Talk:San Francisco Bay Area/Archive 1

First thread
Who pronounces it "bear-ea?" I've lived here for decades (even grew up here) and never once heard that. I checked with others who also grew up here and they've never heard it either. Siggimoo 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also would like to know who pronounces "Bay Area" as "bear-ea." I've spent over 23 years in the Bay, and have NEVER heard this before.  Even Berkeley-ites, who have a tendency to refer to all things "bay" with their school mascot's species (bear), don't call it the "bear-ea."


 * If no one can provide any back-up for this pronunciation, I would suggest it be removed. Tesscaline 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph from the article because, while it expresses a nice sentiment, doesn't strike me as really containing much content or really saying anything that should go in an encyclopedia article. If anyone disagrees, they can put it back in.


 * The San Francisco Bay Area is a very special area. When locals are asked to define it they give varying answers. One common definition is "Bay Area: The one place on earth where, if you have lived there for any length of time, it is impossible to go live somewhere else. You always end up coming back. No matter how expensive, how crowded." Referring to the way it is taken as self-evident that happiness and self-realization are things worth striving for another definition goes "The Bay Area -- where dreams are tried on for size." The same goes for "The Bay Area is the place where new ideas meet the least amount of resistance." That explains the higher than average number of inventors and kooks in the Bay Area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egern~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 November 2001 (UTC)

I rearranged the cities and put in all of the cities from all of the counties. It's unnessecary to list cities by county as one can just click the county and see all of the cities in that county. I listed alphabetically, BUT before that, I list the cities by population range. WhisperToMe 05:56, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is Fremont really considered part of the South Bay? I usually think of the South Bay as starting at Milpitas, with Fremont being the southern edge of the East Bay... Ergative 01:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not, but I haven't seen any reference to it as a South Bay city, so I assume it has been corrected. I also removed the county seat designation for Fremot, since the seat of Alameda county is Oakland. trialsanderrors 08:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fremont is the East Bay, Hands down, no questions about it. Ask people in fremont and they will tell you that. Infact Big Oso Loc a rapper from Fremonts Irvington district has a music video on youtube and heres a quote from his video talking about Fremont " We are part of the Tri City killa committie, East Bay Gangstaz know for showing no pity" So you see its the East BAY!!!!

Why, Under North Bay, Is Vallejo listed as the Northen-Eastern Most city of the Bay? Wouldnt that be Fairfield??? Fairfield isnt clearly listed in either east/nor north Bay as to what it is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.32.32.166 (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Santa Cruz part of the bay area?.
Santa Cruz is not part of the bay area! Why you ask, because Santa Cruz county does not touch the waters of the bay like all the other 9 bay area counties do period. Now if you want to talk economicly and culturaly, yes they do have alot incommen with the bay area but so does Sacramento and Stockton and a bunch of other places but thats because we are the center of Northern California but thats besides the point. The San Francisco Bay Area describes a Geographic location period. And that does not include Santa Cruz county, not saying its a bad place or anything, im just saying it is not part of the San Francisco bay area. End of the conversation.

Santa Cruz is part of the Bay area ..depending on who who talk too, they will say the Bay Area consist of 9 ,10 or 11 county

Anonymous editor 67.180.169.248 removed Santa Cruz County from the list of counties with the comment:


 * ''The Bay Area is only nine counties. I've never heard of including Santa Cruz.'

This may, or may not be true. However the important point is that it left the article hopelessly inconsistent. Even after the change the lead section talks about a ten county definition (actually it discusses both the 9 and 10 county options); the map shows all 10 counties; the list of suburbs still contained places in Santa Cruz county.

It may be that we need to have this discussion and trim the article back to 9 counties. However the article prior to the change is reasonable up front about it being debatable, and the partial change executed makes things worse, not better.

Therefore I have reverted this change. -- Chris j wood 11:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've looked into what the US Census Bureau says. The USCB does not define any statistical area with the name Bay Area, or San Francisco Bay Area. It does however define a Combined Statistical Area with the name San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland which corresponds exactly to the 10 county definition (ie. including Santa Cruz). It also defines Metropolitan Statistical Areas, but these are smaller, with the San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland CSA made up of San Fransisco - Oakland - Fremont, San Jose - Sunnyvale - Santa Clara, Santa Cruz - Watsonville, Santa Rosa - Petaluna, Napa and Vallejo - Fairfield. You can see more on the maps and.


 * Not sure if this is very conclusive, but the USCB certainly does not seem to have anything corresponding to the 9 county definition. -- Chris j wood 13:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops. I've just noticed that San Jose - Sunnyvale - Santa Clara MSA, and hence San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland CSA, also includes San Benito County. So it looks like the USCB uses an 11 county definition. I don't propose to add San Benito to the definition on the page as it seems counter-intuitive. In the counties, cities, etc section of the article, I've italicised those places in Santa Cruz county; I think it better to leave our readers to decide whether they go for the 9 county or 10 county definition. -- Chris j wood 13:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very important to remember that we are trying to define "San Francisco Bay Area" -- a term in use everyday by local governments, publications, and millions of residents. The Census Bureau doesn't have a 11-county definition of the "San Francisco Bay Area" because they don't use that term, any more than they define "Chris's Neighborhood" (although they do have a block and tract definition for my area). We should look to how the term is defined in actual use, not invent a new expanded definition here.

To that end, my experience as a resident is that "the nine Bay Area Counties" is the stock phrase used. Google lists about 1,000 sites with the exact quote "the nine Bay Area counties" but fewer than 20 that use "the ten Bay Area counties" -- a two order-of-magnitude difference.

Thus, I think the italics / non-italics approach currently taken is just fine. --Chris vLS 18:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The main regional government of the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governmemnts only has nine counties. Santa Cruz is not one of them.

The subsection on santa cruz is a mess and sort of pointless. Nevertheless, informally, Santa Cruz does seem part of the greater bay area. As San Jose is the hub for santa cruz, and if you're including san jose in the bay area...it just follows. And I do hear people refer to Santa Cruz as part of the bay area here at the university at least. Novium 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bay Area Census does not include Santa Cruz. trialsanderrors 07:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * so? Novium 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a data point. That's not too hard to comprehend, is it? trialsanderrors 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Santa Cruz is considered to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area Travel Region by the California Department of State Parks (http://www.parks.ca.gov/parkindex/results.asp?searchtype=1&id=5&searchtext=San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area). Also, the California Labor & Workforce Agency includes Santa Cruz county as part of the San Francisco Bay Area region (http://labor.ca.gov/panel/ESP_Regions_brochure-Mar_04.pdf). "San Francisco Bay Area" is more accurately defined by the cultural, social, and economic spheres of incluence on the populations of people that are in close proximation to the tri-metropolitan area and not simply by those cities which rim the bay.


