Quote:
Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease
As far as whether the S.F. Bay Area was a metropolis back in the days of horse & buggy, that seems dubious.
|
I can see your point if you are arguing for some arbitrary, personal definition of 'metropolis' that includes a random population threshold that the Bay Area didn't meet.
However, you are obviously wrong to argue the area wasn't populous relative to other US areas in the horse and buggy days (which
Wikipedia puts well into the early 20th century). Consider San Francisco was America's
10th most populous city by 1870, 9th most populous in 1880 and 1890, and so on. It is undeniable Oakland, serving as populous and urban San Francisco's mainland proxy, was a critical node in what was absolutely considered a 'metroplis' by contemporary standards.
Quote:
|
At a time when even Oakland and Berkeley were separated by miles of empty space, and a trip from city hall to city hall would have taken an hour, I have a hard time believing anybody thought of the region as a some enormous cross-bay metropolis. More like a cluster of small towns and growing cities that all happened to share access to a single body of water.
|
"Enormity" is in the eye of the beholder, but there is no question this was a populated region by the standards of the day. There is also no question Oakland served in the critical and unique role of being the overland terminus for interstate roadways, cargo and passenger rail, US mail, the telegraph, etc. for what was at the time one of the nation's ten most populous cities. Rather than merely being proximate but independent and self-contained, Oakland was intricately linked with San Francisco in the critical exchange of people, goods, capital, services, and communications and thus they grew in tandem. Oakland's historic maritime orientation is entirely due to its vital water connection with San Francisco's ocean port. Oakland grew fastest when the Intercontinental Railroad was extended as close to San Francisco as possible and then again when tens of thousands of San Franciscans settled in the town after the 1906 calamity.
Quote:
|
Given the transportation options of the day and the route of the transcontinental railroad, one could even make the argument the Oakland was more closely linked to Sacramento, 90 miles inland, than it was to San Francisco right across the bay.
|
I'd be fascinated to read a compelling argument showing Oakland more closely linked with the distant town of Sacramento than with the booming, populous, industrial city of San Francisco visible across the Bay.
The Transcontinental Railroad was purposed with connecting the populous and booming San Francisco area with the Eastern US rail network. The California segment was built by San Francisco rail companies with money from SF banks, and the eventual terminus jutted
11,000 ft. toward San Francisco on the Oakland Long Wharf pier. This is where Transcontinental traffic was transferred onto the ferry boat network that first connected Oakland and San Francisco in 1850. The importance (and indeed, existence) of the SF-built and funded connection between Oakland and Sacramento was driven exclusively by Oakland's particular role in serving San Francisco's markets, banks, industries, population, etc.
Your premise is quite shaky on its face.
Prev
Linear Mode
