Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm too lazy to read through this entire thread, so please forgive me if I repeat what others have already said.
I don't understand why people try to compare San Francisco and Manhattan. San Francisco is pretty dense, but Manhattan's average density is greater than the densest block in San Francisco. I don't really see any similarities between the two.
Anyways, San Francisco's density is achieved mostly by low-rise buildings like Los Angeles, while much of Manhattan's density is high-rise. Hell even the central part of Los Angeles and San Francisco have similar densities. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco are located in hilly, mountainous areas...Manhattan is pretty flat.
People-wise, both Los Angeles an San Francisco seem to be a very laid back culture. California-livin at its finest! Manhattan is the king of chaos, the city that never sleeps.
All in all, the only reason why I think people ever bother to compare San Francisco to Manhattan is because it's the second densest city in the country...San Francisco is dense, but Manhattan is DENSE.
I'm too lazy to read through this entire thread, so please forgive me if I repeat what others have already said.
I don't understand why people try to compare San Francisco and Manhattan. San Francisco is pretty dense, but Manhattan's average density is greater than the densest block in San Francisco. I don't really see any similarities between the two.
Anyways, San Francisco's density is achieved mostly by low-rise buildings like Los Angeles, while much of Manhattan's density is high-rise. Hell even the central part of Los Angeles and San Francisco have similar densities. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco are located in hilly, mountainous areas...Manhattan is pretty flat.
People-wise, both Los Angeles an San Francisco seem to be a very laid back culture. California-livin at its finest! Manhattan is the king of chaos, the city that never sleeps.
All in all, the only reason why I think people ever bother to compare San Francisco to Manhattan is because it's the second densest city in the country...San Francisco is dense, but Manhattan is DENSE.
There's a couple of reasons. First of all, SF's financial district and surrounding areas feel more like *lower* Manhattan than any other downtown Ive ever been too, including Chicago and Philly. Something about the feel of it...
Secondly, SF has some blocks that are nealry 100,000 people per sq./mile. It has some very, very dense areas. Even people from Chicago have said its amazing how much is crammed into certain areas of SF. Its density is not nearly as consistent as Manhattan's, but sections of it have Manhattan-like feel and density. Also, SF does have over 44 buildings that are over 400 feet, and it generally is a vertical city. Of course, nowhere near the level of Manhattan, but much moreso than LA.
As for overall vibe and attitude, natural backdrop, etc--SF is without a doubt MUCH more like LA. It very much has a California vibe.
I understand that Chicago deserves those skyscrapers a lot more than most American cities, but someone brought out third world cities with shiny skyscrapers in a tone indicating that they are only following new york with no direction and no purpose. And my point is, compared to those third world cities, even Chicago the second scraper city looks like it doesn't need any skyscraper. Those third world cities are usually a lot more crowded, and they need work and need high quality office space too. They really should build those skyscrapers if they can because they need them absolutely. They simply have not much land to develop on.
You sound like you've been smoking too much weed lately. We invented the skyscrapers, how are we not supposed to have skyscrapers? That's like telling the designer of the Lamborghini that he cant have a Lambo. Chicago is the second major financial center of America, where are those businesses supposed to go?
Secondly, SF has some blocks that are nealry 100,000 people per sq./mile. It has some very, very dense areas. Even people from Chicago have said its amazing how much is crammed into certain areas of SF. Its density is not nearly as consistent as Manhattan's, but sections of it have Manhattan-like feel and density. Also, SF does have over 44 buildings that are over 400 feet, and it generally is a vertical city. Of course, nowhere near the level of Manhattan, but much moreso than LA.
Isn't the central part of Los Angeles actually denser than the central part of San Francisco? I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard that on this site.
San Francisco is definitely not a vertical city...its densest areas are achieved through low-rise development as far as I can tell. That's not a bad thing at all...but come on. Look at Manhattan.
Isn't the central part of Los Angeles actually denser than the central part of San Francisco? I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard that on this site.
San Francisco is definitely not a vertical city...its densest areas are achieved through low-rise development as far as I can tell. That's not a bad thing at all...but come on. Look at Manhattan.
If SF is not a vertical city, then there are only 2 or 3 vertical cities in the country.
SF has far more buildings over 400 feet than Philly (44 vs. 27), far more than Boston (again, 44 vs. 27). It has a TON of tall buildings in very small space, more than LA despite being less 1/6th the area (44 vs. 34).