 * What's the point of adding the sentence "Santa Cruz is geographically isolated from the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area" when Half Moon Bay is just as isolated but is included? Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz have far more in common with each other than each with the San Jose or the East Bay. Just a question. 67.112.124.78 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-

As a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, I have rarely heard that Santa Cruz is considered part of the San Francisco Bay Area. Locals refer to the area as the "nine Bay Area counties": Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. Almost never do the locals refer it as the "ten Bay Area counties." In the mindset of us locals, Santa Cruz is considered part of the Monterey Bay Area, if not a community by itself. -Physicq210 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * and as someone who has lived all but one year of her life in the bay area, i've never heard anyone talk about the number of counties. It's just the bay area. East bay. North bay. South bay. Santa Cruz is not exactly part of the bay area, but neither is it properly part of the central coast. maybe the best thing to say is that it is on the outskirts. Novium 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've lived here all my life, and I've always heard that we have nine counties. I don't think anyone I know would consider Santa Cruz to be part of the Bay Area. Google now comes up with 31,600 hits for ""nine bay area counties," and 42 for "ten bay area counties." Also, every official site except the state parks department seems to exclude Santa Cruz. I also think it's innappropriate to state in the article that "There is disagreement over whether Santa Cruz County is part of the San Francisco Bay Area," as the only disagreement I've ever heard of is the one on this talk page. There is no outside source that I've seen that considers this a controversy. Until some source is found for this "disagreement," I'm changing the article to reflect the widely held view that the Bay Area consists of nine counties. DejahThoris 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also lived in the Bay Area all of my life, I grew up in San Jose and later on the Peninsula in Palo Alto. While growing up in San Jose, I've come to recognize Santa Cruz more as suburb/vacation spot for folks "over the hill."  Santa Cruz, the city at least, has always been economically tied to the rest of the Bay Area simply from the amount of Bay Area tourists who frequent the region every year.  Not to mention that the cities in Santa Cruz county are becoming more and more bedroom communities for Silicon Valley.  It is also intresting to note that UC Santa Cruz' Extension headquarters is based in Cupertino and it's primary mission is outreach in the Silicon Valley.  Also, I know that UC Santa Cruz is partnered up with NASA Ames and--together-- they are creating a big research center in the Mountain View (http://svi.ucsc.edu & http://uarc.ucsc.edu).  I, myself, am a graduate of UC Santa Cruz and know the statistics show that a good majority of the student population on the UCSC campus come from the Bay Area.  Just recently, within the past two years, (this addresses DejahThoris's official controversy claim) the California Department of Labor & Workforce: Development Agency re-evaluated the "traditional concensus of Bay Area." And I quote, "Bay Area. Traditionally, the nine counties that border the San Francisco Bay have comprised the Bay Area region. However, Santa Cruz County has now become more dependent upon that region than on the Central Coast region."  State agencies are now including Santa Cruz into the definition of Bay Area, especially as development continues in the region.  Local agencies, however, are slowly coming to the idea of inclusion.  Contrary to the assumptions of many of the posts here, local agencies in the Bay Area do not reject Santa Cruz outright, but rather are working out the kinks because of the new state definition, these agencies include the Silicon Valley Network, the Bay Area Council (which, incidently, is related to ABAG which was cited earlier as denifing 9 counties) and the California Center for Regional Development and many more (http://www.jointventure.org, http://www.bayareacouncil.org, http://www.calregions.org/regcivic/crn/jvsvn.html).  I think the Bay Area is a rapidly growing region. Growing not just in terms of population but also in terms of physical geography and cultural expansion.  Santa Cruz should definetly be included as part of the Bay Area wikipage but included with knowledge of the recent events mentioned earlier in this post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.112.229 (talk • contribs).
 * The only compromise, if Santa Cruz is put back, is to restore the paragraph that says "There is disagreement over whether Santa Cruz County is part of the San Francisco Bay Area." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the fact that U.C. Santa Cruz has ties to the Silicon Valley makes it part of the Bay Area. Neither does the fact that a lot of U.C.S.C. students come from the Bay Area. The California Department of Labor & Workforce: Development Agency may have said "...Santa Cruz County has now become more dependent upon that region than on the Central Coast region," but they did not say Santa Cruz is now part of the Bay Area. Stating Santa Cruz's dependency on the Bay is hardly the same as giving it a "new state definition," nor is it evidence of a major controversy. Of the three links you provided, the first (http://www.jointventure.org) does not mention the "Bay Area" on that page, and a cursory search didn't show anything obviously saying Santa Cruz is part of the Bay. The second (http://www.bayareacouncil.org) does not say anything about the definition of the Bay Area on the front page, but the "about us" page [] states "The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored, public-policy advocacy organization for the nine-county Bay Area" (emphasis mine). The third link you listed (http://www.calregions.org/regcivic/crn/jvsvn.html) says that it "defines the Silicon Valley as Santa Clara County, plus adjacent parts of San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Cruz counties." Okay, they consider Santa Cruz to be part of the Silicon Valley. But if you look on the same site under the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communties[], it says "Region Served: The Bay Area region's nine counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma." Once again, nine counties.
 * I also went to Google and searched for " 'Bay Area' counties" [] I went through and looked at the first 20 results. Here are the results that either mention the Bay Area as having nine counties, or list the counties of the Bay without including Santa Cruz:
 * [] [] [] [] [] [] []
 * The 511.org site (the Bay Area traffic thing) specifically mentions Santa Cruz under "Outside the Bay Area."[] The only two sites in the first twenty Google results that include Santa Cruz in the Bay Area are a realtor's site [] and the San Mateo County Recycle Works site [], which also lists "Palo Alto (City)" and "City of Vacaville." I skipped the Google results which did not mention how many counties were in the Bay. The sites which credit the Bay with nine counties includes government organizations, Yahoo, and two major news sources in the Bay Area.
 * The idea that Santa Cruz is part of the Bay Area appears to be a very minor view, and I feel it is too minor to warrant full inclusion in this article. A mention of "Some organizations include Santa Cruz county as part of the Bay Area" followed by links to those organizations may be appropriate, but I don't think it's fitting to include Santa Cruz and all of its towns throughout the article. That gives far too much weight to what is, as I said, a very minor viewpoint. DejahThoris 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Either the article should say "there is disagreement over whether Santa Cruz is part of the Bay Area" or a brief paragraph that explains that it is NOT part of the Bay Area. I do not want to see more edit wars of the removal/addition of the Santa Cruz cities and communities that has occured frequently in the past. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to mentioning disagreement about whether S.C. is part of the Bay Area, provided we have a reference for such disagreement. I don't want to see an edit war either, which is why I haven't edited it yet. But I can't think of an encyclopedic way to mention that S.C. is not part of the Bay. It seems to me like the article should focus on what is part of the Bay Area, not on what is not. And as I've said before, this discussion page is the only place I've seen any controversy about whether or not S.C. is part of the Bay Area. DejahThoris 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In Response to DejahThoris' comments The California Department of Labor & Workforce: Development Agency may have said "...Santa Cruz County has now become more dependent upon that region than on the Central Coast region," but they did not say Santa Cruz is now part of the Bay Area. Stating Santa Cruz's dependency on the Bay is hardly the same as giving it a "new state definition," the report that was cited does conclude that Santa Cruz County be defined as being inlcuded the defintion of the Bay Area Economic Region. And I Quote:
 * Defining economic regions within California is not a clear-cut process. Frequently, economic activity is determined more by site-location factors than by political or jurisdictional boundaries. However, most economic data are not collected at a more local level than the county. This situation necessitates defining economic regions as aggregations of counties, even when county boundaries do not precisely define an economic area. An ideal situation would be to use sub-county data, but such data tends to be scarce, dated and unreliable.
 * In general, a well-defined economic region will be fairly uniform within its boundaries, contain economic activities that are interrelated, and have logical jurisdictional boundaries for working with local economic development organizations. The following nine regions possess these characteristics.

