[totheskies]

So this is something I don't get...

Is there really that great of a difference between city areas that choose to annex suburban and undeveloped land and a city that just defines itself as an inner core? Suburbs exist because of their "parent cities", or else they wouldn't have developed in the way that they have.

Houston is an American city that has chosen to annex large areas of undeveloped and partially developed land. This can be considered a good thing b/c the city takes responsibility for the planning and development of the land, and unifies services and maintenance. It also cuts down on disputes between other city governments for things like infrastructure improvement. Basically, development is development, whether its split between many names, or all under one.

[Evergrey]

Here is a list of all of the cities with at least 100,000 people that make up at least 50% of their metropolitan population as of 2000.

For example, the city of Laredo, TX had a population of 176,576, but the MSA population was only 193,117.

1. Laredo, TX - 91.4%
2. Lincoln, NE - 84.6%
3. El Paso, TX - 82.9%
4. Anchorage, AK - 81.4%
5. Lubbock, TX - 79.9%
6. Amarillo, TX - 76.6%
7. Abilene, TX - 72.3%
8. Pueblo, CO - 72.2%
9. Corpus Christi, TX - 68.8%
10. Wichita Falls, TX - 68.8%
11. Colorado Springs, CO - 67.1%
12. San Antonio, TX - 66.9%
13. Sioux Falls, SD - 66.3%
14. Columbus, GA - 66.1%
15. Jacksonville, FL - 65.5%
16. Lexington, KY - 63.8%
17. Albuquerque, NM - 61.5%
18. Athens, GA - 61.1%
19. Wichita, KS - 60.3%
20. Montgomery, AL - 58.2%
21. Tucson, AZ - 57.7%
22. Springfield, IL - 55.3%
23. Topeka, KS - 54.5%
24. Memphis, TN - 53.9%
25. Fresno, CA - 53.5%
26. Waco, TX - 53.3%
27. Shreveport, LA - 53.2%
28. Fort Wayne, IN - 52.7%
29. Reno, NV - 52.6%
30. Austin, TX - 52.5%
31. Indianapolis, IN - 51.9%
32. San Jose, CA - 51.6%
33. Cedar Rapids, IA - 50.9%
34. Omaha, NE - 50.8%

*Bolded cities are in Metropolitan Areas of more than 1,000,000


...


Here is a list of cities with at least 100,000 people that are the largest in their metropolitan area, but account for less than 25% of their metropolitan population as of 2000.

For example, the city of Miami has a population of just 362,470 but a MSA population of 5,007,564.

1. Miami, FL - 7.2%
2. Riverside, CA - 7.8%
3. Atlanta, GA - 9.8%
4. Hartford, CT - 10.6%
5. Providence, RI - 11.0%
6. Orlando, FL - 11.3%
7. Washington, DC - 11.9%
8. Tampa, FL - 12.7%
9. Minneapolis, MN - 12.9%
10. St. Louis, MO - 12.9%
11. Boston, MA - 13.4%
12. Pittsburgh, PA - 13.8%
13. Allentown, PA - 14.4%
14. New Haven, CT - 15.0%
15. Bridgeport, CT - 15.8%
16. Cincinnati, OH - 16.5%
17. Columbia, SC - 18.0%
18. Richmond, VA - 18.0%
19. Seattle, WA - 18.5%
20. McAllen, TX - 18.7%
21. Salt Lake City, UT - 18.8%
22. San Francisco, CA - 18.8%
23. Dayton, OH - 19.6%
24. Rochester, NY - 21.2%
25. Detroit, MI - 21.4%
26. Louisville, KY - 22.1%
27. Cleveland, OH - 22.3%
28. Springfield, MA - 22.4%
29. Oxnard, CA - 22.6%
30. Sacramento, CA - 22.7%
31. Syracuse, NY - 22.7%
32. Worcester, MA - 23.0%
33. Dallas, TX - 23.0%
34. Birmingham, AL - 23.1%
35. Cape Coral, FL - 23.2%
36. Kansas City, MO - 24.0%

*Bolded cities are in Metropolitan Areas of more than 1,000,000

[Steely Dan]

^ so i guess it's safe to say that the VAST majority of american cities with at least 100,000 people that are the largest in their metro area make up somewhere between 25 and 50% of their metropolitan area. the cities you listed are the only ones outside of the 25-50% category, correct?

