San Francisco is the "default Bay Area"?

I would say yes. I live 20 minutes from the Beginning of the Chesapeake and 45 minutes from Baltimore, and even here the "Bay Area" is synonymous with San Francisco.

To answer the original question, only to a limited degree.

Just to consider San Francisco, the city, it was nothing but a cold windswept peninsula. Aside from what's been built, it hasn't really changed a bit in that respect! Even as SF built up, the city suffered many disadvantages, not the least of which was its limited accessibility as a peninsula. Sure the ocean, the Bay & the hills make for a great setting but consider all the drawbacks. Not just earthquakes, but mudslides & firestorms.

Cities are always helped by nature. But in the end, it’s the people they attract & what they make of a place that makes the difference between a great city & an also ran.

To answer the original question, only to a limited degree.

Just to consider San Francisco, the city, it was nothing but a cold windswept peninsula. Aside from what's been built, it hasn't really changed a bit in that respect! Even as SF built up, the city suffered many disadvantages, not the least of which was its limited accessibility as a peninsula. Sure the ocean, the Bay & the hills make for a great setting but consider all the drawbacks. Not just earthquakes, but mudslides & firestorms.

Cities are always helped by nature. But in the end, it’s the people they attract & what they make of a place that makes the difference between a great city & an also ran.

You make a good point. It was indeed a wind swept peninsula. To be reminded of that one only needs to look at the extraordinary reclaimng of the sand dunes that became Golden Gate Park. SF limitations are also well noted; some feel that the logical location for the Bay's chief city would have been in East Bay; that's where the transcontinental r.r. terminated in making its key connection to the rest of the US.

Still, you can't discount how the incredible contour of the land and man's ability to both build and green the land creates a setting unmatched in theworld.

No one ever denied that, but you did ask (and then implied and answered your own question) if geography made a huge difference in the greatness of the Bay Area. Quite frankly, not more so than many other American cities, and even less than quite a few others. IMO, the city has one of the best, if not the best, setting of any major American city, but that wasn't the question.

battsman, you can ignore anything i post. if you see my name on it, avoid going into it. i won't be the least insulted.

meanwhile, i hope you feel free to post anything you want. what i think of your posting is irrelevant. none of us are here for the approval of others.

was there something i wrote here offensive here?

which is worse, battsman,

• posting, even frequently

• passing judgement on other posters and feeling the need to share that with them.

do you get the idea...nobody wants to be hear "what you think of them"

you may think i'm full of shit. maybe i am. next time,do both of us a favor and just ignore what i post.

a little civility would be nice. although admittedly, it is in short supply.

as the moderator in this section...you're ok.

but the grateful dead made SF great.

http://www.gratefuldeadmusic.com/wallpaper/dancingbears.gif

By Bay area do you mean Chesapeake Bay area? I always find it interesting how Massachusetts is called the Bay state and S.F. is called the Bay area yet by far the biggest Bay in country is the Chesapeake located in Maryland with Baltimore sitting at its core.
The Chesapeake Bay is actually located in Virginia with the world's largest naval port in the Chesapeake "bay area", better known as Hampton Roads. Hampton Roads sits at the opening, I'm not sure how Baltimore fits into it, San Francisco sits at the opening of the San Francisco Bay while Silicon Valley sits at the end (and as such has nothing to do with it)
The San Francisco Bay Area has about twice as many people as Maryland but its presence is even more significant, that is probably why Bay Area has the "default" connotation on SSC US at the very least.

Is it just me...or is the Bay Area the most magnifcent setting in the world for a metro area, the best possible place to see the interplay between nature and man?
I happen to like the regions curves, but I may have been spoiled living there for many years. But if Seattelites here rave about the beauty of SF (Seattle area has more than enough natural beauty to spare) then why wouldn't everyone else think the same about the region as a whole?

The Chesapeake Bay is actually located in Virginia

WTF are you talking about?

It's in both parts, MD is more known for it from the culture standpoint. I think SF's natural setting did make greatness inevitable, it's been planned well for the most part and built up well, but the setting and weather allows for a ton of what's so charming about the place.

of course geography helped SF out, SF naturally had something that draws people in. however that can only take it so far, SF worked hard to become the great city for what it is... the city that doesnt compete because its culturall/geographically in a league of its own..... =)

While SF is a nice city people seem to talk about it like it's on the same level as NY or something. It is not the second coming.

While SF is a nice city people seem to talk about it like it's on the same level as NY or something. It is not the second coming.

NYC and SF are not on the level because i believe these two cities dont exactly play the same game... NYC and SF are vastly different... you gotto respect each and every city that are unique and add flavor to this great country besides being just another "pretty" carbon copy

New York vs San Francisco:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/nyc.vs.sf/
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/in_the_city/battle_of_the_giants.php
http://www.alternet.org/story/22074/?comments=view&cID=18392&pID=7412#c18392
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=26&entry_id=5628
Not that anyone is going to mistake a city of 750k with one who is 8.2m.

While SF is a nice city people seem to talk about it like it's on the same level as NY or something. It is not the second coming.

however you may describe that level, San Francisco doesn't want it. San Francisco has qualities that New York will neve have: like the ability to look in the mirror and see it is California's fourth largest city....and not skip a beat from so thinking. NYC may be the ultimate US to you, Sillver Springer. And while I and others may love New York, it doesn't mean that it holds the same status for us. For the way that SF offers urban pleasure in its unique way, one can easily make a compelling argument that this is Ameria's ultimate city.

More so than any metropolitan area in America, did nature provide the Bay Area with so much in a physical setting (incredible beauty, wonderful climate, coastal access, enormous sheltered harbor) that its greatness was assured? Was it inevitable that (with its setting) San Francisco was going to achieve greaness?

IMHO, there is no metropolitan area in the world that is so situated to enhance the mixture of man and nature. The huge bay smack in the middle serves as an enormous amphitheatre to the hills that ring it on all sides. The steepest slopes (Mt. Tamalpais, Mt. Diablo) are shifted to the periphery, the city itself is a set apart peninsula where hills and water mix and views aren't blocked.

There are other spectacular locations...i.e. Hong Kong, Rio, Vancouver, but to a degree (particularly HK and Rio) their slopes dominant more than what you see in SF and the Bay Area where the hills and what is made by man serve more to enhance each other.

Is it just me...or is the Bay Area the most magnifcent setting in the world for a metro area, the best possible place to see the interplay between nature and man?

Going back to topic...Nature did indeed make an absofuckinglutely magnificent setting for a metro. It's ironic that the beauty that nature created will also be destroyed by nature itself. It's happened before and it will happen again...

that's if people assume that just because new york is the biggest means it's the best. not true.

i cant tell how many people i ran into that prefer SF over NYC.