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.
SF doesn't really have a larger historic/walkable core than NO.
In New Orleans, you have pre-20th century architecture, and walkable streets all the way west to Audubon Park. There is no equivalent in SF.
So, no, that would actually be worse for NO.
And NO is plenty sophisticated. It's probably the most progressive major city in the Southeastern US, and has a very tolerant atmosphere.
West? You mean upriver or "the more uptown you go."
New Orleans isn't a sophisticated city, I don't know how you got to that conclusion. It's wordly in a sense but not at all what you think of when you think of sophistication.
San Francisco Population: 825,863 New Orleans: 369,250
City Data SF threads: 10,005
City Data NO threads: 2,165
Yet, New Orleans delivers so well there's only a 36 vote difference in this poll as of now. I think it speaks volumes to the fact that, while New Orleans isn't as large, nor as lauded as San Francisco...even after being completely demolished it still keeps up very well. So those statements I read from ignorant posters(some probably hometowners) saying "New Orleans is nowhere near San Francisco's level", clearly lack insight and have allowed their perspectives to be molded by branding and PR.
LOL So a poll on city-data voted on by 70 something people invalidates decades the worldwide travel surveys, city rankings, quality of life rankings and data that already exists and confirms the complete contrary?
And you have the gall to say that others 'clearly lack insight and have allowed their perspective to be molded' yet you are doing precisely that by errantly thinking that this horse's behind of a poll is indicative of reality?
So those statements I read from ignorant posters(some probably hometowners) saying "New Orleans is nowhere near San Francisco's level", clearly lack insight and have allowed their perspectives to be molded by branding and PR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
LOL So a poll on city-data voted on by 70 something people invalidates decades the worldwide travel surveys, city rankings, quality of life rankings and data that already exists and confirms the complete contrary?
And you have the gall to say that others 'clearly lack insight and have allowed their perspective to be molded' yet you are doing precisely that by errantly thinking that this horse's behind of a poll is indicative of reality?
Sure buddy, whatever you say.
That awkward moment when someone does exactly what I referenced in my last post. BTW, if you took the time to read the post before impetuously concocting your next pro-SF rebuttal, you'd see that I never said it contradicted anything, yet I do think its interesting that this poll is a "horse's behind", yet any other San Fran propaganda you can find is not
SF doesn't really have a larger historic/walkable core than NO.
More strange comments.
San Francisco ranks as the 2nd most walkable major city in the United States second only to New York, according to walkscore.com, which scores cities and neighborhoods based on what can be accomplished on foot and what amenities are accessible by foot/public transit.
New Orleans walk score is 56, which is actually not bad.
A score of 90 or above is exceptionally walkable. Here is a comparison of San Francisco and New Orleans based on neighborhoods with a walk score of 90+
New Orleans Neighborhood/Walkscore/Population
French Quarter................97....3,691
Central Business Dist.......92....2,400
Marigny.........................92....2,998 http://www.walkscore.com/LA/New_Orleans
San Francisco Neighborhood/ Walksore/ Population
Chinatown....................100.... 6,374
Financial District.............99.....3,836
Downtown.....................99....20,538
Tenderloin.....................98....22,934
Telegraph Hill................98.....7,675
Nob Hill.........................98....18,589
North Beach...................98.....6,430
Van Ness/Civic Center.....98.....9,384
Lower Pacific Heights......97....11,504
Duboce Triangle.............98.....3,097
Western Addition...........96....11,301
Mission.........................96....57,002
Cow Hollow...................95.....8,616
Hayes Valley.................95....13,573
Yerba Buena..................95.....5,239
Russian Hill..................95....13,757
Pacific Heights.............95.....8,562
North Waterfront........95.....1,890
Alamo Square............94.....5,808
Haight-Ashbury..........94.....9,475
South of Market.........94....24,748
Jordan Park................93.....4,261
Marina......................93....12,432
North Panhandle.........93....10,973
Eureka Valley.............92....11,756
Anza Vista.................92.....2,282
Inner Richmond..........91....16,509
Buena Vista Park........90.....2,615 http://www.walkscore.com/CA/San_Francisco
San Francisco is generally layers ahead of New Orleans in this regard.
Quote:
In New Orleans, you have pre-20th century architecture, and walkable streets all the way west to Audubon Park. There is no equivalent in SF.
That's odd, because according to the 2012 Census Bureau estimates:
Housing Structures Built before 1939
San Francisco, CA 49.8%
New Orleans, LA 29.9%
So maybe in touristy areas where people drink at 5am and have festivals every day of the year, but for most people, it's nothing like that at all. Is that a fair summation?
Last edited by 18Montclair; 11-29-2013 at 01:40 PM..
That awkward moment when someone does exactly what I referenced in my last post. BTW, if you took the time to read the post before impetuously concocting your next pro-SF rebuttal, you'd see that I never said it contradicted anything, yet I do think its interesting that this poll is a "horse's behind", yet any other San Fran propaganda you can find is not
Sure buddy, whatever you say
What's awkward is you think 70 people on C-D actually outweight THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that have taken various surveys on quality of life and their travel experience etc. Like I said and still maintain, if that's what makes you feel good go for it, but this is a city-vs-city thread and people are free to openly balk at deranged suggestions.
High paying jobs for high COL. I wouldn't want to live in the Bay if people were similar to you. The snobiness is all over the last few pages.