Besides NYC and Chicago, I would say SF is the most vertical city in the country. Just because the skyline doesn't look very tall in pictures, doesnt mean anything. If youve ever been there, youd know it was definitely a vertical city.
And as far as population density, SF Chinatown has 130,000 per square mile. Tenderloin has around 75,000 per square mile. Koreatown, one of LAs densest neighborhoods, has 43,000 PSM. So, no, the central part of LA is nowhere near as dense as the central part of SF.
The Tenderloin is only .35 square miles and Chinatown is only .212 (and according to City Data's statistics is at 61,029 sq mile pop density). It would be fairer to piece together K-Town and Westlake (maybe Silver Lake, Echo Park, Virgil Village and downtown) and compare it to the Mission, Outer Mission, Excelsior, Noe Valley, SOMA, the Castro, Hayes Valley, the Tenderloin and Chinatown, just to go apples to apples for area equivalence. I think there's some parity in terms of density. When you juxtapose the two sets of puzzled-together neighborhoods, the comparison to L.A. is more reasonable. Too bad Hollywood, Holmby Hills, Beverly Hills, Larchmont, WeHo, etc., unbalance the formula for their size. In terms of "feel" I go for L.A. as a better comparison. Manhattan, no. Van Ness to Polk, etc., feels more like Queens, but still not quite. It's California.
(K-Town and the Mission are two of my favorite neighborhoods.)
The Tenderloin is only .35 square miles and Chinatown is only .212 (and according to City Data's statistics is at 61,029 sq mile pop density). It would be fairer to piece together K-Town and Westlake (maybe Silver Lake, Echo Park, Virgil Village and downtown) and compare it to the Mission, Outer Mission, Excelsior, Noe Valley, SOMA, the Castro, Hayes Valley, the Tenderloin and Chinatown, just to go apples to apples for area equivalence. I think there's some parity in terms of density. When you juxtapose the two sets of puzzled-together neighborhoods, the comparison to L.A. is more reasonable. Too bad Hollywood, Holmby Hills, Beverly Hills, Larchmont, WeHo, etc., unbalance the formula for their size. In terms of "feel" I go for L.A. as a better comparison. Manhattan, no. Van Ness to Polk, etc., feels more like Queens, but still not quite. It's California.
(K-Town and the Mission are two of my favorite neighborhoods.)
I would say the financial distict and Union Square have a similar feel to lower Manhattan, while areas like the Haight and the Mission feel more like Greenwich village. Some parts are more comparable to Brooklyn or Queens. But, overall, the feel in terms of urban form is similar, albeit on a smaller scale.
As for density, the entire area North of Market and East of Van Ness (as well as the area between 80 and Market) is FAR denser than the equivalent area in central LA. Again, its not even close.
Manhattan for sure. SF does not feel anything like the other Cali cities IMO. Even Sacramento and San Jose are much more like stereotypical Cali than SF.
If SF is not a vertical city, then there are only 2 or 3 vertical cities in the country.
In my opinion, there are two vertical cities in the United States: New York City and Chicago. Other "vertical" cities in my opinion are Sao Paulo, Hong Kong and Tokyo.
Quote:
SF has far more buildings over 400 feet than Philly (44 vs. 27), far more than Boston (again, 44 vs. 27). It has a TON of tall buildings in very small space, more than LA despite being less 1/6th the area (44 vs. 34).
There are many skyscrapers in San Francisco...but I don't think that necessarily makes it a vertical city. When people think of San Francisco, they don't think skyscrapers. They think hills and painted lady homes.
Quote:
And as far as population density, SF Chinatown has 130,000 per square mile. Tenderloin has around 75,000 per square mile. Koreatown, one of LAs densest neighborhoods, has 43,000 PSM. So, no, the central part of LA is nowhere near as dense as the central part of SF.
The densest zip codes I could find in each of these cities:
San Francsico (94108)
Population: 13,716
Area: 0.3 square miles
Density: 54,776 ppsm
Los Angeles (90057)
Population: 43,986
Area: 0.9 square miles
Density: 51,582 ppsm
So yes, Los Angeles is in fact about the same density as San Francisco in the central part of the city. Especially since Los Angeles' densest neighborhood is about three times the size as San Francisco's densest neighborhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