[Minato Ku]

An exemple for a city outside USA.

Paris : 16.7 % (Inner city)
Core of urban area : 55.8 %

In more comprensible term,
16.7% of Paris metropolitan area live in Paris and about 56% live in the city.
It is weird to understand that the city (dense core) is smaller than the municipality of Paris.

So less than 40% of Paris metro population live in low density area. (suburbs)

[stepper77]

I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of a metropolitan area's tax revenue goes to the central "core" city as opposed to what is divied up amongst the surrounding suburban cities. Because really, that is what is comes down to, cities within a given metro region competing with each other for money, or tax revenue. Obviously, the more independent cities you have, the more competion you will have and the less sharing will be had. This causes not only huge difficulties with planning and building consistent, intergrated transportation infracture, like you mentioned, but, also money for education, safety, health, etc. One of the major reasons schools in the core city tend to be poorer than the suburbs is that the wealthier individuals move to the suburbs and take their tax revenue with them.

I don't remember all the details, but, I remember a few years back there was a referendum to have the San Fernando Valley separate from the city of Los Angeles and form its own independent city. One of the reasons for this was the residents of San Fernando were frustrated with all their tax dollars being spent in other, poorer districts of LA and not locally. This ultimately failed, but, shows, rightly or wrongly, people tend to want what benefits them most and don't think of the bigger picture, ie, the health of the entire metro region.

[mhays]

I don't see that the growth outside core areas is any better in the large-format central cities.

Some of that list is misleading. Riverside's metro, for example, is really just another part of greater LA, and doesn't consider Riverside to be a central city. San Jose works much the same way -- it's just a huge agglomeration of suburbs in San Francisco's orbit.

[Teshadoh]

But I get the impression that the actual question is if there is any difference between the type of development & the type of metropolitan city that we call 'suburban'.

My answer is yes - there are two very different types of 'suburban' that people refer to. A primary city can have suburban development & a suburb can have urban development. But I think it is even more complicated than that. With the rise of the edge city, the primary city in many cases is no more dominant than what is historically a suburb, when that suburb also acts as an edge city.

The term 'suburb' is becoming more & more obsolete. The development type that is considered suburban may also be in the future. New urbanism is in reality suburbanism that incorporates urban characteristics. But the primary ingredient of suburbanism is car orientedness which new urbanism will most often include.

[krudmonk]

San Jose works much the same way -- it's just a huge agglomeration of suburbs in San Francisco's orbit.
Learn and then post.

[hudkina]

So this is something I don't get...

Is there really that great of a difference between city areas that choose to annex suburban and undeveloped land and a city that just defines itself as an inner core? Suburbs exist because of their "parent cities", or else they wouldn't have developed in the way that they have.

There is a huge difference between the two. For one, like you said, with fewer governments competing over services/business the better for the central city. Also, the larger (and wealthier) the tax base, the healthier the central city.

Also, like it has been said before how people define the "suburbs" can vary from city to city.

Definition 1: Cheap McMansions on huge lots in the middle of mazes of cul-de-sacs 10 miles from the main intersection featuring a Wal-Mart, Applebee's, and Home Depot.

Definition 2: Any municipality outside of the central city, regardless of the built environment.

In some cities suburbs are an extension of the central city, complete with dense residential neighborhoods and walkable commercial districts.

[sprtsluvr8]

There is a huge difference between the two. For one, like you said, with fewer governments competing over services/business the better for the central city. Also, the larger (and wealthier) the tax base, the healthier the central city.

Also, like it has been said before how people define the "suburbs" can vary from city to city.

Definition 1: Cheap McMansions on huge lots in the middle of mazes of cul-de-sacs 10 miles from the main intersection featuring a Wal-Mart, Applebee's, and Home Depot.

Definition 2: Any municipality outside of the central city, regardless of the built environment.

In some cities suburbs are an extension of the central city, complete with dense residential neighborhoods and walkable commercial districts.

