More Urban City (s): San Francisco VS Jersey City/Hoboken (best, comparison)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by goonzy

How the hell can you even compare Jersey to San Fran?????????????
SF is a world class city. You better off comparing Jersey with Oakland.
And obviously SF is way more urban, SF is one of the most denses compact, cosmopolitan cities in the world, theres something to do in SF any time day or night. I doubt Jersey has much too offer. Just cause your packed like sardines in some ****ty apartment building dosnt mean your urban!!

Wow - Keep drinking the coolaide

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by goonzy

How the hell can you even compare Jersey to San Fran?????????????
SF is a world class city. You better off comparing Jersey with Oakland.
And obviously SF is way more urban, SF is one of the most denses compact, cosmopolitan cities in the world, theres something to do in SF any time day or night. I doubt Jersey has much too offer. Just cause your packed like sardines in some ****ty apartment building dosnt mean your urban!!

Actually, I believe that Hoboken, NJ has the most bars per square mile in the entire country. It really is a great, urban area. Why do people that have never left their homestate feel the need to make assumptions on areas?

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by goonzy

How the hell can you even compare Jersey to San Fran?????????????

Because this is City-Data, a monotonous site where people (like me) have an interest for comparing things and learning more about certain places. That's how I can compare them. And I just did.

Originally Posted by goonzy

SF is a world class city.

Amazing fact! But how the hell does that help a city be more Urban than another city? (You know that's kind of the point of the thread)

Originally Posted by goonzy

You better off comparing Jersey with Oakland

Oakland is at half the density of Jersey City, and it doesn't come a mile close to Hoboken. Honestly Oakland is more Urban than most can ever give it credit for, and I am sure around Downtown, and other heavily affluent areas its density can reach 30,000 to 40,000 people per square mile, possibly. But again Hoboken (1 square mile) with a population of 41,000 can easily counter it.

Originally Posted by goonzy

And obviously SF is way more urban, SF is one of the most denses compact, cosmopolitan cities in the world, theres something to do in SF any time day or night.

Again that's amazing. But how does "something to do day and night" have anything to do with the topic of this thread? Unless of course you were trying to correlate density to vibrancy, but I've read your posts and I don't think you're swift enough to have come to that conclusion before anyone else whose posted here.

Well to be frank, Hoboken is 1 square miles, its nickname is even the Mile Squared City. Absolutely using your exact logic, it is more Urban as a city than San Francisco (as a city).

I made this thread for a discussion for the case can be brought for both areas. San Francisco's peak density will probably be larger than the peak densities in Jersey City & Hoboken. But I think a case can be made for Jersey City & Hoboken as well.

Honestly, this comparison is a lot closer than 95% of the type of comparisons on City-Data, because there are only a handful of cities that have a population of 250,000+ with densities over 10,000 people per square mile in the USA.

San Francisco quite possibly can be more Urban, that doesn't mean Jersey City & Hoboken cant make a case though.

Originally Posted by goonzy

I doubt Jersey has much too offer. Just cause your packed like sardines in some ****ty apartment building dosnt mean your urban!!

Well, you're wrong.

Nearly 300,000 people would not make strives to live in a mere 16 square miles of land area if the place had absolutely zero appeal going for it. And quite frankly, it has a lot of great things going for it, but I don't expect you to ever understand that.

[jaraylee182004]

Originally Posted by goonzy

How the hell can you even compare Jersey to San Fran?????????????
SF is a world class city. You better off comparing Jersey with Oakland.
And obviously SF is way more urban, SF is one of the most denses compact, cosmopolitan cities in the world, theres something to do in SF any time day or night. I doubt Jersey has much too offer. Just cause your packed like sardines in some ****ty apartment building dosnt mean your urban!!

uh, I think that is very urban!

[66nexus]

Originally Posted by goonzy

How the hell can you even compare Jersey to San Fran?????????????
SF is a world class city. You better off comparing Jersey with Oakland.
And obviously SF is way more urban, SF is one of the most denses compact, cosmopolitan cities in the world, theres something to do in SF any time day or night. I doubt Jersey has much too offer. Just cause your packed like sardines in some ****ty apartment building dosnt mean your urban!!

In your last horribly sentence, you're implying JC isn't urban just b/c you like SF more?

[lammius]

Perhaps SF to all of Hudson County is a better comparison. They're exactly the same size (47 sq miles), and Hudson's population density is 13,000 (total popn 608,000)

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by goonzy

How the hell can you even compare Jersey to San Fran?????????????
SF is a world class city. You better off comparing Jersey with Oakland.
And obviously SF is way more urban, SF is one of the most denses compact, cosmopolitan cities in the world, theres something to do in SF any time day or night. I doubt Jersey has much too offer. Just cause your packed like sardines in some ****ty apartment building dosnt mean your urban!!

Goonzy strikes back!

Goonzy, you should come visit the East coast sometimes. And I mean it seriously. You'll probably like it a lot.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by BPerone201

No... There's probably sections of the city that exceed over 49Kppsm- But the average population density overall is around 17K PPSM
~


I'd say it's a tie. I voted for both.

San Francisco clearly has the more urban downtown (Jersey City's DT is pretty quiet.. Hoboken is livelier)- Though Jersey City/Hoboken has the more urban residential areas.
Public transportation in both excel, but NJ Transit is definitely the more extensive system. (Plus, PATH)

I was saying its a larger area 49 square miles to 16. As some have pointed out the county is a better comparison, so in overall density SF is more dense. If you break it into particular areas SF has areas that are much denser than 17k/sq mi.
SF just has much more, you'd have to reach into NYC to match amenities.

[californio sur]

I tend to agree that the comparisons between Jersey City\ Hoboken and San Francisco is a little bit off. I could see Jersey City across the Hudson river when I was in Manhattan and it looked pretty cool but I'm not sure I could see Hoboken. But Jersey City seems more like a suburb of NYC and not a stand alone metro. That may make New Jersey residents unhappy but seriously when a city the size of Jersey City stands in the shadow of the nation's largest city it becomes dwarfed & a bit insignificant.

Danny, I think you posted photos of Jersey City before that looked great; maybe someone will post some photos. Here are a few of San Francisco

[DANNYY]

Hoboken was where the beginning of Harold & Kumar took place, their apartment was in Hoboken.

Jersey City:

^^ There is thick dense development right before it gets to the taller buildings.