Could the long Orange County nightmare be coming to an end?

[The Six]

Yeah, certainly LA has never had a problem with racist cops......

[Gothamite]

Let me just point out that no one here has said "everyone in the suburbs is racist". Only that there can be a racial component to people in those suburbs wanting to create a clear division between their towns and the larger cities they orbit.

[dbadefense1990]

Yeah, certainly LA has never had a problem with racist cops......

I never implied this. I just wanted to debunk a point someone made, that the suburbs and racial issues are mutually exclusive to one another.

[illwauk]

I believe it was the first UC school, and only added the "Berkeley" once other universities started popping up, and the UC system came into being.

At first I thought it was because they're the only UC running in a semester calendar (late August to early May), whereas the rest of the campuses are under the quarter system (late September-mid June).

Then, I found out the Merced campus is also on the semester track...

It's because there was originally just the two campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles, and both were referred to as the University of California with no qualifiers. Then one day in the 1950s, the chancellor of the Los Angeles campus began instructing his receptionists to refer to the campus as "UCLA," and henceforth all the new UC campuses would have their municipality's name tacked on to the end.

Granted, I usually hate the whole University of State-City naming convention, but the UC system is the only instance where it actually makes sense. All UC schools share a singluar identity (school seal and blue & gold colors), mission statement, and have similar admission standards; and as far as I know, it's the only state university system where this is the case.

[BBTV]

Let me just point out that no one here has said "everyone in the suburbs is racist". Only that there can be a racial component to people in those suburbs wanting to create a clear division between their towns and the larger cities they orbit.

This is absolutely true. There are many suburbanites living in their McMansions who don't want anyone to think that they live in the city with the poor black folk. It's a horrible attitude, and admittedly, one that I grew up with, which is one of the reasons now that I'm proud to have purchased a home in an urban area of my city, despite working all the way out in the "San Jose" of the Philadelphia region (an area with enormous office parks and the biggest mall in terms of leasable space in the country and a very high population.)

[bosrs1]

Lets not go there using San Jose as an example ok? Besides already establishing that San Jose is its own major city with its own downtown urban core, demographically San Jose is only 28% white these days. The majority is Hispanic. In fact if I'm not mistaken, San Jose is more ethnically diverse than San Francisco these days.

[guest23]

Lets not go there using San Jose as an example ok? Besides already establishing that San Jose is its own major city with its own downtown urban core, demographically San Jose is only 28% white these days. The majority is Hispanic. In fact if I'm not mistaken, San Jose is more ethnically diverse than San Francisco these days.

San Jose is definitely a major city but still retains the feel and reputation of being the country's largest bedroom community. Much like OC in the south SJ will be forever attached to it's more popular neighbor to the north. Additionally for TV and most geographical marketing purposes SJ is part of the larger SF-Oak-SJ metro which means the city will likely never be considered a stand alone metro or market.

[bosrs1]

Maybe not stand alone, but it is practically a Twin Cities style setup at present and thats just going to continue to grow. I mean half the TV and radio stations are now based in the South Bay (and some have even begun using San Jose-SF-Oakland when referring to their coverage areas). And the A's and Niners will both be calling the region home before long in addition to the Sharks and Earthquakes (with 3 of them using the SJ name for marketing purposes).

That is where SF/SJ is not really analogous to LA/OC. With the Bay Area, there is a very distinct separation between SF and SJ geographically. Where it is far less distinct in SoCal. And even more importantly there is no real "center" to OC that comes anywhere close to the size or importance of LA itself. Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fullerton? They're all relatively small cities with no appreciable financial, media, demographic, social or population edge over LA. In the Bay Area though San Jose is the largest single city, bigger than SF, is more ethnically diverse, has a distinct center, isn't all a "bedroom community" despite what some east coasters may think, has a controlling stake in part of the media market, has its own social scene that while smaller than SF's is there and growing... And on top of everything else said here, when out of town people from the South Bay say they're from San Jose or the Bay Area and are almost universally understood. They don't say they're from San Francisco.

SJ just isn't a great example of the point people are trying to make.

