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've finally made it to the Bay Area for the first time recently, so I finally feel as though I can compare all three areas with at least some direct experience (although my Boston and Philly experiences are much deeper).
I'll say off the bat, despite being an East Coast guy, and a Philly "booster" more specifically, I was pretty blown away by San Francisco. Incredible city that had such a unique vibe. Both Boston and Philly are certainly top notch for walkability and urban vibrancy, but I'll have to admit that SF just felt like it's reached another level with its recent economic ascent.
Not that SF's downtown was Manhattan-level massive. Certainly it's large, but the scale is comparable to Center City and/or DTX in Boston. What I'm referring to is more its low-to-mid rise neighborhoods. The number of vibrant/busy commercial corridors outside of downtown SF was unbelievable (I found it to be a great model in particular for Philly to follow).
I know I've read on city-data that despite Boston, SF and Philly having similar degrees of urbanity, that SF had the edge for street level vibrancy. And I didn't doubt that, but I could clearly see it for myself when visiting.
Visiting SF immediately made me realize that, while again a lot to boast about, both Philly and Boston can do much more to boost mixed-use/low-rise commercial vibrancy to the extent that each has more consistent street level activity across more of their main thoroughfares.
I've finally made it to the Bay Area for the first time recently, so I finally feel as though I can compare all three areas with at least some direct experience (although my Boston and Philly experiences are much deeper).
I'll say off the bat, despite being an East Coast guy, and a Philly "booster" more specifically, I was pretty blown away by San Francisco. Incredible city that had such a unique vibe. Both Boston and Philly are certainly top notch for walkability and urban vibrancy, but I'll have to admit that SF just felt like it's reached another level with its recent economic ascent.
Not that SF's downtown was Manhattan-level massive. Certainly it's large, but the scale is comparable to Center City and/or DTX in Boston. What I'm referring to is more its low-to-mid rise neighborhoods. The number of vibrant/busy commercial corridors outside of downtown SF was unbelievable (I found it to be a great model in particular for Philly to follow).
I know I've read on city-data that despite Boston, SF and Philly having similar degrees of urbanity, that SF had the edge for street level vibrancy. And I didn't doubt that, but I could clearly see it for myself when visiting.
Visiting SF immediately made me realize that, while again a lot to boast about, both Philly and Boston can do much more to boost mixed-use/low-rise commercial vibrancy to the extent that each has more consistent street level activity across more of their main thoroughfares.
My only problem with San Francisco is San Franciscans, who share with denizens of Official Washington an extremely off-putting smugness and sense of self-importance.
Shoot, if we replaced the locals with residents of Oakland across the bay, it would be an improvement. Even better to repopulate it with Philadelphians.
My only problem with San Francisco is San Franciscans, who share with denizens of Official Washington an extremely off-putting smugness and sense of self-importance.
Shoot, if we replaced the locals with residents of Oakland across the bay, it would be an improvement. Even better to repopulate it with Philadelphians.
Haha, yes. Never said I fell in love with the social atmosphere of SF (for one thing, the city did seem way too overrun by aloof tourists; I think there's definitely something to be said for a city that becomes too popular). I was just taken by the urban form.
both Philly and Boston can do much more to boost mixed-use/low-rise commercial vibrancy to the extent that each has more consistent street level activity across more of their main thoroughfares.
What would this mean for Boston specifically? Like which neighborhoods would you like to be more activated?
I've finally made it to the Bay Area for the first time recently, so I finally feel as though I can compare all three areas with at least some direct experience (although my Boston and Philly experiences are much deeper).
I'll say off the bat, despite being an East Coast guy, and a Philly "booster" more specifically, I was pretty blown away by San Francisco. Incredible city that had such a unique vibe. Both Boston and Philly are certainly top notch for walkability and urban vibrancy, but I'll have to admit that SF just felt like it's reached another level with its recent economic ascent.
Not that SF's downtown was Manhattan-level massive. Certainly it's large, but the scale is comparable to Center City and/or DTX in Boston. What I'm referring to is more its low-to-mid rise neighborhoods. The number of vibrant/busy commercial corridors outside of downtown SF was unbelievable (I found it to be a great model in particular for Philly to follow).
I know I've read on city-data that despite Boston, SF and Philly having similar degrees of urbanity, that SF had the edge for street level vibrancy. And I didn't doubt that, but I could clearly see it for myself when visiting.
Visiting SF immediately made me realize that, while again a lot to boast about, both Philly and Boston can do much more to boost mixed-use/low-rise commercial vibrancy to the extent that each has more consistent street level activity across more of their main thoroughfares.
I had the same impression when I went to SF/Bay Area a few years ago. I heard about it being a walkable, urban city....but I was blown away with how dense and “urban†(however anyone wants to define that word) that it actually is. Definitely a very vibrant city with a lot of energy. Nearby Oakland and Berkley are really nice too, and offer a slightly different feel and make for a great diverse region.
I know that some have mentioned the smugness of the people, but I found the San Franciscans I interacted with to be very cool and down to earth. SF/Bay Area is a great region in my book.
I've finally made it to the Bay Area for the first time recently, so I finally feel as though I can compare all three areas with at least some direct experience (although my Boston and Philly experiences are much deeper).
I'll say off the bat, despite being an East Coast guy, and a Philly "booster" more specifically, I was pretty blown away by San Francisco. Incredible city that had such a unique vibe. Both Boston and Philly are certainly top notch for walkability and urban vibrancy, but I'll have to admit that SF just felt like it's reached another level with its recent economic ascent.
Not that SF's downtown was Manhattan-level massive. Certainly it's large, but the scale is comparable to Center City and/or DTX in Boston. What I'm referring to is more its low-to-mid rise neighborhoods. The number of vibrant/busy commercial corridors outside of downtown SF was unbelievable (I found it to be a great model in particular for Philly to follow).
I know I've read on city-data that despite Boston, SF and Philly having similar degrees of urbanity, that SF had the edge for street level vibrancy. And I didn't doubt that, but I could clearly see it for myself when visiting.
Visiting SF immediately made me realize that, while again a lot to boast about, both Philly and Boston can do much more to boost mixed-use/low-rise commercial vibrancy to the extent that each has more consistent street level activity across more of their main thoroughfares.
I think Boston has the same thing with BC grads. BC guys will take a dump on the sidewalk and tell you its gold. I don't feel the same way about the other top notch schools.
My only problem with San Francisco is San Franciscans, who share with denizens of Official Washington an extremely off-putting smugness and sense of self-importance.
Haha, yes. Never said I fell in love with the social atmosphere of SF (for one thing, the city did seem way too overrun by aloof tourists; I think there's definitely something to be said for a city that becomes too popular). I was just taken by the urban form.
I'm guessing that you ignored/avoided the Tenderloin. Or never thought about conditions in SF like that while you were there.
Well, the last time I was in SF was two years ago. Things can change a lot in a couple of years.
I think Boston has the same thing with BC grads. BC guys will take a dump on the sidewalk and tell you its gold. I don't feel the same way about the other top notch schools.
BU, Tufts and Northeastern Grads are not like that, and even MUT/Harvard people aren't as bad as BC alum it's a weird culture for a school that's pretty unremarkable for Boston
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.
