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.
Its part of what makes NYC the most important and on urban living surpasses all but Manhattan (save select nabes in some others)
Yes lived in Boken too in the NYC area and DC too FWIW
There are more people living in great urban nabes than in SF or Philly or even Chicago within BK FWIW
That is the truth
Well true about NYC overall. Everybody bows down before gotham, but there are many many metrics that those stand alone cities win handily. Desireability being one for SF.
Nope, it's true... checked the math and everything. The only difference between SF and Brooklyn is that SF has considerably lower low-density neighborhoods and more of them. Its peaks are higher than Brooklyn's and its dips are lower than Brooklyn's. It doesn't have as many peaks to counter-balance the dips. If you don't believe me, look at the SF neighborhood data vs. the data Oycrumbler posted on Brooklyn. Both come from the same website (City-Data).
No, it doesn't. Brooklyn has quite a few areas that look like this:
Brooklyn's high-density neighborhoods are denser than San Francisco's high-density neighborhoods. And Brooklyn's low-density neighborhoods are denser than San Francisco's low-density neighborhoods. That's why Brooklyn has a population density of 36,000 and San Francisco has a population density of 17,000.
Even if we assumed that San Francisco was just 10 sq. miles of high-density, that doesn't bode well for your vibrancy argument. That just means you have about 10 sq. miles of vibrancy whereas Brooklyn has about 50 to 60. Either way, SF loses BIG TIME in that department.
Well true about NYC overall. Everybody bows down before gotham, but there are many many metrics that those stand alone cities win handily. Desireability being one for SF.
well on desireability SF 805K, BK 2.5 million. Again select nabes by select nabes ok, overall, no
well on desireability SF 805K, BK 2.5 million. Again select nabes by select nabes ok, overall, no
Hey kidphilly, you're better at tracking down data than I am. If we just looked at Brooklyn's "core," what would the square mileage, population, and population density be? Its "core" population alone would definitely exceed that of San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond combined, right?
Hey kidphilly, you're better at tracking down data than I am. If we just looked at Brooklyn's "core," what would the square mileage, population, and population density be? Its "core" population alone would definitely exceed that of San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond combined, right?
At 2.5 million in 70 sq miles this isnt even a question. SF extending cant get past 1.6 million in 140 sq miles
No other area can match the magnitude of Queens let alone BK
15-20K neighborhoods: 24
SF 20K neighborhoods: 18
SF 30K neighborhoods: 11
SF 40K neighborhoods: 1
SF 50K neighborhoods: 2
SF 60K neighborhoods: 1
SF 70K: neighborhoods: 1
Total: 58
Where Brooklyn noticeably wallops San Francisco is in the 30-40K bracket, while SF has a lot more neighborhoods in the 15-30K bracket. Interestingly, Brooklyn and SF nearly equalize at the top of the chart; Brooklyn has six neighborhoods above 50 K and SF has four.
While I did not post data for neighborhoods below 15K, I did notice that Brooklyn has far fewer of those than SF does. It's interesting because conventional wisdom would lead one to believe that a city as constrained by geography and by borders as SF would have developed all of its urban landscape... in reality, about 20 sq miles of it is fairly "suburban" (density-wise). It'll be interesting to see whether any of it becomes more urbanized in the next couple of years/decades.
Last edited by Nineties Flava; 12-04-2011 at 12:09 PM..
Brooklyn's high-density neighborhoods are denser than San Francisco's high-density neighborhoods. And Brooklyn's low-density neighborhoods are denser than San Francisco's low-density neighborhoods. That's why Brooklyn has a population density of 36,000 and San Francisco has a population density of 17,000.
Even if we assumed that San Francisco was just 10 sq. miles of high-density, that doesn't bode well for your vibrancy argument. That just means you have about 10 sq. miles of vibrancy whereas Brooklyn has about 50 to 60. Either way, SF loses BIG TIME in that department.
The whole point of collecting the data was to prove that SF does in fact have a core. None of the data factors tourists into the equation, which everybody knows increases the daily foot-traffic by a considerable amount throughout the city.
And your first statement is incorrect... Brooklyn has more high density neighborhoods than San Francisco, but SF's highest are actually higher than Brooklyn's highest. The second statement is absolutely correct though (that Brooklyn's low density are higher density than SF's). That begs the question though that with 23.3 of the 46.87 sq miles of SF being sub-10K, how does its O/A density still manage to be above 16,000? That's because the rest of SF is in fact extremely urban. As urban as BK over as wide of an area? No. There factually is a large part of SF as dense as BK though, which invalidates the arguments of those who claim there is nothing in SF as urban as BK.
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.