The Nine Economic Regions of the State of California are: California Economic Regions By County

Northern California Del Norte Humboldt Lake Lassen Mendocino Modoc Nevada Plumas Sierra Siskiyou Trinity Northern Sacramento Valley Butte Colusa Glenn Shasta Tehama San Joaquin Valley Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare Central Sierra Alpine Amador Calaveras Inyo Mariposa Mono Tuolumne Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Southern Border Region Imperial County San Diego County Greater Sacramento El Dorado Placer Sacramento Sutter Yolo Yuba Bay Area Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Solano Sonoma Central Coast Monterey San Benito San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara 63.249.112.149 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) - Firstly, as a casual reader of this article, the Santa Cruz/San Benito section seems more like an opinionated blog post rather than a substantiated encyclopedic entry. Yes, there are many useful links to sites but the paragraphs provide no substance as to what Santa Cruz is, where it's located within the region, or relevance to its history of inclusion or exclusion. The writers have made a point of describing the Bay Area as being without a formal definition, and yet that point is moot without claims as to the history or references to such information. As far as I understand, there is a clash between how the State government sees the region, the federal government's perspective of the region, the local city/county government’s perspective, etc. The cultural and economic parallelities, common to both areas, have not been taken into account by the editors of this section.

Second, the two counties are distinct from one another and therefore, should have seperate entries. I would say, a well writen article would tie-in the supposed controvies with relevant supportive information about the communities and how they support, or substract, from the Bay Area region.

74.220.74.236 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is a long discusion, I didn't even bother to read it all. Because Santa Cruz county is not a part of the Bay Area. I think that the only reasonable way to define bay area is the counties that touch the bay. If Santa Cruz county has a cultural connection to parts of the bay area (I think it does) that's fine, but it's pretty subjective, no? There's clearly no physical connection between Santa Cruz county and the San Francisco Bay, and it shouldn't be included on the little map at the top of the page. As a native of San Francisco who lived there for about twenty years, I have never even heard that anyone in Santa Cruz claimed their county belonged, by the way. JJM (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Striking images
The two countryside images are quite striking! One looks just like Ireland in early summer, the other looks more like the Med!

zoney &#09827; talk 16:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And now, those photos which I, too, so loved; are gone! I don't see any reason discussed here that they were removed, and they certainly are worth of PotD status, so I'm going to salvage them and put them back up. I think, encyclopedically speaking, they lend an excellent image of the contrast between the spring and summer on our omnipresent hillsides. --Coolhappysteve 23:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I went back through the edits and saw where the images were removed - apparently without discussion and without reason given with the edit. I notice that they've been added to Geography of California, but they've also been marked as featured picture, and thus seem wholly deserving of an appearance in another Bay Area article especially one that does not link/is not linked to by the Geograpghy article. --Coolhappysteve 00:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

San Francisco or "Frisco"
Look, I am born and raised in the Mission District of San Fran,now i live in San Mateo,in SHoreview. Im younger about 27, from the streets, not from the rich suburbs or the hills, im latin american. Im a real city boy. And i can tell you as far as my age group, the hip hop generation in the streets of this city, not Nob hill, we say FRISCO likes theres no tomarrow, Every where you go, anyone you talk to its always FRISCO, they even got the Hells Angels in the DogPatch and they are the Frisco Hells Angels, not the San Francisco Hells Angels and the Hells Angels have been in frisco since 1957 or something like that and they have used frisco since day one!(i wanna see you yuppies try to correct them), look talking to street people, everyday common people here in the city and im not talking about your old folks who go to starbucks and order non fat Lattes and then go down to the bookstore and drink their expressos and go work downtown for some fancy company, im talking about da real people from Frisco,people in da mission,hunters point, fillmoe, the tenderloin,sunnydale, excelsior,potreo hill, man, even chinatown, real San Franciscans, 49er fans, hustlers, real blue coller people,working familes, WE SAY FRISCO ALL DAY LONG. Only you Book reading, scared to walk the city streets at night, coffee drinking, bagel biting yuppies get offened at frisco, here is a list of what the citys nicknames are : Frisco, da SCO, da City,San Fran, San Pancho(to us latin people)Bahgdad by the Bay,oh and i cant forget about da SUCKA FREE-thats what SF stands for!!!(spike lee even made a movie about SF called Sucka Free City) Thats it, saying San Francisco is too long, too gay! And yes San Francisco is part of the WEST BAY, if oakland is the east bay what do u think that makes SF then huh? And Yes San Francisco is part of the Penninsula, infact its the main city on it, all the way down to Mountain View. Its the west bay or da san fran penninsula(whatever u wanna call it) And yes we get hyphy!

Just wanted to add: Lots of young people refer to San Francisco as "Frisco," myself included. A LOT OF US DO. So its rather incorrect to state that it is "never" referred to as "Frisco," because many, particularly young people, even older people who live in some of the rougher neighborhoods refer to it as "Frisco" more often than by its proper name.
 * By decree of His Imperial Majesty, Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, you are hereby fined $25 for using that word. Gentgeen 00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement, as a native of San Francisco with friends across generational lines, neighborhoods, political interests, with natives and non-natives, and of different socio-economic circles (I went to public schools, am from and live in North Beach), I can attest to the fact that the term Frisco is often used in everyday conversation and identification, e.g. on clothing, and tattoos. Another name of endearment often used is “The Sco.” I grew up with the names. Often we used these names to identify natives and non-natives (my point is the wide usage, not our simplistic forms of identification). The separation, from my observations, rests largely in socio-economic circles, generations, and the distinction of true natives as opposed to non-natives that have lived here for years. This is not to say that all natives of San Francisco approve of the term, merely that a very large population of natives previously, currently, and will continue to employ the name fondly. Consequently, Wikipedia’s posting on the name should be removed as it reflects a subjective perspective (not accurate objective data). I will remove it as it’s unnecessary, but I wanted to post this for people to comment on first.

As for Emperor Norton, well, some of those same people that refuse to say Frisco, they fought the placement of a statue for him on Kearny Street.

