SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Did nature make Bay Area greatness inevitable?

5K views 31 replies 15 participants last post by  jmancuso 
#1 ·
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?
 
#5 ·
: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.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#11 ·
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)
 
#10 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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..... =)
 
#28 ·
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
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top