[mad43dog]

I've lived in South Jersey my whole life and the only time I ever even hear San Jose is when the hockey team is mentioned

[bosrs1]

First part of your statement probably explains the second part

[illwauk]

Man, I'm FROM here and I don't even understand it... aside from knowing much better than to expect any type of logical consisitency when dealing with these folks, who clearly want to have it both ways. It gets real tiring having to constantly explain to people that the bass ackwards blowhards they encountered from "Milwaukee" have probably never actually been to Milwaukee for anything but Brewer games or Summerfest... if even that.

It's called a metro area. It's pretty ridiculous to expect someone to say they're from InsertSuburbOrExurbHere when they're asked where they live by someone that likely doesn't know the area. To most people, I say I grew up in the "St. Louis area"; I only get more specific if that person knows the area and asks.

And that's perfect... it's an accurate statement and you're not claiming to have had the experience of growing up in a place you're not from. Why should it be so hard for people from the suburban counties to simply say they're from "the Milwaukee area" instead of telling everyone they're from a city most of them look down their noses at?

Also, to piggyback off what Buc said (BTW... well said, sir)... call me crazy, but I feel like in order to claim to be from somewhere, you should have actually been part of the community there at some point. If all you've done in a city is the touristy things, and you live 20 miles away in another county, that's probably not the case.

[guest23]

Maybe not stand alone, but it is practically a Twin Cities style setup at present and thats just going to continue to grow. I mean half the TV and radio stations are now based in the South Bay (and some have even begun using San Jose-SF-Oakland when referring to their coverage areas). And the A's and Niners will both be calling the region home before long in addition to the Sharks and Earthquakes (with 3 of them using the SJ name for marketing purposes).

That is where SF/SJ is not really analogous to LA/OC. With the Bay Area, there is a very distinct separation between SF and SJ geographically. Where it is far less distinct in SoCal. And even more importantly there is no real "center" to OC that comes anywhere close to the size or importance of LA itself. Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fullerton? They're all relatively small cities with no appreciable financial, media, demographic, social or population edge over LA. In the Bay Area though San Jose is the largest single city, bigger than SF, is more ethnically diverse, has a distinct center, isn't all a "bedroom community" despite what some east coasters may think, has a controlling stake in part of the media market, has its own social scene that while smaller than SF's is there and growing... And on top of everything else said here, when out of town people from the South Bay say they're from San Jose or the Bay Area and are almost universally understood. They don't say they're from San Francisco.

SJ just isn't a great example of the point people are trying to make.

Having spent over a decade living in each I'd say it's pretty damn analagous. The one big difference is what you stated that OC has no defined center but that really doesn't matter all that much in the general scheme of things. Like many other metro areas and like OC the only reason SJ grew in significance is the fact that the original metro center (SF) had already been maxed out in terms of available land and SJ was right down the road with a ton of land waiting to be built upon. Granted there was some city like infrastructure already there because it was an ag town that had more in common with it's neighbors to the south like Gilroy than it did with SFO & OAK.

[Mac the Knife]

They can do whatever they want, but I'll always call them the Anaheim Angels.

And those of my generation are more likely to refer to them as the "California Angels." Meh.

That's a funny shirt. I wish I'dve bought one...

FWIW, I think the regional naming concept should be used only in situations where you're the only major league-level pro team in the state (e.g., Minnesota Twins when they moved from Washington) -or- it has some form of backstory (e.g., Texas Rangers). "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" along with two near to me, the Carolina Panthers/Hurricanes, are simply bad ideas.

[The_Admiral]

Even with "Texas Rangers" having a backstory, it's still a double-barreled failure in that it claims the entire state of Texas despite the Astros having set up shop a decade prior, and it uses a nickname that had already belonged to one of the most established hockey teams (yeah save yr jokes). Clever as it may have seemed, they should have just come up with a different name.

[IceCap]

Man, I'm FROM here and I don't even understand it... aside from knowing much better than to expect any type of logical consisitency when dealing with these folks, who clearly want to have it both ways. It gets real tiring having to constantly explain to people that the bass ackwards blowhards they encountered from "Milwaukee" have probably never actually been to Milwaukee for anything but Brewer games or Summerfest... if even that.

It's called a metro area. It's pretty ridiculous to expect someone to say they're from InsertSuburbOrExurbHere when they're asked where they live by someone that likely doesn't know the area. To most people, I say I grew up in the "St. Louis area"; I only get more specific if that person knows the area and asks.