The City, Frisco, The Sco…these names are as much a part of The City as the Emperor, there’s no need for us to be so elite in our representation of The City that so many of us love for its ability to reflect so many different communities.


 * Maybe the article should be edited to say kind of what you said here (except probably shorter :-) ). I've been a south bayer since 1968 and was always told that only outsiders who don't know any better use "Frisco", certainly by some SFers but I don't know by whom else.  On the other hand, "Frisco" is certainly well understood in songs and literature-- The song "In Frisco Bay there lived a whale--" could refer to nowhere else; seems to me that ships sailing to/from/along the west coast might refer to "sailing out of Frisco".  And now that I think about it, I can't imagine how else they'd refer to it--"San Francsico" seems too formal for familiar or casual talk, "SF" no way, and "The Sco" I've never heard of until this very moment.  And "The City" of course would have meaning only for people living immediately around that city, not for anywhere else in the state, country, or world.  Elf | Talk 22:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The outsiders that I know who refer to San Francisco in informal conversation use either San Francisco (which isn't particularly formal) or San Fran. As an East Bay local, I always say San Francisco or, if talking with other locals, The City.  I, too, have never heard "The Sco" before, and grit my teeth when I hear "Frisco".  That's not to say that it's not used, but it certainly has the reputation of being only used by those who don't know better.  Flooey 22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've lived here for 50 years and the only people that call it "Frisco" are from "other" places. We always say "The City" and we refer to "South San Francisco" as "South City". Sco? I don't think so! Schmiteye 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

so did we take everything out about the namimg of the city? i think it's important and ads to the flavor of the article. also, no one's mentioning "SF" as another name for the city. i hear SF used WAY more than "frisco," especially by people who live here. i seriously can't remember the last time i've heard "frisco" by a native.

also "WEST BAY"??? i've NEVER heard SF referred to as "west bay."

-sparsefarce 19 jan 2006


 * Whenever I hear of a person say "Frisco"...I know they're not local. And I'm always usually right. Locals say "The City", "San Francisco" (if they want to be so very formal). I've never heard people say "The Sco". The airport is almost always called "SFO" when referring to it in conversations. "West Bay"??? Never heard anyone call it that. --speedoflight | talk to me 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never actually heard the term "Frisco" myself. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I only ever hear southern californians call it san fran and frisco. (And I suppose non-californians as well). It's like nails on a chalkboard. I was on a bus the other day in santa cruz. A freshman said something like "Yeah, i love frisco", and pretty much everyone on the bus turned and glared. Apropos of nothing but amusing anyway. Novium 07:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If we're speaking on a purely socio-economical terms the term Frisco has always taken a "foreigner" or "lower class" status. I would say a vast majority of locals and anyone not involved in the hip-hop/hyphy movement refer to San Francisco as San Francisco, The City, or on very rare occasion San Fran or SF (although these are often looked down upon as well).

On personal terms hearing Frisco is like nails on a chalkboard, and seems almost like a disrespect to the city itself. I know when my roomate first refered to San Francisco as Frisco my first reaction was to asked where he lived, suspecting him a foriegner (and suprise he lived in Santa Clara and was a huge hip-hop fan). I think Frisco is trashy and disrepectful, but thats just my oppinion.

I'm from the east bay with a friend who was born and raised in "Frisco" and whose family traces it's roots in "Frisco" back a hundred years or so and before that to Spanish conquistadores who moved into what is now New Mexico before heading on later to what the truckers term the "Gay Bay." My friend regularly used the term "San Franchesca" when referring to San Franciso along with several of his old buddies from his neighborhood I met. Asking what he thought of the term "Frisco" he declared that though he didn't use that term often that there were times when a converstaion's context allowed the use and it seemed fit and proper to him. My personal experience is that relative newcomers to the area are the ones most vehement against the "Frisco" usage. Didn't ol' Herb Caen (peace be upon him) comment on this issue at least once? Can't recall for sure. Anyway, seems to me that it's the "shallower" folks of limited mental capacity who carry on about the topic. My long-term Frisco friend agrees.Obbop 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've lived in the Bay Area over half my life, and the first and only person I've ever heard anyone call San Francisco "Frisco" was someone from Toronto. As for "Sco," I've never heard it. I concur with everyone above who said that the name that is actually used is "The City." — Emiellaiendiay 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Frisco was mentioned by Mark Twain in Roughing It, written in the early years of San Francisco's existence (American era), as a sign of the outsider. Herb Caen merely reiterated this in more recent years.  Our family, some resident here since the Gold Rush, has always maintained this.  It may well be that there's a class dimension to this as well, but I personally have known longtime union-types who disdained Frisco as well, so maybe even there there's a split decision based on how long one has been around here.  I agree that the term "The City" has long been the regional shorthand for San Francisco. Tmangray 17:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Eat Bay resident (Concord), it was always split down the middle as to "Frisco" Being a good or bad nick-name. Personally, it has always been "The City" to me, even to those who aren't from the Bay Area. Now that I'm down in So-Cal, it's amusing to meet others who recognize the 'true' meaning of "The City" Deeter063 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Refactoring
I'm doing some major refactoring. Each of the subregions (South Bay, East Bay, etc) are now separate sections and have "main articles". I abbreviated the entire "look how wealthly we are" statistics section. Transportation was way too long and I factored that to Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm wondering what to do about the list of counties and cities, which comprises more than a third of the article length. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:13Z 


 * It might make more sense for the articles on the subregions to have titles like East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area), rather than East Bay (San Francisco, California). The only article where "San Francisco, California" makes sense in the title is the one for the city itself. -Nogood 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to use that parenthetical qualifier until I noticed that South Bay had previously been moved from that name. I am fine with that; I like it better myself.  They all need to be consistent though.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 00:18Z 

Suburbs?
Should the list of cities with fewer than 100,000 residents be labeled "suburbs"? While many of these cities are indeed suburbs, I don't think that the smaller populations of cities such as Albany and El Cerrito classifies them as suburbs. --Andy M. 04:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think of Albany and El Cerrito as suburbs, myself. Actually, the only Bay Area cities which I don't think of as suburbs are San Francisco, Santa Rosa, San Jose, and Oakland. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 01:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "Municipalities and suburbs", suburbs being a shorthand for census-designated places in this case. Arguably, Napa is not a suburb if we go with the definition that a suburb has to be adjacent to a major city. ~ trialsanderrors 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Oakland is not a suburb of San Francisco, then Albany, etc. would properly be suburbs of Oakland (but note that Emeryville was not a suburb of any city as it was formed as an heavy industrial enclave, not as a primarily residential area). - Leonard G. 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Suburbs with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants
I changed this list to one section, because I didn't consider it very useful to have to separate sections for A-La and L-Y. After all, the two sections aren't on different pages. If anyone has any objections, please state them here before changing the article. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

San Jose dominant city in region?
Some changes to this article appear to have been made with the intention of arguing that San Jose is the center of the Bay Area. There is nothing wrong with making such an argument, however I think it should be made outside of the boundaries of an encyclopedia article.