It seems obvious that those two very general descriptions of a suburb won't actually work...no matter how much some people despise the burbs, they aren't all alike. In addition, no particular city is surrounded by the same exact clones of a certain type of suburb. Some are dense, some are cookie cutter, some are urban, some are historic and quaint, some are plain, some are fancy, and almost all of them can be described as a mix of several different styles and layouts. Much of it depends on whether the suburb was an independent town prior to its suburbanization...and if the leaders of the town restricted/planned the growth that came with it or if it grew wild and free.

There are so many factors that influence how suburbs develop...

[mhays]

Learn and then post.

Sorry. San Jose is mostly a huge agglomeration of suburbs in San Francisco's orbit.

[krudmonk]

Sorry. San Jose is mostly a huge agglomeration of suburbs in San Francisco's orbit.
The so-called "Silicon Valley" has its own orbit.

[mhays]

I consider Silicon Valley to be like the "tech suburbs" of any city, though larger and fairly distant. It's a big job center, but it's still tied to a central city.

[tayser]

There isn't an official definition of what a suburb is in Australia, but in general the term 'suburb' is used to describe anything that's not the 'city' (easily defined as a 'CBD') - I think it stems from the fact that anything which is not the original settlement, is effectively suburban...

[The Chemist]

Here is a list of all of the cities with at least 100,000 people that make up at least 50% of their metropolitan population as of 2000.

For example, the city of Laredo, TX had a population of 176,576, but the MSA population was only 193,117.

1. Laredo, TX - 91.4%
2. Lincoln, NE - 84.6%
3. El Paso, TX - 82.9%
4. Anchorage, AK - 81.4%
5. Lubbock, TX - 79.9%
6. Amarillo, TX - 76.6%
7. Abilene, TX - 72.3%
8. Pueblo, CO - 72.2%
9. Corpus Christi, TX - 68.8%
10. Wichita Falls, TX - 68.8%
11. Colorado Springs, CO - 67.1%
12. San Antonio, TX - 66.9%
13. Sioux Falls, SD - 66.3%
14. Columbus, GA - 66.1%
15. Jacksonville, FL - 65.5%
16. Lexington, KY - 63.8%
17. Albuquerque, NM - 61.5%
18. Athens, GA - 61.1%
19. Wichita, KS - 60.3%
20. Montgomery, AL - 58.2%
21. Tucson, AZ - 57.7%
22. Springfield, IL - 55.3%
23. Topeka, KS - 54.5%
24. Memphis, TN - 53.9%
25. Fresno, CA - 53.5%
26. Waco, TX - 53.3%
27. Shreveport, LA - 53.2%
28. Fort Wayne, IN - 52.7%
29. Reno, NV - 52.6%
30. Austin, TX - 52.5%
31. Indianapolis, IN - 51.9%
32. San Jose, CA - 51.6%
33. Cedar Rapids, IA - 50.9%
34. Omaha, NE - 50.8%

*Bolded cities are in Metropolitan Areas of more than 1,000,000


...


Here is a list of cities with at least 100,000 people that are the largest in their metropolitan area, but account for less than 25% of their metropolitan population as of 2000.

For example, the city of Miami has a population of just 362,470 but a MSA population of 5,007,564.

1. Miami, FL - 7.2%
2. Riverside, CA - 7.8%
3. Atlanta, GA - 9.8%
4. Hartford, CT - 10.6%
5. Providence, RI - 11.0%
6. Orlando, FL - 11.3%
7. Washington, DC - 11.9%
8. Tampa, FL - 12.7%
9. Minneapolis, MN - 12.9%
10. St. Louis, MO - 12.9%
11. Boston, MA - 13.4%
12. Pittsburgh, PA - 13.8%
13. Allentown, PA - 14.4%
14. New Haven, CT - 15.0%
15. Bridgeport, CT - 15.8%
16. Cincinnati, OH - 16.5%
17. Columbia, SC - 18.0%
18. Richmond, VA - 18.0%
19. Seattle, WA - 18.5%
20. McAllen, TX - 18.7%
21. Salt Lake City, UT - 18.8%
22. San Francisco, CA - 18.8%
23. Dayton, OH - 19.6%
24. Rochester, NY - 21.2%
25. Detroit, MI - 21.4%
26. Louisville, KY - 22.1%
27. Cleveland, OH - 22.3%
28. Springfield, MA - 22.4%
29. Oxnard, CA - 22.6%
30. Sacramento, CA - 22.7%
31. Syracuse, NY - 22.7%
32. Worcester, MA - 23.0%
33. Dallas, TX - 23.0%
34. Birmingham, AL - 23.1%
35. Cape Coral, FL - 23.2%
36. Kansas City, MO - 24.0%

