This is not for a class. I love the topic of Geography and I just think it's mind boggling how well this city did at the time it did.
Look at this picture below. Such a huge city and a still relatively young country; and on the complete opposite end of where the nation started! Yes, I know it's after the earthquake and fire, but the point remains.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>Why was San Fransisco so incredibly historically significant? And why is it that Los Angeles has a larger pop?
San Francisco was the the most important city in the West from roughly 1850 to 1950.
It was the U.S. annexation of California in 1848 and subsequent Gold Rush that changed the city's fortunes forever. San Francisco became one of the largest cities in America almost overnight. Unlike other boomtowns, however, San Francisco's political class and entrepreneurs did not rely directly on gold for revenue. Instead, they got their money from providing "essential services" to miners, settlers, and immigrants of all sorts. Factories started producing jeans, boots, and industrial equipment. Banks were incorporated and lending money. Shipyards were built. Lawyers started opening offices in the city. Artists and musicians were encouraged to practice their craft.
They had the foresight to diversify. And when the Gold Rush ended, San Francisco thrived because it had become much more than a mining town. It could survive quite easily without any actual gold.
-----
Los Angeles eclipsed San Francisco during the 1950s for several reasons. San Francisco did not adapt well to car culture and suburbanization. In contrast, the huge L.A. basin could accommodate freeways and vast, sprawling suburban communities. The discovery of off-shore oil and the growing importance of the entertainment industry also cemented Los Angeles' rise. These commodities were (and still are) very much in demand. San Francisco's staunchly anti-growth policies, which weren't fully reversed until Willie Brown took office in 1996, didn't help either.
Despite all that, San Francisco has a great deal of clout. It is certainly not in steady decline like, say, Detroit or St. Louis. It continues to produce many of California's senior politicians. It is home to some of the most prestigious law firms in the country. It is still the financial services center for the entire state (anchored by Visa, Wells Fargo, and Charles Schwab). Tourists can't get enough of the place. The arts scene is independent and less profit driven. And, of course, Silicon Valley is just south of the city.Why was San Fransisco so incredibly historically significant? And why is it that Los Angeles has a larger pop?
All I know is that some cities used to be more important in the past than nowadays...
I guess it flows depending on the trends. Probably, San Francisco was a much more important city in the past.
For example: In Italy, there there's a city called Turin, used to be "The city of the kings" very beautiful and also big, the most important of the north, nowadays is with a much smaller population than Milan, with now is a much more populated city internationally known.
p.s: Nice picture!
I Hope I've helped!Why was San Fransisco so incredibly historically significant? And why is it that Los Angeles has a larger pop?
There's something else that's not so obvious and not so huge. Mostly it was the gold rush. But the other thing is that San Francisco is the nearest place in the US to Asia. Pacific Rim and all that. Look at a globe - not a map, a globe - and you'll see. It's certainly a factor.
Re the population question:
San Francisco is 49 square miles. Los Angeles is 500 square miles.
No comments:
Post a Comment