This new line in particular sticks out:

''Although it does form a clear urban center to the Bay Area, many residents now consider San Jose to be the dominant region of the Bay Area, and that opinion is not held only in the San Jose area. Both Major league baseball teams, the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's, have considered moving to San Jose.''

I'm not sure what the opinions of some residents or what the considerations of two baseball teams have to do with anything. The A's have also considered moving to Fremont, but that does not make Fremont a candidate to be named the dominant city in the area. Plus the Giants considered moving to San Jose before Pac Bell/SBC/at&t/"what name doth the future hold?" Park was built. When the Houston Oilers did more than consider and actually moved from Houston to Nashville to become the Titans this did not signal that Nashville was a more important city than Houston.

San Jose does have the highest population (roughly 950,000) as the newly edited population chart - clearly edited to place San Jose higher than San Francisco, instead of in the same over 500,000 category as in the old article - points out. But this population exists within a land area of 177 Sq. Miles. San Francisco's population of 750,000 exists within a land area of 47 Sq. Miles. If San Francisco were to eat the two cities directly to its South and East (Daly City and Oakland) it would have a population of 1.25 Million in a land area of just 111 Sq. Miles. And what does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Population is of relatively little value in determining a city's importance, otherwise one could easily say that Jacksonville is more important than Miami and Indianapolis is more important then Boston or Seattle.

San Francisco is home to the California Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the six US Mints, the 12th Federal Reserve which covers the entire American west, one of the world's major landmarks in the Golden Gate Bridge, one of the most reconizeable and crowded skylines in the United States (and the world) and a population density surpassed in the US only by New York (among other things). San Francisco also has far more people commuting to work there - according to the 2000 census roughly 320,300 people commute daily to San Francisco for work, while 44,200 commute to San Jose (I'm pretty certain San Jose actually loses population during workdays, which makes it by loose definition, a suburb).

So in terms of governmental, cultural, financial and economic importance, San Francisco surpasses San Jose. And if it expanded its borders to equal San Jose's it would also far surpass it in population. I think this article needs to be changed and would like to discuss this before making any such changes. --Richardsomething 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with this change but it should be noted that the SFBA is not named after San Francisco the city but San Francisco Bay the estuary, so discussions on comparative importance of the surrounding cities is rather moot. Bay Area is simply a local shorthand for the unwieldy SFBA and precedes San Jose's rise to biggest city. ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with trialsanderrors, although I imagine a lot of people parse SFBA as (San Francisco) (Bay Area) rather than (San Francisco Bay) Area, its original meaning. Steve Pucci | talk 15:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 44,200 people commute to San Jose? That can't be right. What about all the computer companies? ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seemed low to me, too, but here it is: Metropolitan Transportation Commission press release Steve Pucci | talk 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the press release says "Downtown San Jose" and "Downtown San Francisco". It wasn't clear what that meant. Steve Pucci | talk 03:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The numbers I gave are probably not exact, but a look at The Census Bureau's Estimated Daytime Population Statistics show San Jose to be the only city of over 500,000 residents to experience a net loss of population during weekdays (-50,069). San Francisco sees a net gain of 168,747 people during weekdays by comparison (not including tourists), while Oakland sees a net gain of 10,964:  http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html --Richardsomething 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And in further support of Richardsomething's original point, the total workers working in SF is 587,300 compared to 377,915 working in SJ. Steve Pucci | talk 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall, San Francisco is the more dominant and much more well-known city. San Jose has only a bigger population and high-tech companies, while San Francisco has almost everything else except land. And if San Jose was the more dominant city, we won't have to distinguish it from the other San Jose in Costa Rica all the time. -Physicq210 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as dominant cities, SF vs SJ, San Francisco is dominant, but the Silicon Valley is a more dominant economy and has economic world recognition, SF has the highest GDP per capita of any major city on the planet but what the hell do they do? Everyone is trying unsuccesfully to copy the Silicon Valley model, everyone has a specific economic image when they hear "Silicon Valley" and the region overall is far more affluent even in the wake of the dotcom bubble burst. San Francisco is the trophy wife of the Bay Area. Everyone in the Bay Area knows how touchy San Franciscans are on the subject of the Valley below, reading about SF's highrises on Emporis is like hearing a requiem. San Jose calls itself the "Capital of Silicon Valley" but it isn't really much more important to the region than the rest of the cities there. I'm not suprised people commute more to SF than SJ, if you lived in the area you wouldn't want to commute very far either.--Old Guard 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What the hell do they do? San Francisco is home to a diverse number of corporations, private companies, non-profits, and government agencies.  In addition to what I've already mentioned above, San Francisco is home to the Fortune 1000 companies of McKesson (3rd largest company in CA), Wells Fargo (4th largest company in CA), GAP (13th Largest in CA), PG&E (23rd Largest), Charles Schwab (41st Largest), Levi Strauss (51st), URS (53rd), Williams-Sonoma (57th), Del Monte Foods (61st), Building Materials Holding (68th), and ABM (74th).  It's also home to numerous privately held companies like Bechtel (1st in CA).  Not to mention magazines both off line (like Wired) and on-line (like CNet and Salon).  Note that  CA corporate stats quoted here are from CNN Money 2006: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/states/C.html


 * In addition, I think the South of Market neighborhood of San Francisco is often considered part of Silicon Valley (in spirit). SF and the Valley are completely tied together, one does not "dominate" the other.


 * The article has again drifted to downplaying SF as the center of the region. To do so, it mentions all the positives of San Jose (10th largest city in the nation!) while stating several negatives and none of the positives of SF (2nd most densely populated city in the nation! 4 times as dense as SJ).  Population is not the key to a city's importance - Brooklyn and Queens each have a million more people than Manhattan, but Manhattan is still the center of NY.  San Jose is the only city of more than 500,000 people that actually loses population during the day when people go to work (from US Census in 2000, in the middle of the tech boom)!  Surely that's just as noteworthy as its regular population numbers.


 * I'm going to make a few fairly small changes to the article over the next week or so. I'll be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.  I don't want this to be a "SF is dominant!" article, since as I said above, no part of the Bay Area really dominates another, but I do feel the article needs to be cleaned up a bit and that SF should not be downplayed. --Richardsomething 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, as a non Bay Area resident, it appears that San Francisco is the dominant city in the area. That's not a knock against San Jose, it's just simply stating that from many perspectives San Francisco is the dominant city in the region. It has far more culture, it has more nightlife, more financial strength, history, and the bustling skyline of the region. It also has various transportation options; subway, buses, trolleys, streetcars, ferries. Also it's density cannot be overlooked. Yes, San Jose has more actual people in its boundaries, but when you take into account San Jose has 990,000 people in 175 sq. miles, and San Francisco has 800,000 people in 47 sq. miles, along with all the other factors mentioned above, it really becomes clear which is the dominant city of the region. And although Silicon Valley is in/near San Jose, it's still in the Bay Area, which includes San Francisco. Most of those upstart companies established themselves in that area initially anyway, because property value and rent is lower than in San Francisco; another testament to San Francisco's strength. Now having said that, its important to say San Jose has shown growth, going from being part of the "San Francisco metropolitan area" for most of its history to now being part of what can be called the "San Francisco-San Jose metropolitan area" (kinda like Los Angeles- Long Beach, Dallas-Fort Worth, or Seattle-Tacoma). But do not confuse that growth with it eclipsing San Francisco, it would have a long way to go to do that. The entire Bay Area would indeed take a hit if there were no more San Jose or Oakland, but the Bay Area would take a tremendous blow to its economic influence and cultural status if there were no San Francisco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

EXPAND: major employers
hi, I am really missing a list of major employers in the region and businesses that have their headquarters located in the bay area. like chevron/texaco and bank of america... so I will look for the template to request help with that specific section! thank you everyone!

