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.
Between SF and Boston I would say SF is more urban within the city. There are parts of Dorchester that look straight up rural...
There is also something about that grid that makes a city seem more dense - a perfect example is how Back Bay feels like the one of the most urban parts of Boston, and it is on a grid.
Either way, both are great cities that I would love to (and for Boston have) lived in.
Lol Dorchester is the most populated hood in Boston
also a 2 mile circle around city hall includes parts of 3 towns/ cities other than Boston so city density is a pretty crappy measure for Boston.
Lol Dorchester is the most populated hood in Boston
also a 2 mile circle around city hall includes parts of 3 towns/ cities other than Boston so city density is a pretty crappy measure for Boston.
It's also the largest... I was talking more about southern Dorchester.
You are right though Cambridge Somerville and Brookline are basically part of Boston, it's a really dense city and very walkable.
It's just my opinion that SF feels more urban, partly because it is constrained to the peninsula. I do think that Boston probably has better public transportation (except the B line )
It's also the largest... I was talking more about southern Dorchester.
You are right though Cambridge Somerville and Brookline are basically part of Boston, it's a really dense city and very walkable.
It's just my opinion that SF feels more urban, partly because it is constrained to the peninsula. I do think that Boston probably has better public transportation (except the B line )
It has 91,000 people in 6 sq miles, hardly rural (this goes down to the Quincy border, the southern border)
It has 91,000 people in 6 sq miles, hardly rural (this goes down to the Quincy border, the southern border)
Yeah. I don't know what he's talking about. The only part of Boston I know of that's remotely wooded is in Mattapan off of Harvard Street, but there's a graveyard and park over there.
Yeah I guess I was wrong, I was talking about that part of Mattapan but it's a lot smaller than I thought by looking at Google maps. But really, I think tiny rural pockets in the big city is kind of cool.
Uhh same with NYC and Chicago - megacities tend to have sprawling suburbs.
New York doesn't have sprawling suburbs. Most of New York's suburbs are denser than what you'll find in Maryland, but far less dense than Cerritos.
And I agree with Garfieldian. Density only pays dividends once it reaches a certain threshold. You're better off at 10,000+ density for an entire city (where you can easily walk to things and different neighborhoods) or extremely low density areas (where you can have a home theater in your basement). Los Angeles is right in the middle, so you don't have the luxury of easy access to public transit (like DC, NYC, and Boston) and you don't have the luxury of space for a high quality suburban lifestyle (like Atlanta).
I've been looking for this NYT article forever that talks about density in the context of designing a completely car-free city. Haven't been able to track it down. Please post if you can find...it was a roundtable discussion among urban planners.
Not true. On the city proper level, Boston and SF are neck and neck for public transit ridership and share of commuters who use public transit (they're both in about the same place as Philly and DC too). Boston does have the upper hand on the metro level though.
The T covers Boston much better than Bart covers San Francisco. There are huge swaths of San Francisco that have no rail access at all. Your natural counter will be "San Francisco has excellent bus service to get across town," but the obvious retort to that is, "Well, so does Boston." There's more subway coverage, there's trolley/light rail coverage, and bus coverage. And though taxi access is not "public transit" per se, it's another option that I found to be more readily available in Boston than SF. I'd say Boston wins this by a fair margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Also, i've heard plenty of complaints about navigating Boston's narrow, winding, non-gridded streets.
This was only a problem when I drove. My chief complaints were (1) the route you took on Tuesday no longer existed by Thursday and (2) the signage was terrible. You can drive for blocks in Boston without seeing a street sign. That's not as much of a problem when you're walking or taking the T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
From a structural standpoint the two cities are very close. SF obviously wins the population density aspect though. SF's densest census tract for example is a full 50,000 people per square mile denser than Boston's densest (161,000 for SF vs. 110,000 for Boston).
Yeah, but that's not something that's easily discernible, ya know. Manhattan had nearly 2.3 million people at its peak, but I don't know if anyone could tell the difference between bustling 1950 Manhattan with 2 million residents and bustling 2011 Manhattan with 1.5 million residents. Likewise, I don't know if the density disparity between SF and Boston has any impact on our perception of their respective urbanity, especially considering the fact that Boston had just as many people as San Francisco not that long ago. There might not be as many people living in Boston today as there were in 1950, but there are probably more buildings today, and that's a big part of how we judge urbanity. Plus, there are probably more people in Boston on a day-to-day then there were in 1950 since the metro area is bigger today than it was then.
It's very much a subjective thing, but I say Boston is the most urban of all these cities because it has the most going on. The bridges, the tunnels, the expansive subway network, the light rail, the skyscrapers, the multi-floor apartment buildings, brownstones and triple-deckers all make Boston seem more urban to me. San Francisco is pretty built up, but I don't think it has Boston's infrastructure (which would make sense given the billions of dollars spent on the Big Dig).
New York doesn't have sprawling suburbs. Most of New York's suburbs are denser than what you'll find in Maryland, but far less dense than Cerritos.
And I agree with Garfieldian. Density only pays dividends once it reaches a certain threshold. You're better off at 10,000+ density for an entire city (where you can easily walk to things and different neighborhoods) or extremely low density areas (where you can have a home theater in your basement). Los Angeles is right in the middle, so you don't have the luxury of easy access to public transit (like DC, NYC, and Boston) and you don't have the luxury of space for a high quality suburban lifestyle (like Atlanta).
I've been looking for this NYT article forever that talks about density in the context of designing a completely car-free city. Haven't been able to track it down. Please post if you can find...it was a roundtable discussion among urban planners.
I agree with this for the most part too... But in most of Central Los Angeles you are definitely able to live an urban lifestyle with easy access to PT. Central Los Angeles is quite walkable (it's on a fairly strict grid). I am comparing this to living in Boston, I could not afford a car and walked everywhere. I don't find it much harder (sometimes easier) here in Hollywood. My address is a 99 on walkscore and it's not a fluke either.
Bart is more comparable to the Commuter Rail in Boston. San Francisco has Muni which is more like the T. But I do agree Boston has better in-city PT. Though I had nothing but terrible experiences with the buses. (Has a lot to do with the weather)
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.
)
