HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 4:34 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 480
SF is definitely not sunbelt. To me, saying SF is sunbelt is the same thing as saying that Seattle is.

These cities fall into the PacNW category, which is not sunbelt for a variety of reasons not related to their actual climate, but their fabric. SF is a traditionally urban city, nothing like any sunbelt city, including LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 4:36 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 22,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
SF is definitely not sunbelt. To me, saying SF is sunbelt is the same thing as saying that Seattle is.

These cities fall into the PacNW category, which is not sunbelt for a variety of reasons not related to their actual climate, but their fabric. SF is a traditionally urban city, nothing like any sunbelt city, including LA.
The Bay Area is very much like LA. 90% of "SF" looks the same as LA, with similar climate, architecture and planning. Cupertino looks like Costa Mesa. The only difference is that SF has a better traditional core. If LA is Sunbelt, so is Bay Area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 4:45 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Not in our lifetimes. Seattle's economy just surpassed that of Detroit. Its population is still well behind Detroit and it still has fewer HNWIs.

Seattle would need 50 years of incredible growth to match Chicago. Chicago has 10 million people and is probably in the top 10 metropolitan economies on earth. And this is factoring in the incredible Seattle transformation due to Amazon, and earlier, Microsoft.
It wasnt a serious statement my dude
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 4:52 PM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Woodland Hills Warner Center
Posts: 6,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The Bay Area is very much like LA. 90% of "SF" looks the same as LA, with similar climate, architecture and planning. Cupertino looks like Costa Mesa. The only difference is that SF has a better traditional core. If LA is Sunbelt, so is Bay Area.
Exactly, there are more similarities between the two than not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:03 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,594
Yup, parts of the Silicon Valley could be mistaken for parts of the LA area for sure.
It maybe more green up there, but I see many similarties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:05 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLA View Post
Exactly, there are more similarities between the two than not.
The older areas on the Peninsula and around Oakland/Berkeley are very east coast feeling but San Jose and the sprawl beyond the Oakland hills is your stereotypical Western style suburban sprawl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:05 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 30,264
I put LA and SF in their own categories. They might have been Sunbelt 60 years ago when they were cheap alternatives to the crowded northeast and midwest but that's no longer the case. They are just sunny now that's all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:05 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 480
Sure, there are similarities between New York and Chicago too but nobody lumps them as the same type of city.

Sunbelt cities are generally looked at as attractive alternatives to move to from colder climates due to the warmer climates in Sunbelt cities, cheaper cost of living, ect. San Francisco is really not a magnet for this type of migrant.

Los Angeles definitely has way more of this type of person that the Bay Area has. Also, the Bay Area is a unicorn compared to Sunbelt cities, as it's economy is not based on the service industry or some kind of banking (like Charlotte or ATL.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:09 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Sure, there are similarities between New York and Chicago too but nobody lumps them as the same type of city.

Sunbelt cities are generally looked at as attractive alternatives to move to from colder climates due to the warmer climates in Sunbelt cities, cheaper cost of living, ect. San Francisco is really not a magnet for this type of migrant.

Los Angeles definitely has way more of this type of person that the Bay Area has. Also, the Bay Area is a unicorn compared to Sunbelt cities, as it's economy is not based on the service industry or some kind of banking (like Charlotte or ATL.)
Its not based on the service industry or Banking? What is "tech" if not a form of a service. Facebook, Twitter, Google, these are services, technology services but services nonetheless.

And San Francisco is a west Coast Financial hub and has been for a century its where Wells Fargo is HQ'd
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:12 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 480
^I said it's not based on the banking industry, not that it doesn't have banking industry.

I work in tech and while, yes, it's ''service'' as it serves a client- but it's not service like Hotels, Restaurants, and tourism like Miami, for example. It's also not a big back-office like Atlanta or Dallas or Phoenix or basically any other Sunbelt city.

What I'm saying is San Francisco's economy is based off of innovation. Other than Austin, no other sunbelt city can claim this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:16 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
The older areas on the Peninsula and around Oakland/Berkeley are very east coast feeling but San Jose and the sprawl beyond the Oakland hills is your stereotypical Western style suburban sprawl.
This can be said for any suburb in any metropolitan region in any region of the US. New York sprawls, but nobody's calling it sunbelt. The Bay Area contains nodes of urban development that is mostly absent in sunbelt cities. Please compare Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Phoenix or Las Vegas to the Bay Area and let me know how the two are similar.

I'm not arguing that the Bay Area is an East Coast city, cause it's not, but it's definitely not the same animal as most other Sunbelt cities, which is why I consider it it's own category with Portland and Seattle.

To be fair, Los Angeles is also different than most sunbelt cities but it definitely leans more towards the sunbelt than San Francisco does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:30 PM
CherryCreek's Avatar
CherryCreek CherryCreek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 897
Here's a map of the Sunbelt, so hopefully that settles things.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:34 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Yup, parts of the Silicon Valley could be mistaken for parts of the LA area for sure.
It maybe more green up there, but I see many similarties.
?

I don't even consider Silicon Valley to be green; its natural landscape is just like much of SoCal's, when it's only green during late winter and spring because of the rains. When I drove up to SF from LA in June via the 101, as I entered the San Jose city limits, the undeveloped rolling hills were all that wheat-like golden color; in fact, as a kid, I remember reading that California's nickname of "The Golden State" comes from the early American settlers seeing all the golden colored hills and valleys. And I associate the natural landscape of those golden/brown/olive-green colored hills and valleys with California, and it's the kind of landscape you see in the Mediterranean.


