Did nature make Bay Area greatness inevitable?

[edsg25]

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?

[Battsman]

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

[Battsman]

WTF i hit reply once

delete this shit yo

[Jeff_of_Dayton]

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.

[eweezerinc]

Originally Posted by Battsman

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

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.

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.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Battsman

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.

[Jeff_of_Dayton]

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.

[Silver Springer]

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.

[Jeff_of_Dayton]

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".

[Lmichigan]

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.

[yerfdog]

Originally Posted by Jeff_of_Dayton

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)

[Jeff_of_Dayton]

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.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Silver Springer

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.

[edsg25]

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

[eweezerinc]

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

[Westsidelife]

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

Originally Posted by plinko

[edsg25]

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

[nomad997]

Originally Posted by edsg25

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.

[bayviews]

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.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by bayviews

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.