*Bolded cities are in Metropolitan Areas of more than 1,000,000


I didn't realize just how unusual Calgary's unicity model is, but these stats bear it out. Calgary's city population is 1,000,020, but the metro population is only about 1,150,000 - so that means that the City of Calgary accounts for over 90% of the entire metro population. That's way more than any large American city - or any large Canadian city for that matter.

[tdawg]

True, but Calgary is also 280.5 sq. miles, even big by American standards (twice the size of the city limits of Atlanta).

[Steely Dan]

Also, like it has been said before how people define the "suburbs" can vary from city to city.

Definition 1: Cheap McMansions on huge lots in the middle of mazes of cul-de-sacs 10 miles from the main intersection featuring a Wal-Mart, Applebee's, and Home Depot.

Definition 2: Any municipality outside of the central city, regardless of the built environment.


in chicagoland, we definitely use definition number 2. there's "the city" and then there's "the burbs". the two terms have been completely severed from any meanings of development types and refer solely to the political reality that "the burbs" are governmentally independent from "the city". chicago has some burbs (evanston, cicero, oak park, etc.) that are far more urban than some neighborhoods in the city (sauganash, mt. greenwood, etc.), yet those more urban municpalities are still lumped in with the rest of "the burbs" and those more conventionally suburban style city neighborhoods are still lumped in with the rest of "the city".

the development patterns in suburban chicago vary so wildly that using the term "suburb" to refer to one single type of built environment would be asinine. because chicago built an extensive commuter rail system in the late 19th century, there are dozens upon dozens of traditional town centers sprinkled along the rail lines throughout suburban chicago, then in the postwar period, the interstate system was built and all of the undeveloped land between the traditional town centers was mostly filled in with auto-centric crapola. this is why experiencing chicago via Metra vs. the expressways offers such wildly different impressions of the nature of chicagoland, and it's all mixed up together out there in "the burbs".

[totheskies]

I agree that there's a spectrum of suburban definitions for suburbs, and that within that spectrum the definition changes from city to city. But in essence every city uses divisions to classify a certain area.

Take New York. Most people would definitely call each portion of the city "dense", but there are huge differences between the boroughs like Manhattan and Staten Island... from the style of housing and businesses right down to the way that people speak. Yet they are both considered New York City. If one were to guess which would be more like a suburb, they would probably say SI.

We spend a lot of time making vast distinctions between NIMBYs and "URBIES" on this site, which I understand, but in terms of preserving the vitality and prosperity of our cities, both are necessary.

[krudmonk]

I consider Silicon Valley to be like the "tech suburbs" of any city, though larger and fairly distant. It's a big job center, but it's still tied to a central city.
And from where are you making this consideration? The local tech industry is not really tethered to anything up north other than Wired Magazine, Mac World or CNET. Many of the smaller cities included here are not even really suburbs, as there's such a concentration of business.

[fflint]

^Yet the larger point still stands: the built environment of the South Bay can be properly classified as suburban.

[VivaLFuego]

^And furthermore, Silicon Valley depends on business critical professional services such as legal, accounting, finance/investment/banking, marketing, and government that are centered in SF. I agree with the assessment that its like suburban tech corridors that exist in many cities (such as I-88 and I-90 in Chicagoland, for a personal example), which utilize the above services which are typically based in the urban core (e.g. Chicago Loop, in our case). SV is just the biggest and most successful of them all. Still suburbs of SF, with a suburban built environment, as flint points out.

[The Chemist]

True, but Calgary is also 280.5 sq. miles, even big by American standards (twice the size of the city limits of Atlanta).

