How can anyone argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco? (safe, Phoenix)

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

No slight at you--it was for the benefit of out of towners who might not be aware.

After doing a littlemore digging, I think Ive come up with all of Oakland and Berkeley's connected 10,000+ persons per square mile neighborhoods.

Oak Tree Neighborhood, Oakland 34,447 persons per square mile
Telegraph Ave neighborhood, Berkeley 28,188 persons per square mile
Adams Point Neighborhood, Oakland 26,632 persons per square mile
Clinton Neighborhood, Oakland 25,677 persons per square mile
Ivy Hill Neighborhood, Oakland 22,866 persons per square mile
St Elizabeth Neighborhood, Oakland 21,327 persons per square mile
Merritt Neighborhood, Oakland 19,957 persons per square mile
Harrington Neighborhood, Oakland 19,951 persons per square mile
Patten Neighborhood, Oakland 19,950 persons per square mile
Highland Terrace Neighborhood, Oakland 18,625 persons per square mile
Allendale Neighborhood, Oakland 18,880 persons per square mile
Seminary Neighborhood, Oakland 17,899 persons per square mile(17.6 miles from Downtown SF)
Tuxedo Neighborhood, Oakland 17,502 persons per square mile
Rancho San Antonio Neighborhood, Oakland 17,290 persons per square mile
School Neighborhood, Oakland, CA 16,916 persons per square mile
Hawthorne Neighborhood, Oakland 16,752 persons per square mile
Meadow Brook Neighborhood, Oakland 16,772 persons per square mile
Grand Lake Neighborhood, Oakland 16,716 persons per square mile
Bella Vista Neighborhood, Oakland 16,713 persons per square mile
Chinatown Neighborhood, Oakland 16,554 persons per square mile
Southside Neighborhood, Berkeley 16,438 persons per square mile
Oakland Ave/Harrison St Neighborhood, Oakland 15,980 persons per square miles
Sausal Creek Neighborhood, Oakalnd 15,138 persons per square mile
Peralta Hacienda Neighborhood, Oakland 14,811 persons per square mile
Jefferson Neighborhood, Oakland 14,807 persons per square mile
Wentworth-Holland Neighborhood, Oakland 14,794 persons per square mile
Elmwood Neighborhood, Berkeley 14,603 persons per square mile
College Avenue Neighborhood, Berkeley 14,125 persons per square mile
Upper Peralta Creek Neighborhood, Oakland 13,959 persons per square mile
East Peralta Neighborhood, Oakland 13,948 persons per square mile
Highland Park Neighborhood, Oakland 13,705 persons per square mile
Gourmet Ghetto Neighborhood, Berkeley 13,494 persons per square mile
Cleveland Heights Neighborhood, Oakland 13,354 persons per square mile
Fairfax Neighborhood, Oakland 12,993 persons per square mile
Civic Center Neighborhood, Oakland, 12,856 persons per square mile
North Neighborhood, Berkeley 12,815 persons per square mile
Gaskill Neighborhood, Oakland 12,276 persons per square mile
Paradise Park neighborhood, Oakland 11,886 persons per square mile
Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood, Oakland 11,798 persons per square mile
South Berkeley neighborhood, Berkeley 11,749 persons per square mile
Central Berkeley Neighborhood, Berkeley 11,280 persons per square mile
Fairview Park Neighborhood, Oakland 11,213 persons per square mile
Santa Fe Neighborhood, Oakland 11,132 persons per square mile
Upper Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 11,117 persons per square mile
Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 10,973 persons per square mile
Longfellow Neighborhood, Oakland 10,896 persons per square mile
Bushrod Neighborhood, Oakland 10,810 persons per square mile
Lakeshore Neighborhood, Oakland 10,736 persons per square mile
Upper Dimond Neighborhood, Oakland 10,626 persons per square mile

Not bad at all.

Merritt neighborhood? Is that the area around Lake Merritt? I had a friend who used to live over there and rode the "casual" car pool as you guys call it. This is close to where she lived.

oakland california - Google Maps

If its population density is really that high, then it is deceptively so. I guess I can see it having a high population density with all of the apartment buildings, but I would have never guessed it was near 20,000. If Oakland has that many neighborhoods with a population density exceeding 10,000, it must have a whole lot of significantly less dense neighborhoods because the number for the entire city is around 7,000, right?

At this point, I'm not sure that higher population density always equates to a greater feeling of "urbanity." Crystal City, Virginia definitely has a higher density than my neighborhood, but it certainly doesn't feel more urban. To answer the OP's question, one could easily make the argument that Philly's more urban than San Francisco due to the differences in streetscape. Philly, imo, feels more urban than Chicago for this reason, even though the Chi is a much larger city.

I hate to post a music video, but this is the only video footage I know of that provides a good view of a regular Germantown neighborhood.


‪Eve - Satisfaction‬‏ - YouTube

Same for North Philly.