Didn't you get the memo? BofA went to North Carolina some years back. Tmangray 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
I really think the introduction needs to be changed, particularly the second paragraph, as of May 25, 2006 it says : "The Bay Area is atypical in that its population is distributed across several regional urban and suburban centers. San Francisco was until recently the largest city in the region (it was surpassed by San Jose in the 1990 census) and remains the traditional and cultural center. The metropolitan area comprising the city of San Francisco together with Oakland and San Jose is the fifth-largest consolidated metropolitan area in the United States."

In all honesty when one thinks of recently 1990 is far from it, this makes it sound like the article was written in the early to mid 1990s. I suggest revising it to something like this:

"The Bay Area is atypical in that its population is distributed across several regional urban and suburban centers. While San Jose is the largest city in the region (having surpassed San Francisco in the 1990 census), historically San Francisco has been the largest city in the Bay Area, and remains the traditional and cultural center. The metropolitan area comprising the city of San Francisco together with Oakland and San Jose is the fifth-largest consolidated metropolitan area in the United States."

I specifically put this in a new section because I don't want this to be a disscussion of the relative importance of the cities, please stay on focus if you comment on this, thanks.

-- JVittes 05:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in historical terms, even in the relatively short history of SF, my take is that 16 years ago is recent. But then I'm an "old" guy of 47. :-)  I do think your paragraph reads better, in any case.  In your suggested change, I might change "historically San Francisco has been" to "for most of its history San Francisco was", which I think would better preserve the original intent. -Steve Pucci | talk 13:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that in historical terms it is recent, but the problem is that since there is nothing to make one think in that context, I.e "The San Francisco Bay was first discovered..." one thinks in whatever terms they think recently and city go together. I hope I'm making sense. Afterall it is the introduction so they would think in such a context. I think your idea for the rewrite is good, but in incoporating it I would interchange region and Bay Area, to make it clear we are talking about the Bay Area when refering to "its", not just the city. So the current proposal would be:


 * "The Bay Area is atypical in that its population is distributed across several regional urban and suburban centers. While San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area (having surpassed San Francisco in the 1990 census), for most of its history San Francisco was the largest city in the region, and remains the traditional and cultural center. The metropolitan area comprising the city of San Francisco together with Oakland and San Jose is the fifth-largest consolidated metropolitan area in the United States."


 * Or maybe I should start with "While the Bay Area's largest city is San Jose" or "While the region's largest city is San Jose" what are people's thoughts?


 * --JVittes 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your new proposal (and I get what you're saying about the meaning of recent). Re the first sentence, I think it is awkward but meaningful.  Perhaps a rewrite along the lines of
 * "The Bay Area, unlike the typical metropolitan area, contains several distinct urban and suburban centers."
 * Well, that's a bit awkward too. Maybe you can improve it. --Steve Pucci | talk 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This paragraph needed editing anyway (someone introduced a grammar error), so I just took what we had so far as a start. --Steve Pucci | talk 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So the intro has been changed again, without disscussion here, since the previous changes where made after several days of disscussion as to what to do, and the current intro was made as a uncommented change if there is no further discussion I'll reverted back to the old version, if someone prefers the current version please bring a point as to why you think it sounds better. I think the majority of people will agree that the old intro sounds better, but I am willing to accomodate for some reason someone thinks the new version is better. If no further discussion I'll change the intro back on Jul 3, 2006 --JVittes 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

reoganization of subregions
I switched around the order they were listed in to see if it would progress better if listed north to south. It seemed a bit random and jarring to go (starting from san francisco) east, south, a little north, really far north, and then as south as possible. I just wanted to see how it looked...if you all hate it, it's fine, if someone has a better idea for a progression, i'm all ears. Novium 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the Photographers
A big thanks to those who shot and uploaded the pictures on this article. They look great, and add a lot of flavor. Keep up the good work! DejahThoris 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed pointless paragraph
I removed the following paragraph because it says nothing about this region that is any different from the rest of the United States. Honestly, it sounds like it was written by a 3rd grader for a research paper. You may put it back in the article if you enjoy wasting space on Wikipedia's servers.


 * The San Francisco Bay Area has a very diverse religious life with thousands of churches, mosques, temples, and other religious centers. The Bay Area is home to Buddhist,  Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Shiite-Muslim, Sikh, Sunni-Muslim, and numerous other religious communities.

--voidxor 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Map request
It would be nice to have a map that shows the major features of the area, including the counties, cities, bridges, highways, bodies of water, sites of interest, etc. -- Beland 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities of the SFBA category?
Should there be a 'Cities of the San Francisco Bay Area' category? --moof 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Solano County
I consider it debatable whether the whole county can be considered part of the Bay Area. Dixon, Rio Vista, and to an extent Vacaville appear to in some circles be connected to the Sac metro area... Ranma9617 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree. From my experience with individuals from Solano County, especially Rio Vista and Dixon, they feel more association with Sacramento than San Francisco. I would move Solano County to the Sac Metro Area, and accordingly, I have deleted Dixon from the listing of cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. NoRCaLD503 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, most residents of Dixon consider themselves more closely linked to Sac than S.F. But the Bay Area is traditionally defined as being nine counties, and Solano is one of those counties. I'm adding Dixon back in because of that. DejahThoris 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose the question to ask is whether or not we include the entire county then? It wouldn't be an absurd idea, considering that in some places in the United States, a single expansive county covers numerous distinction areas, geographic and self-defined. I suggest perhaps we all undertake a different approach of defining the Bay Area; rather than a county by county defintion, perhaps we should be examining it city by city. In which case, places like Fairfield would probably qualify while Dixon would clearly not be included. Just a thought. Let me know what you think. NoRCaLD503 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree with you completely. My definition of the Bay Area wouldn't include Fairfield, Dixon, or San Jose, because I think of the Bay Area as being the area around, you know, the Bay. But the Bay Area is generally defined as being the nine counties contiguous to the Bay, and for the sake of consistency, I think we should stick with the traditional definition. Otherwise we'll veer away from having a referenced encyclopedia entry, and towards a definition decided by Wikipedia editors. Is Gilroy part of the Bay Area? What about Palo Alto? Who decides? This article will necessarily be simplistic, but I don't think there's any way to get around that without filling it with our opinions. DejahThoris 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is Solano county then in the "North Bay" section? People in Vallejo or Benicia more closely associate with "East Bay" communities such as Concord/Walnut Creek and others. Also, note that major highways 80-680 go into Contra Costa County, and people more often work in those areas.  Any thoughts on moving this reference from North Bay into East Bay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Entirelybs (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

New wording
I think much of the new wording such as: "The City and County of San Francisco is one of the most unique locations you will find. There is much to be said about this wonderfully interesting, beautiful city."

and: "The area between the South Bay and the City and County of San Francisco is the San Francisco Peninsula, locally known as The Peninsula. This area consists of a series of small cities and suburban communities, and is primarily covered by San Mateo County but also includes..."