In terms of built up area, Calgary is only 185 square miles, as there is over 100 square miles of space within the city limits that are completely undeveloped.

[hudkina]

And from where are you making this consideration? The local tech industry is not really tethered to anything up north other than Wired Magazine, Mac World or CNET. Many of the smaller cities included here are not even really suburbs, as there's such a concentration of business.

Really? You don't think that the "free-spirited" movement seen in San Francisco or the major universities that were built in and around San Francisco had anything to do with the rise of Silicon Valley? Do you really think that if San Francisco didn't exist, San Jose wouldn't be more like Modesto or Fresno?

Even though San Jose and the Silicon Valley could exist without San Francisco, it owes its very existence to the city.

[Teshadoh]

When it gets down to it - Stanford University wouldn't be what it is without San Francisco. And of course - Silicon Valley would not have occurred without Stanford.

Nonetheless - does Silicon Valley fit the traditional suburban? Yes & no - I don't think the 20th century definition of suburb completely describes the edge / edgeless cities of today.

[krudmonk]

Pardon any sarcasm or bitter undertones, but...
^Yet the larger point still stands: the built environment of the South Bay can be properly classified as suburban.
A suburb is a city functioning via another. "Suburban" is an assessment of a cityscape. It's mostly aesthetic. San Jose/Silicon Valley is one but not the other. The "sprawl" can be attributed in large part to campus-style workplaces as opposed to traditional skyscrapers which we all know and love. It's not what I prefer, but that's reality.
Really? You don't think that the "free-spirited" movement seen in San Francisco or the major universities that were built in and around San Francisco had anything to do with the rise of Silicon Valley? Do you really think that if San Francisco didn't exist, San Jose wouldn't be more like Modesto or Fresno?

Even though San Jose and the Silicon Valley could exist without San Francisco, it owes its very existence to the city.
1. San Jose was the first city in California, but that's a little beside the point. It was like Modesto or Fresno for a long time while San Francisco's presence did nothing.
2. How does San Francisco factor into Silicon Valley just because it's big? Stanford is down in Santa Clara County (like San Jose) and it played a huge part in the rise of the tech industry. UCLA (down in every Frisconian's favorite city) also played a large part. By your logic, SJ is more a suburb of Los Angeles. It's the nearest bigger city anyway. San Francisco has made many contributions to the industry and houses much of SV's "young and hip" workforce (kinda like a suburb does), but it's not largely responsible for it and, therefore, not for San Jose's existence/growth. If it was, why is the place a whole hour drive away? That seems rather inconvenient, especially for a city that hates* cars.

*own personal but admittedly very recent experience

[hudkina]

Would it be fair to say that San Jose and the Silicon Valley rose to prominence due in large part to Stanford and the other major universities in the Bay Area? And wouldn't it be fair to say that many of the universities in the Bay Area (including Stanford) can attribute much of their early prominence to being near San Francisco?

I don't see why you would vehemently deny any historical ties to San Francisco... You sound like someone from Oakland County, Michigan.;)

[krudmonk]

Would it be fair to say that San Jose and the Silicon Valley rose to prominence due in large part to Stanford and the other major universities in the Bay Area? And wouldn't it be fair to say that many of the universities in the Bay Area (including Stanford) can attribute much of their early prominence to being near San Francisco?

I don't see why you would vehemently deny any historical ties to San Francisco... You sound like someone from Oakland County, Michigan.;)
Or even Oakland, California;) With the way the world works, everything is intertwined. There's probably symbiotic relationships between all parts of the Bay Area. I can't speak with 100% certainty on anything. I'll concede that point, but I still maintain that San Jose and even much of the Valley (Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Cupertino) are not suburbs even if they look suburban (see distinction in previous post). All together, they're pretty self-sustaining, but I think the proximity to the greater metropolis is good. The only downside is having to make this exact argument all the time.

[fflint]

A suburb is a city functioning via another. "Suburban" is an assessment of a cityscape.
Right. The South Bay is a suburban built environment.