Regarding California as being part of the so-called Sun Belt, I never considered it a part of it. When I think of "Sun Belt," I think of Phoenix and everything east of there to the American South, that boomed after WWII. Wasn't the term "Sun Belt" even coined in the early 1970s or something? California boomed a couple of generations before the end of WWII, and continued to grow after that, so I don't see California as being part of that Sun Belt growth. California has been growing in population and with changing industries since the end of the 1800s. Even within California, Los Angeles' population surpassed San Francisco's by the 1920 census. Prior to that, San Francisco was *the* teeming metropolis of the whole west coast, though San Francisco's population was never as big as those more prominent east coast cities during that time (in 1910, San Francisco proper's population was only 416,912). By WWII, California already had an extensive highway network, between the big cities and within the metro areas, all obviously predating the federal Interstate system, unlike most of the Sun Belt.

So I see nothing culturally in common with California and the Sun Belt. I don't even like the term "West Coast" because collectively, California has nothing culturally in common with the Pacific Northwest.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:35 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,852
Below is the growth percentage between 1950 and 2010 for the primary cities of 30 of the top 31 metros as of 2010 (Riverside,CA excluded). The average growth rate of these cities combined is 207%. L.A. falls in the top half, so I think it looks very Sun Belt-y city. It looks closer to a Texas city than it does to anywhere in the NE or Midwest. OTOH, San Francisco is identical to New York. It and Seattle were the only western cities in the bottom half, but no western city was in the bottom 1/3rd.

St. Louis -63%
Detroit -61%
Pittsburgh -55%
Cincinnati -41%
Baltimore -37%
Minneapolis -27%
Philadelphia -26%
Chicago -26%
Washington -25%
Boston -23%
Kansas City 1%
New York 4%
San Francisco 4%
Atlanta 27%
Seattle 30%
Denver 44%
Portland 56%
Miami 60%
Los Angeles 92%
Tampa 169%
Dallas 176%
San Antonio 225%
Sacramento 239%
Houston 252%
San Diego 291%
Orlando 446%
Charlotte 446%
Austin 497%
Phoenix 1253%
Las Vegas 2271%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:40 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 480
That map is very simplified. It's basing the whole concept of ''Sunbelt'' off of climate.

Who considers New Orleans, Birmingham AL, and Columbia SC sunbelt? I hope nobody. They're warm places but not sunbelt cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:41 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 30,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryCreek View Post
Here's a map of the Sunbelt, so hopefully that settles things.

Actually, it doesn't. That map looks like it skims along warms states and calls it a day. MS and AL aren't exactly sunbelt but Charlotte (which barely makes it) and Nashville (not even included) are. Hawaii is not sunbelt or at least I never seen it classified as such.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:43 PM
spoonman's Avatar
spoonman spoonman is offline
SD/OC
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Below is the growth percentage between 1950 and 2010 for the primary cities of 30 of the top 31 metros as of 2010 (Riverside,CA excluded). The average growth rate of these cities combined is 207%. L.A. falls in the top half, so I think it looks very Sun Belt-y city. It looks closer to a Texas city than it does to anywhere in the NE or Midwest. OTOH, San Francisco is identical to New York. It and Seattle were the only western cities in the bottom half, but no western city was in the bottom 1/3rd.

St. Louis -63%
Detroit -61%
Pittsburgh -55%
Cincinnati -41%
Baltimore -37%
Minneapolis -27%
Philadelphia -26%
Chicago -26%
Washington -25%
Boston -23%
Kansas City 1%
New York 4%
San Francisco 4%
Atlanta 27%
Seattle 30%
Denver 44%
Portland 56%
Miami 60%
Los Angeles 92%
Tampa 169%
Dallas 176%
San Antonio 225%
Sacramento 239%
Houston 252%
San Diego 291%
Orlando 446%
Charlotte 446%
Austin 497%
Phoenix 1253%
Las Vegas 2271%


This says more about annexation and the relationship between city and metro population growth than anything else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:48 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryCreek View Post
Here's a map of the Sunbelt, so hopefully that settles things.

All those retirees moving to extreme southwestern Kansas!

This map is kind of nonsense

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:53 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
?

I don't even consider Silicon Valley to be green; its natural landscape is just like much of SoCal's, when it's only green during late winter and spring because of the rains. When I drove up to SF from LA in June via the 101, as I entered the San Jose city limits, the undeveloped rolling hills were all that wheat-like golden color; in fact, as a kid, I remember reading that California's nickname of "The Golden State" comes from the early American settlers seeing all the golden colored hills and valleys. And I associate the natural landscape of those golden/brown/olive-green colored hills and valleys with California, and it's the kind of landscape you see in the Mediterranean.
The Bay Area is much more green in general than LA though. LA's landscape is more dry and desert like. The natural landscape of the Bay Area has more trees, especially coastal redwoods, which stop growing south of Big Sur.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2019, 5:53 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonman View Post
This says more about annexation and the relationship between city and metro population growth than anything else.
Annexation attitudes tend to be more accommodating in places that are growing rapidly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.