The part about San Francisco sounds like an advertisement, and the part about the Peninsula being covered by San Mateo County sounds awkward, I propose changing it back, but if someone can argue for the new wording then maybe that can be worked on. --JVittes 02:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone already reverted the first part. I edited the Peninsula part, which was also misleading, since it implied that San Mateo, Foster City, etc. weren't part of San Mateo County.  It still reads a little long.  Feel free to change it. --Steve Pucci | talk 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Affluence

 * Should we just say that the Bay Area is the most affluent major metropolitan region in the US/planet?
 * Not unless confirmed (it is in the top ten) - Leonard G. 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the aflluence section is quite long, someone should at least summarize it.

"Wells Fargo estimates that there are 180,000 millionaire households in the Bay Area, 10% of which have $5 million or more in assets [3]."
 * This following statement is not backed up by it's source at all and doesn't even mention what the statements claims, so I am going to delete it.

Other cities less diverse?
Ok, this sentence, "Today, San Francisco remains a cultural and financial center, but its population size and political weight have been eclipsed by larger, more affluent, and less diverse cities in the region," is troubling. What kind of diversity is being compaired? I don't believe it can be ethnic background. There's only one larger city in the region, and both SF and SJ are minority-majority cities. Oakland is arguably even more diverse, with a plurality of African Americans, while Pacifica has a majority of Asian Americans. The "less diverse" jab should be removed. Gentgeen 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It obviously is talking about San Jose as it talks about population size, since San Jose is not "less diverse" than SF, it follows that that is just a jab a biased individual added to this page, I don't think such a thing should be in wikipedia, and I propose we remove it, if there is no further discussion on the issue I will remove it in about 4 days. --JVittes 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I already removed it on Saturday, and also took out all the other rambling "socio-economic" nonsense that preceded it. This was a jab at both San Francisco and San Jose all in one go.  San Francisco's political weight has not been "eclipsed" by San Jose - San Jose's influence, and Oakland's for that matter, have simply grown in stature right alongside SF.  And San Jose, Oakland, and the other cities and towns of the Bay Area are certainly all very diverse.   I don't know how this was on here for so long. --Richardsomething 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Population Statistics
There has been people changing the population of San Jose to 1,020,000 and San Francisco to ~812k, if anybody knows what the source is for this information I would highly appreciate if you could list it here, I have searched everywhere and I cannot find a source for this. If something cannot be found within a reasonable time frame I will have to revert the numbers to what they were, as those are cited. --JVittes 08:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Demographics section twice references "the 2006 census". This is plainly incorrect as the US census occurs only every ten years. Presumably this should merely say "As of 2006, there were 6,927,555 people..." and give some indication where these population figures are coming from. Sburnap (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear as to why my change was reverted. The sentence in question is "As of July 2006, the Bay Area is home to approximately 7.1 million people.[3]". However, the reference in [3] gives the population as 6,923,401. Clearly the statement should match the reference that purports to support it. Sburnap (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And it was reverted again. Are people bothering to read the damn reference? Sburnap (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

inclusion of San Benito
User:69.3.232.79 seems to think that San Benito County is not included in the OMB definition of the San Jose MSA. This is clearly incorrect per the Dec 2005 definition. When citing the CSA definition and its population statistics, it is appropriate to indicate that it includes this extra county in addition to the apparently more common 9-county definition. --Polaron | Talk 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

CSAs are composed of whole MSAs (and/or micropolitan areas). MSAs do not get divided up when being combined to form a CSA. The 2005 definitions clearly list San Benito as part of the San Jose MSA, and the San Jose MSA as part of the San Jose-San Francisco CSA. --Polaron | Talk 06:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)



Infobox
An anon IP deleted the infobox yesterday as their first edit (dif), saying "It was akwardly placed and this is not the CSA defenition of the Bay Area by the census." After undoing that change, I looked at the other pages using Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area and found that they all had an outline map of the metro, usually a state map with counties shown, like ours. So, I moved the map into the infobox and got rid of the duplicate USGS photo. I used the text about whether Santa Cruz is in the "Bay Area" to force the box a little wider and increased the USGS photo to match, partly to get rid of the excess white space around the TOC. I hope that everybody finds this helpful. The infobox template is not as well documented as some--theres no blank text version to copy, for example--and it seems like it could use more fields, but that's beyond my ability to address. I'm also going to change the title of the infobox to match the official name of the Combined Statistical Area, which doesn't include "Bay Area."--Hjal 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you ought to read first the whole section above this. As they just talked about this. Basically rejected the Census metropolitan defenition and stick with the 9-county defenition which is genearally accepted in this area.


 * I'm not sure that I see a consensus there, although there is certainly a problem to address. I was just dealing with a major change to the article by an anon IP, which was not justified with a consensus statement in the edit summary.  (I don't know if it was you, since you didn't sigj your reply.)  Then I saw a problem with the same image appearing at the top of the page twice and with the metro infobox being used differently than everywhere else.  Maybe the best solution to address both issues (the number of counties and name of the region discussed above, and the CSA/MSA infobox) would be to adjust the lead paragraph to match the article title and the predominant usage (9 counties) with the briefest possible mention that in some instances the SF Bay Area is defined to include 10 or 11 counties or more.  Then, make a new section, before the regions, probably, on the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA, with that infobox moved down to that section, including the 11-county map above.  Most of the economic and demographic statistics for the region could go in that section, so it could be compared to the similar data for the other large metro regions. Note that some of ABAG's data reported for their nine-county region is actually for the 11-county CSA--it's too much work to disaggregate.  Right now, I can't tell what some of the data included in the article corresponds to geographically, such as the historic population table.--Hjal 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been debated before, this was not the first time. Basically, we are trying to defined which is which does belong in the "Bay Area". The consensus is, that the nine counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay is generally accepted as the primary definition. Other definitions are welcome to this article but should be treated as secondary. This is to avoid confusion to the readers. Thus, there is a section dedicated to about the inclusion of San Benito and Santa Cruz counties and other definitions of the Bay Area in the middle of the article. The Census' MSA and CSA definitions would be appropriate in the said section as well. Noting that the CSA definition will bring the counties to 11 instead of 9 and the MSA definition will break up the Area into 6 different regions. But we should take caution before taking action as this issue is quite sensitive here. As for now we leave the section as it is and defined it as the "nine-county definition" until, if, another consensus will be reach. 67.101.145.70 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo Choices
Aren't three photos of Berkeley a little excessive when there are no photos of the San Francisco skyline, Marin or Oakland at all? I think one photo of Berkeley is sufficient, and a little more diversity is in order. There are so many beautiful places in the Bay Area, Berkeley is certainly one of them...but shouldn't more be showcased? Agrippina Minor