‪Jill Scott "Gettin' In The Way"‬‏ - YouTube

Based on the above, it wouldn't be foolish to have the impression that Philadelphia is the more urban city.

[jade408]

Oakland has a lot of green space: 100 parks over 2500 acres. Some of those less dense areas are actually forests.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by jade408

Oakland has a lot of green space: 100 parks over 2500 acres. Some of those less dense areas are actually forests.

Understood, but all cities have parks, Oakland overall doesnt feel as consistently urban as eithe SF or Philly for that matter; though my knowledge is just ok on Oakland. But to me feels urban in some spots and not in others.

Just for perspective on the parks Philly has a little bit higher desnity of parks at ~10,000 acres over 135 sq miles vs 2,500 over 55 sq miles.

[rah]

Oakland does have lots of green space, large wealthy neighborhoods up in the hills which are not very dense, as well other neighborhoods that are sub-10,000 pp/sq. mile, in addition to an airport, large industrial areas, and a large seaport, all within its city limits...combine those with the denser neighborhoods, and you get the city's overall population density.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by rah

Oakland does have lots of green space, large wealthy neighborhoods up in the hills which are not very dense, as well other neighborhoods that are sub-10,000 pp/sq. mile, in addition to an airport, large industrial areas, and a large seaport, all within its city limits...combine those with the denser neighborhoods, and you get the city's overall population density.

Most of what you describe is also in Philly, a larger port, larger airport (and a second airport), large industrial areas and even leafy neighborhoods with hills in the Northwest Section (though not as dramtic as the bay area) but combined with SF etc there are many similarities to Philly overall as the larger footprint.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Merritt neighborhood? Is that the area around Lake Merritt?

The Merritt Neighborhood refers to the areas outlined in this map:

And as far as this whole 'deceptively dense' talk, either it is a certain density or it isnt-there is no secret campaign to fool people from the East Coast.

If Oakland has that many neighborhoods with a population density exceeding 10,000, it must have a whole lot of significantly less dense neighborhoods because the number for the entire city is around 7,000, right?

Oakland has steep hillsides and regional parkland and industrial areas that cannot be built on, but the point is, I can drive 17 miles from Downtown SF and find a neighborhood with 17,899 persons per square mile that is part of a huge swath of neighborhoods with a density of 10,000 or more.

To answer the OP's question, one could easily make the argument that Philly's more urban than San Francisco due to the differences in streetscape.

If your trying to claim greater differences in streetscape based on those 2 videos, then you would be wrong because the East Bay by itself is more varied than that.

Furthermore, I would love to see some upscale dense areas of 10,000+ppsm outside of Philadelphia proper.

[rah]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Most of what you describe is also in Philly, a larger port, larger airport (and a second airport), large industrial areas and even leafy neighborhoods with hills in the Northwest Section (though not as dramtic as the bay area) but combined with SF etc there are many similarities to Philly overall as the larger footprint.

I never said those didn't exist in Philly...I never mentioned Philly at all. I just explained why Oakland's population density is what it is.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by rah

I never said those didn't exist in Philly...I never mentioned Philly at all. I just explained why Oakland's population density is what it is.

Its obvious that many people are unaware of how dense the Oakland-Berkeley area is.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The Merritt Neighborhood refers to the areas outlined in this map:

And as far as this whole 'deceptively dense' talk, either it is a certain density or it isnt-there is no secret campaign to fool people from the East Coast.


Oakland has steep hillsides and regional parkland and industrial areas that cannot be built on, but the point is, I can drive 17 miles from Downtown SF and find a neighborhood with 17,899 persons per square mile that is part of a huge swath of neighborhoods with a density of 10,000 or more.


If your trying to claim greater differences in streetscape based on those 2 videos, then you would be wrong because the East Bay by itself is more varied than that.

Furthermore, I would love to see some upscale dense areas of 10,000+ppsm outside of Philadelphia proper.

Well two things; first isnt Oakland in the comparative footprint to Philly you did? So the upcale areas in Philly itself would be in the same footprint so to speak. Beyond that there are tracts on the mainline that would meet your criteria along the route 30 (lancaster pike corrider) as well as areas in NJ (likely even tracts in Wilmington etc.) and places like Jenkintown etc that would fit your criteria. Not at the zip or township level for these as they have concentrations sorrounded by larger single family homes.

And on the 17 miles does that include the Bridge and Bay?

But hooray for you, I assume you are suggesting that the Philly area has no urban and "upscale" areas if i understand your point...

Lets all take a moment and bow down to the great bay area and the "upscale" environment it is... I am sure all of Oakland or even SF for that matter is a utopian upscale dream

But in short, yes they do exist Montclair, and in more than one area. Some people are unaware that upscale and urban places can exist outside the bay area.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Its obvious that many people are unaware of how dense the Oakland-Berkeley area is.

7k and 10K based on my understanding