And that's perfect... it's an accurate statement and you're not claiming to have had the experience of growing up in a place you're not from. Why should it be so hard for people from the suburban counties to simply say they're from "the Milwaukee area" instead of telling everyone they're from a city most of them look down their noses at?

You're assuming everyone who lives in a suburb looks down their noses at the major city nearby.

As admiral said, maybe some people who live in the suburbs identify with the city because they genuinely do like the city.

Yes, yes, white flight was/is real. Yes, there's a racial component to why some people choose to live in suburbs. And yeah, some people live in suburbs because they don't like the nearby city, and race may factor into that.

As you yourself said though, not everyone who lives in a suburb is a racist. I'd add, however, that there are reasons for why one might choose to live in a suburb that have nothing to do with race.

Nothing you, Buc, Goth, BBTV, etc... have said is wrong per say, but you're all dangerously close to painting a whole lot of good people as morally bankrupt with your broad strokes.

[Gothamite]

Yes, yes, white flight was/is real. Yes, there's a racial component to why some people choose to live in suburbs. And yeah, some people live in suburbs because they don't like the nearby city, and race may factor into that.

As you yourself said though, not everyone who lives in a suburb is a racist. I'd add, however, that there are reasons for why one might choose to live in a suburb that have nothing to do with race.

Hey, I just want to clarify something - I didn't say (or at least never intended to say) that racism has much to do with why people would chose to live in a suburb. Historically there's been a strong correlation, but that doesn't necessarily hold today.

My point was that it's somewhat easier to see dark motives at work when people identify solely with their suburb at the expense of the larger city supporting it. When they want nothing to do with "that other place", resisting even being placed in the same general area. I knew many people in Waukesha and other outer suburbs who would have bristled at being labeled as being from "the Milwaukee area", no matter how accurate the description was.

I hope I've made that distinction.

[krudmonk]

Well, after lurking a while, I guess this is a good time to register:

It's totally a similar comparison, as the Sillicon Valley and Orange County are both "wealthy, white, and relatively self-sustaining", and both are viewed as suburbs of another city/area. San Jose is viewed as a suburb of San Francisco for all intents and purposes (it's not called the "San Jose Bay Area").

Not only is San Francisco wealthier and whiter than San Jose, but San Jose is designated as a separate metropolitan area by the US Census Bureau. Your common misinterpretation of "San Francisco Bay Area" (not "San Francisco Area") has been corrected already, but I do have to emphasize the distinction.

.

Not quite the same, but they will still be the San Francisco 49ers once they move to Santa Clara, which is very nearly in San Jose.

An established team with a billion-dollar brand (including SF monogram) is maintaining the status quo? No way...

Okay it's obvious that you're the president of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce but seriously most Americans couldn't find the Bay's armpit unless you referred to it as such.

The geographical knowledge of Americans is your supporting evidence?

I think the admiral's point, one I happen to agree with, is that San Francisco is the cultural and social centre of the region, whereas San Jose is a former suburb that exploded with the advent of the computer age. San Francisco is one the great American cities, whereas San Jose is a shapeless sprawl. Sure, San Jose is bigger. Sure, it's home to more Fortune 500 companies. At the end of the day though? It's not San Francisco. It doesn't have that same civic identity. It's just a sprawl that got way to big. And that's what's important.

I grew up/currently live in a community that went through the same thing. Kitchener-Waterloo exploded when RIM/Blackberry hit it big. As a result a community that was already mostly a sprawly collection of suburbs became that, but moreso. Yes, K-W has it's own unique identity and that's cool, but it would be a lie to say we have the same kind of civic identity as, say, Toronto.

As for the comment about San Francisco getting the Sharks away from weirdos? Well the Sharks play in a suburb on steroids, and it show. Their fanbase, convinced they're really great and important, and that the team is the best thing you could ask for, reeks of an organization coddled by suburbanites. Which it is, because that's where they play.

If the third densest metro area, surrounded by mountains and water on all sides, is "shapeless sprawl," then what is the rest of this country? The rest of you rant speaks of ignorance, much like the forced analogy between Anaheim and San Jose in the first place.

what is the excuse that's kept Oakland being an acceptable moniker?

The Raiders and A's were both the "not-SF" teams, moving into regions that already had established teams with the San Francisco name. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that they would have their current names if they were first into the market, unlike the Sharks.