I agree one photo for each region would suffice. For compromise we could put the huge berkely photo on the main page of the East Bay Region. If no one disagree I will put it eventually.69.3.237.71 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Higher Education section
In my opinion, the list of schools in the higher education section of this article is a bit too long. In comparison, the article for the state of California lists only 4 schools. Anyone have any thoughts? Jsol5 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the list as it stands doesn't belong in this article; it's too high a percentage of the word count for its relative importance. But unlike with California, I think a list like this has a chance of being both comprehensive and useful, for example to someone who lives in the Bay Area and wants to know what their options are for local colleges.  Perhaps a separate listing page for Higher education in the Bay Area which takes this list and enhances with a one sentence description of each school?  Perhaps also enhancing the grouping, distinguishing UC from Cal State from city colleges? --Steve Pucci | talk 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Benicia in East Bay?
I removed Benicia from the East Bay section because that area is described as comprised of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Benicia is, of course, in Solano County, although as another poster has mentioned Benicia and Vallejo are often referred to as being part of the East Bay.-- Red Deer (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Red Deer

Music
What is up with the music section? As an active musician in the bay area, I personally guarantee you we have more than just thrash metal, and are famous for more than just thrash metal. Can we replace this section with something more representative of what's going on here? A few notes on things, people and styles relevant to the area:

jazz scene (yoshi's) avant-garde (Mills College, John Cage, etc; also Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, Mike Patton, etc) punk scene (Berkeley, Gilman, Green Day, blahblah) hip-hop (hyphy!) classical (S.F. and Oakland symphonies, opera, ballet) latin jazz (major latino communities in Oakland an SF, Wayne Wallace) Shoreline Amphitheater, Oakland Coliseum, Slim's, Great American Music Hall, Fillmore, Warfield...

That's just a start. Any more ideas? Kineticturtle (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a Culture section, with a Music subhead, both of which should have more detailed separate articles (Music of SFBA, or History of music in SFBA). The Thrash thing seems like a legitimate part of such an article, but only one sentence, if that, here. We shouldn't repart everything in the articles for individual cities, but music has frequently been more regional than SF-centric.--Hjal (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam link removed
As you all know, I have removed a spam link that links to the web site in question (spam.transitbayareaclassifieds.com). I would like to see whether anyone agrees whether it is spam and should be blacklisted. Thank you. &mdash; B o L 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly promotional and offers nothing to the subject of the article. I've blocked one of the IPs again; if they persist the article can be semi-protected.  I'm usually pretty conservative with the blacklist - only if it's multiple IPs and multiple articles. Looking at the article history, however, there seems to be some good IP edits.  Maybe blacklist is the way to go.  Kuru  talk  22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I say go for it, and rangeblock. He's not paying attention to the hidden comments. &mdash; B o L 04:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Kuru  talk  01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We got no choice but to semi it. He ain't paying attention. If you want, I can also cquote the letter he gave me! &mdash; B o L 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

=AMBAG= AMBAG and ABAG ARE NOT governmental agencies. They are volunteer represented associations of governmental agencies dedicated towards facilitating mutuals goals (and getting money from Sacramento). They have nothing to do with defining the borders of either Bay Areas except that they are supposed to represent their respected governmental agencies (usually by county but sometimes by city). 74.220.74.40 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

=Demographics= There is no such thing as a 2006 census. I know that there are intermediate counts taken. Perhaps that is the wording this section needs. Devtrash (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographics Inconsistent
Let's look at the data

9-county: 47.29% + 19.83% + 0.67% + 7.32% + 0.87% + 9.46% + 19.89% = 105.33%, minus those from two or more races, 5.28% = 100.05%. Considers some of them are from 3 races, it is consistent.

However, look at 11-county data: 50.41%+ 19.96% + 0.72% +7.35% + 0.90% + 10.17% + 21.19% = 110.7%, minus those from 2 or more races, 5.46% = 105.24%. How can that data surpass 100%? The only explanation is that most of the hybrid is from 3 races or more, so it need to be deducted twice. However, it is not the truth and contrary to the 9-county stats. 75.5.123.153 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Population off by 3 million?
Hi. The estimates used here are not Census figures and should be changed per WP:USCITY. That being said, what exactly is the "Bay Area"? If it's a metropolitan area, it's population is 4.2 million. It it's a combined statistical area, it's population is 7.3 million. Is the area more referred to as a contiguous area of high density or as a commuting region?--Loodog (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest Highest Median Household income
" according to the United States Census Bureau it has the highest median household income in the nation at $73,460.[5] " Using the data set provided this is not true of either MSA or CSA, so the question is "the highest median household income" of what in the nation?

For CSA see Washington-Baltimore at $73,792: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3307&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=33000US548&-format=&-_lang=en

JVittes (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier the 2007 ACS data from the US Census Bureau does not say that the Bay Area has the highest median household income. Do not add that into the article unless you have a data set that confirms that. 73,792 > 73,460, 1 counterexample is enough to disprove a statement. Find a new data set or leave it out as it would be factually incorrect. JVittes (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

North Bay Commuter Rail?
I am going to remove the sentence in the North Bay section that states a commuter rail system is being constructed in North Bay. The statement is cited by the article they reference is actually talking about restoring freight service to the railroad corridor and does not once mention a passenger rail system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.141.35 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 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)

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)

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)


 * What's the difference between yogurt and Los Angeles? Yogurt has an active culture. ;-) SFFrog (talk) 06:31, 26 October 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)

Hella
Add a snip-it of that for culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.49.168 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.206.219.45 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Map errors
First map in red of 9 counties has caption "Not as defined by ABAG". It IS as defined as ABAG, as described in the article. Any objections to remove the word "Not"? Also the 2nd map below does not identify San Benito County in yellow. --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)--Mistakefinder TC)

The comment above is wrong. The map shows 10 counties (don't forget to county San Francisco--it is a tiny county). The map has high-lighted Santa Cruz County even though it's not a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments.--24.7.81.116 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Environmental conservation & protection efforts
How about a section in the article about environmental activism in the SF Bay area? It's a pretty active area, including such efforts as the San Francisco Bay Trail, Baykeeper, and others. It could also include info about parks, trails and other environment protection/restoration efforts, such as the drive to restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)