2. How does San Francisco factor into Silicon Valley just because it's big? Stanford is down in Santa Clara County (like San Jose) and it played a huge part in the rise of the tech industry.
How does San Francisco factor into Silicon Valley? Stanford incubated Silicon Valley. San Franciscans built Stanford. Silicon Valley wouldn't exist today as we know it without Stanford, and Stanford wouldn't exist today as we know it without San Francicsco. It is a causative connection--although only one of many causative connections, and probably not the most important if you can get over the whole 'founding' thing.

UCLA (down in every Frisconian's favorite city) also played a large part.
That is not obviously true. Perhaps you are mistakenly referring to UCLA's role in pioneering the Internet in the late 1960s?

And what's with the invention of weird little names for San Franciscans, anyway? It seems petty and vindictive.

[hudkina]

Or even Oakland, California;) With the way the world works, everything is intertwined. There's probably symbiotic relationships between all parts of the Bay Area. I can't speak with 100% certainty on anything. I'll concede that point, but I still maintain that San Jose and even much of the Valley (Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Cupertino) are not suburbs even if they look suburban (see distinction in previous post). All together, they're pretty self-sustaining, but I think the proximity to the greater metropolis is good. The only downside is having to make this exact argument all the time.

I think you are confusing "bedroom community" with "suburb". You are right that Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. are not bedroom communities of San Francisco, but they definitely are suburbs in the greater San Francisco area.

Besides, most suburbs have now become "self-sustaining" to a degree. Do you think Santa Ana, CA really has "anything" to do with Los Angeles? Do you think Troy, MI has "anything" to do with Detroit?

Troy, MI is a suburb about 15 miles north of Detroit with a population of about 82,000 people. Only about 9% of Troy workers actually commute to Detroit. In fact nearly twice as many Detroit residents (7,040) commute to Troy than Troy residents (3,891) commute to Detroit. On top of that, even though Troy only has about 82,000 residents, nearly 136,000 people commute into the city for employment every day.

So by your definition, Troy isn't a "suburb" but the reality is that Troy owes its existence to Detroit and would be nothing more than a cornfield if Detroit wasn't located 15 miles to the south.

Also, the only reason this is being debated is that the Census Bureau refuses to combine San Francisco and San Jose into one urbanized area like it should be.

[krudmonk]

How does San Francisco factor into Silicon Valley? Stanford incubated Silicon Valley. San Franciscans built Stanford. Silicon Valley wouldn't exist today as we know it without Stanford, and Stanford wouldn't exist today as we know it without San Francicsco. It is a causative connection--although only one of many causative connections, and probably not the most important if you can get over the whole 'founding' thing.
San Franciscans built Stanford? If you want to count that far down the thread of causation, how about Amadeo Giannini? He was a San Josean who founded the Bank of Italy which eventually became Bank of America. He then went on to found Transamerica Corporation. Those two companies are more than part of your skyline, although that's most of what's left of either in San Francisco. How about KCBS? It started as the first commercial radio station and it also began in San Jose. Only later was it purchased and moved north to "The City" (because there's only one in the world). Did San Jose thus help to build San Francisco in your mind? It's a two-way street, sir.
That is not obviously true. Perhaps you are mistakenly referring to UCLA's role in pioneering the Internet in the late 1960s?
And is the internet not a large part of the industry today? Are Google and eBay making hardware? No.
And what's with the invention of weird little names for San Franciscans, anyway? It seems petty and vindictive.
Eh, it is. Sorry.
I think you are confusing "bedroom community" with "suburb". You are right that Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. are not bedroom communities of San Francisco, but they definitely are suburbs in the greater San Francisco area.
You like clinging to the paradigm.
Besides, most suburbs have now become "self-sustaining" to a degree. Do you think Santa Ana, CA really has "anything" to do with Los Angeles? Do you think Troy, MI has "anything" to do with Detroit?

Troy, MI is a suburb about 15 miles north of Detroit with a population of about 82,000 people. Only about 9% of Troy workers actually commute to Detroit. In fact nearly twice as many Detroit residents (7,040) commute to Troy than Troy residents (3,891) commute to Detroit. On top of that, even though Troy only has about 82,000 residents, nearly 136,000 people commute into the city for employment every day.