This asserts San Jose's independence (for lack of a better term) more than anything. The Sharks and Earthquakes are not called " San Jose" because there were already SF teams. They are called such because there is enough of a civic identity and supporting fanbase to warrant such a brand.

Having spent over a decade living in each I'd say it's pretty damn analagous. The one big difference is what you stated that OC has no defined center but that really doesn't matter all that much in the general scheme of things. Like many other metro areas and like OC the only reason SJ grew in significance is the fact that the original metro center (SF) had already been maxed out in terms of available land and SJ was right down the road with a ton of land waiting to be built upon.

SJ grew with Silicon Valley because of Fairchild, which spurred tech growth. This was aided by nearby Moffett Field in Mountain View (military application) and the likes of FMC (military and formerly agriculture) in San Jose. Stanford University, also in Santa Clara County, factored big into the equation as well. If all Bay Area growth emanated from San Francisco, San Mateo County/the peninsula would not be the neutral zone that it is.

[IceCap]

Yes, yes, white flight was/is real. Yes, there's a racial component to why some people choose to live in suburbs. And yeah, some people live in suburbs because they don't like the nearby city, and race may factor into that.

As you yourself said though, not everyone who lives in a suburb is a racist. I'd add, however, that there are reasons for why one might choose to live in a suburb that have nothing to do with race.

Hey, I just want to clarify something - I didn't say (or at least never intended to say) that racism has much to do with why people would chose to live in a suburb. Historically there's been a strong correlation, but that doesn't necessarily hold today.

My point was that it's somewhat easier to see dark motives at work when people identify solely with their suburb at the expense of the larger city supporting it. When they want nothing to do with "that other place", resisting even being placed in the same general area. I knew many people in Waukesha and other outer suburbs who would have bristled at being labeled as being from "the Milwaukee area", no matter how accurate the description was.

I hope I've made that distinction.

I understand the distinction, thank you

But here's what I find funny, and sad, about all of this. You bring up valid reasons why race factors into why some suburban residents actively try to resist being identified with the nearby city. And generally I agree with that, as well as agreeing that trying to claim a suburb is a unique entity onto itself is silly for a variety of reasons.

Yet we also have illwauk and Buc complaining that suburbanites dare to identify with the city their communities orbit. As you said Goth, someone from Waukesha being recognized as being from Milwaukee is sensible. Yet illwauk's going on about how this is supposedly some sort of travesty.

So I ask all of you, what exactly is someone supposed to do when it comes to civic identity if they live in the suburbs? If you take the attitudes on display in this thread it seems like those people can't win. Damned as racists if they try to say their communities are distinct entities unto themselves, damned as outsiders who are probably racist and who probably look down on the anchor city if they do identify with the anchor city. It's a no-win scenario when these are two prevalent streams of discussion on the topic.

Frankly I find the whole thing ridiculous. A suburb, any suburb, owes its existence in one way or another to the anchor city. So if you're from the suburbs you're from the "Insert City Name area," and just identifying with the city itself is fine too. You only really need to get into what suburb you're from if you're talking to someone else familiar with the area.

There doesn't have to be any hidden, latent racism or any other similarly dark agenda. Simply saying "I'm from the city" when you're from the suburbs is fine.

Yeah, there are racists in suburbs. There are racists everywhere though.

[Gothamite]

what is the excuse that's kept Oakland being an acceptable moniker?

The Raiders and A's were both the "not-SF" teams, moving into regions that already had established teams with the San Francisco name. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that they would have their current names if they were first into the market, unlike the Sharks.

This asserts San Jose's independence (for lack of a better term) more than anything. The Sharks and Earthquakes are not called " San Jose" because there were already SF teams. They are called such because there is enough of a civic identity and supporting fanbase to warrant such a brand.

I don't think I made my point very clearly - after all, Oakland had "civic identity and supporting fanbase to warrant such a brand" as well.

I think the Sharks chose their city name because it meant they could carve out their own marketing niche in a sprawling, crowded region. Especially in the context of the NHL.

[The_Admiral]

wordbarf

So now that you're here, how much faster do you think the Sharks will be without hem stripes? Also, are the Sharks the greatest sports team of all time, or merely the greatest hockey team of all time?