Hey, I deliberately stayed out of this thread for as long as I could because I happen to like New Orleans and I am cognizant of the differences btwn New Orleans and San Francisco--and if you will look carefully most of comments that could be interpreted as 'snobby' aren't even made towards New Orleans at all.
San Francisco ranks as the 2nd most walkable major city in the United States second only to New York, according to walkscore.com, which scores cities and neighborhoods based on what can be accomplished on foot and what amenities are accessible by foot/public transit.
Very weird citation, and ridiculous claim.
Walkscore looks at whether or not things are within walkable distance from households, nothing more. It does not look at the quality of the environment or anything like that. All it cares about is whether a store is close to a house, no matter if the environment sucks.
Therefore, somewhere sprawling but dense, like in Orange County, CA will be given a high walkscore, while someplace dense and urban, but with gaps between residential areas or with large commercial areas, will be given a low walkscore.
But you probably already knew that. You just posted it because you have no argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
That's odd, because according to the 2012 Census Bureau estimates:
Housing Structures Built before 1939
San Francisco, CA 49.8%
New Orleans, LA 29.9%
Is this a joke? You think the 1930's were in the 19th century? LOL!
Hate to break it to you, but 19th century means before 1900. So thanks for playing, but New Orleans is an older and more historic city, with a larger proportion of housing stock in core built before 1900.
But congratulations. SF appears to have much more auto-oriented depression-era housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
So maybe in touristy areas where people drink at 5am and have festivals every day of the year, but for most people, it's nothing like that at all. Is that a fair summation?
No, this is a delusional summation by someone who lives in Oakland, and doesn't know the first thing about SF or NO.
What's awkward is you think 70 people on C-D actually outweight THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that have taken various surveys on quality of life and their travel experience etc. Like I said and still maintain, if that's what makes you feel good go for it, but this is a city-vs-city thread and people are free to openly balk at deranged suggestions.
This is all BS. And your point is nonsense.
No one would seriously argue that the best city is the one that wins a random non-scientific magazine survey.
But if you insist, according to Travel and Leisure, the #1 travel magazine, Savannah is the best tourist city in the U.S. SF is #17, right next to NO at #18.
So there you have it. Savannah has the best quality of life and best travel experience according to your weird rationale.
San Francisco ranks as the 2nd most walkable major city in the United States second only to New York, according to walkscore.com, which scores cities and neighborhoods based on what can be accomplished on foot and what amenities are accessible by foot/public transit.
New Orleans walk score is 56, which is actually not bad.
A score of 90 or above is exceptionally walkable. Here is a comparison of San Francisco and New Orleans based on neighborhoods with a walk score of 90+
New Orleans Neighborhood/Walkscore/Population
French Quarter................97....3,691
Central Business Dist.......92....2,400
Marigny.........................92....2,998 http://www.walkscore.com/LA/New_Orleans
San Francisco Neighborhood/ Walksore/ Population
Chinatown....................100.... 6,374
Financial District.............99.....3,836
Downtown.....................99....20,538
Tenderloin.....................98....22,934
Telegraph Hill................98.....7,675
Nob Hill.........................98....18,589
North Beach...................98.....6,430
Van Ness/Civic Center.....98.....9,384
Lower Pacific Heights......97....11,504
Duboce Triangle.............98.....3,097
Western Addition...........96....11,301
Mission.........................96....57,002
Cow Hollow...................95.....8,616
Hayes Valley.................95....13,573
Yerba Buena..................95.....5,239
Russian Hill..................95....13,757
Pacific Heights.............95.....8,562
North Waterfront........95.....1,890
Alamo Square............94.....5,808
Haight-Ashbury..........94.....9,475
South of Market.........94....24,748
Jordan Park................93.....4,261
Marina......................93....12,432
North Panhandle.........93....10,973
Eureka Valley.............92....11,756
Anza Vista.................92.....2,282
Inner Richmond..........91....16,509
Buena Vista Park........90.....2,615 http://www.walkscore.com/CA/San_Francisco
San Francisco is generally layers ahead of New Orleans in this regard.
That's odd, because according to the 2012 Census Bureau estimates:
Housing Structures Built before 1939
San Francisco, CA 49.8%
New Orleans, LA 29.9%
So maybe in touristy areas where people drink at 5am and have festivals every day of the year, but for most people, it's nothing like that at all. Is that a fair summation?
To answer your question. No. Not nearly. And I truly hate to jump into this "I like my city more than your city" debacle, but I have to correct this. The French Quarter is the main "touristy" part of New Orleans, not the CBD, nor the Marigny.
In fact Mid-City, Uptown, Freret and University/Carrollton are also very walkable areas. What you are hammering here is what is already known and admitted, which is San Francisco is larger thus has more area to expound walkability upon.
The statement MidtownMars made about PR and marketing rings louder than you could imagine, which leaves people who actually live here(me) or those who really know the city(annie_himself) sounding drastically different from information you can find online or in brochures. Most of those things are very poor representations of actual New Orleans living.
Maybe if you had as much real knowledge about New Orleans as you clearly do about Oakland, you wouldn't come across so incendiary.
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.
Talk about gall...
BTW, if you took the time to read the post before impetuously concocting your next pro-SF rebuttal, you'd see that I never said it contradicted anything, yet I do think its interesting that this poll is a "horse's behind", yet any other San Fran propaganda you can find is not