So by your definition, Troy isn't a "suburb" but the reality is that Troy owes its existence to Detroit and would be nothing more than a cornfield if Detroit wasn't located 15 miles to the south.
So you're just changing the definition to fit that which was previously applicable? I think it should work the other way around.
Also, the only reason this is being debated is that the Census Bureau refuses to combine San Francisco and San Jose into one urbanized area like it should be.
That's possibly a sign that Santa Clara Valley is more independent than you think, no? I mean, Baltimore and Washington run together, but is one a suburb of another? The world is more dynamic than you see it, I suppose.

[fflint]

San Franciscans built Stanford?
Yes.

Did San Jose thus help to build San Francisco in your mind? It's a two-way street, sir.
Did San Francisco attract businesses from the surrounding region? Absolutely, and by design. The book isn't called "Imperial San Francisco" for nothing--the idea among SF's early captains of industry was to bring resources, people and businesses into the city from all over Northern California. San Jose was a small part of that historic 'cantado.'

And is the internet not a large part of the industry today? Are Google and eBay making hardware? No.
You incorrectly credited UCLA for 'playing a large part' in the rise of Silicon Valley. As I noted, that is not so. UCLA is a great school, and has contributed much over its relatively short lifespan, but it didn't create Silicon Valley. Post-hoc suggestions about the Internet don't wash. Silicon Valley existed decades before the popularization of the Internet, and then there's the fact that Stanford played as much a role in early Internet research as UCLA did.

At some point, your anti-SF agenda has to take a backseat to the facts or you'll lose all credibility with reasonable people. There is no intellectually honest way to strip Stanford of its singular role in creating Silicon Valley as we know it, or to strip San Francisco of its role in founding, funding and advancing Stanford into the university that eventually made tech the South Bay's main industry.

[blade_bltz]

Taken from Stanford's history page: "Soon the Stanfords were building a great mansion in San Francisco in a part of town that was to acquire the name of Nob Hill. Later, in 1876, they bought the first parcel of land on the San Francisco Peninsula that would be their celebrated Palo Alto Stock Farm and later the site of Stanford University."

Obviously, it was the railroad and the big money up in San Francisco that actually made it possible for Leland to found the university, but we can't forget that quite literally, the Stanfords were residents of The City themselves.

[hudkina]

So you're just changing the definition to fit that which was previously applicable? I think it should work the other way around.

I'm not changing the definition. I've said all along that Mountain View, et al are suburbs specifically of the second nature that I described above (any municipality outside of the central city). But you seem to think that a suburb is specifically only a bedroom community of the central city. And that Mountain View would have developed similarly even if San Francisco never existed.

That's possibly a sign that Santa Clara Valley is more independent than you think, no? I mean, Baltimore and Washington run together, but is one a suburb of another? The world is more dynamic than you see it, I suppose.

Baltimore and Washington are different because they don't share one urban area, and I hope never do. On the other hand there is no way one can say exactly where the San Francisco urbanized area ends and the San Jose urbanized area begins. The built environment is one contiguous stream of high density neighborhoods, industrial complexes, and corporate headquarters. Because of the mountainous geography of the area, the urbanized area happens to be rather thin, allowing the Census Bureau to cut it up on a technicality.

San Franciscans built Stanford? If you want to count that far down the thread of causation, how about Amadeo Giannini? He was a San Josean who founded the Bank of Italy which eventually became Bank of America. He then went on to found Transamerica Corporation.

Henry Ford was born in Dearborn, MI but started the Ford Motor Company in Detroit. The reason Ford started the company in Detroit as opposed to Dearborn is because Detroit was the center of the metro and offered resources that Dearborn couldn't have offered at that time. The fact that the guy started the business in San Francisco shows that San Francisco is and was the hub of the metropolitan area and was the spark that created much of what we now call the Bay Area.

I think your hang-up is that you think "suburb" is a derogatory word. Just because Mountain View is a suburb that owes its existence, vitality, and industry to being near a city doesn't mean that Mountain View isn't a great city on its own. It doesn't mean that Mountain View should have a disclaimer stating that it is inferior because it may or may not be in the shadow of San Francisco.