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.
Question for you Montclair - Do you believe the Urban city footprint of the bay is larger than Philly? You keep going bak to the 10 miles away - within that distance yes there are urban areas that are affluent and under demand. The Philly footprint is poorer in general but offers both.
Here is an example of a neighborhood along the Main Line - highly desireable but yet a notch down on urbanity, from my perspective the burbs (but there a string of tracts at a little above/below 10K along here that stretch for nearly 10 miles from the Philly Border, then also give way to 3-4K areas)
the bay has the string around the Bay - over a long distance but does not expand out in a uniform fashion. The urbanity in Philly can be experienced in basically any directions for 100s of blocks in any direction. I imagine you understand the distinction.
In the Bay you are mostly a few minute drive to an area well out of the urbanity (not always a bad thing at all but the composition is so different) What happens to said urbanity 8 miles South of DT SF - no water but it yields to less urban developement much quicker. Or head north, the other side of the GGB is not urban at all (though beautiful). Or head east off the SFB Bridge - the same. The linear aspect in SF is dense and over long distance but no very wide on the East bay side.
I will also agree that the burbs in general are more dense in CA - but are burbs really urban or a city per se
I don't see how "desirability" is relevant. The question was "How can anyone argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco." It wasn't "Does Philly have as many upscale densely populated neighborhoos as San Francisco." An urban area is an urban area whether it's poor, rich, or in between.
An urban area is an urban area whether it's poor, rich, or in between.
Well, this is true, but I believe that economically vibrant neighborhoods that are dense and have good reputations and lots of things to do are better than dense neighborhoods that are problematic, sketchy and have very few amenities.
Now I come from Oakland so its not like Im in a position to preach to Philadelphia cause we have a laundry list of issues oursleves(obviously).
But I do find it interesting that we still have so many dense neighborhoods so far away from the City that are desirable and havent succomb to crime and poverty and they dont suffer from a darth of amenities.
I can go on but am not sure the point
You still haven't really answered the ? though Montclair - Do you believe SF ro be more urban and covering a larger urban footprint?
Last edited by kidphilly; 08-01-2011 at 12:04 PM..
Show me a desirable neighborhood 15+ miles from Downtown that has 10,000+ppsm?
Eithe it exists or it doesnt. In the meantime, Im still looking--there are very nice areas btw, but none meet both criteria(thusfar).
Yes, but 15 miles is 15 miles and the water argument is moot because land to land, Oakland to SF is a scant 2-3 miles at its closest.
You're really grasping for straws here.
Oakland, California, which has a land mass larger than San Francisco, has a population density of only 7,000 ppl per sq. mile. That's about the same as Hartford, Connecticut. New Haven is about the same. Bridgeport, CT is actually denser. Teaneck, NJ is about the same density as Oakland. Woonsocket, RI is not much less dense than Oakland.
What is supposed to be one of the most urban parts of the Bay Area is not even denser than many New Jersey suburbs. And we're talking about an "urban" area that is actually physically bigger than the anchor city of the entire Metro area. Honestly, we should be comparing Oakland to Hackensack, NJ before comparing it to almost any part of Philadelphia.
We see how much Density is left after the Big one , seeing that Cali skirts around Building codes....half the city and Density will collapse....
Seriously Nexis that is not right. I really think none wish ill will on SF or CA and more banterish; not ill wishing. Frankly I think SF is one of my favorite places in the country.
Well, this is true, but I believe that economically vibrant neighborhoods that are dense and have good reputations and lots of things to do are better than dense neighborhoods that are problematic, sketchy and have very few amenities.
Now I come from Oakland so its not like Im in a position to preach to Philadelphia cause we have a laundry list of issues oursleves(obviously).
But I do find it interesting that we still have so many dense neighborhoods so far away from the City that are desirable and havent succomb to crime and poverty and they dont suffer from a darth of amenities.
You're missing the point. Middle-class people are more likely to live in the suburbs than they are in the city, period. This is true for the Philadelphia region as well. However, Philadelphia has a much larger number and percentage of middle-class families than San Francisco and Oakland. In the Bay Area, the middle-class is out in places like Richmond and Vallejo. In Philly, the middle class is in the city in neighborhoods like Roxborough and East Falls. So we have the very affluent (Chestnut Hill/W. Mount Airy, Overbrook Park), the Yuppie affluent (Center City/Manayunk/University City), the solidly middle class (Roxborough/E. Mount Airy/East Falls, Wynnefield), the working middle-class (Overbrook, Oak Lane, Tacony, Far Northeast, Cobbs Creek, Cedarbrook), and the indigent (Badlands, Nicetown, Grays Ferry, Mantua) all in urban areas within the same jurisdiction.
Imo, this makes the city a more interesting mix than SF. In San Francisco, you have the ultra-leftist, Stanford sweatshirt while jogging-wearing yuppie, poor blacks, poor Hispanics, and a historically entrenched Asian population that's feeling the squeeze of gentrification. Oakland, from what I've noticed is similar, though not as bad as San Francisco. You can just look at the rents and home prices there and tell that the average family is trucking it out to the Outer Bay.
You're missing the point. Middle-class people are more likely to live in the suburbs than they are in the city, period. This is true for the Philadelphia region as well. However, Philadelphia has a much larger number and percentage of middle-class families than San Francisco and Oakland. In the Bay Area, the middle-class is out in places like Richmond and Vallejo. In Philly, the middle class is in the city in neighborhoods like Roxborough and East Falls. So we have the very affluent (Chestnut Hill/W. Mount Airy, Overbrook Park), the Yuppie affluent (Center City/Manayunk/University City), the solidly middle class (Roxborough/E. Mount Airy/East Falls, Wynnefield), the working middle-class (Overbrook, Oak Lane, Tacony, Far Northeast, Cobbs Creek, Cedarbrook), and the indigent (Badlands, Nicetown, Grays Ferry, Mantua) all in urban areas within the same jurisdiction.
Imo, this makes the city a more interesting mix than SF. In San Francisco, you have the ultra-leftist, Stanford sweatshirt while jogging-wearing yuppie, poor blacks, poor Hispanics, and a historically entrenched Asian population that's feeling the squeeze of gentrification. Oakland, from what I've noticed is similar, though not as bad as San Francisco. You can just look at the rents and home prices there and tell that the average family is trucking it out to the Outer Bay.
Except you have this completely wrong. Oakland is NOT like that in any way shape or form.
Which is more urban...a rather odd question if your choices are San Francisco and Philadelphia. I mean, they're both quite urban compared to many other large US cities today (San Francisco is in my mind one of the few cities in cali that actually feels like a real, crowded, lively city). San Francisco has more going on right now in terms of its economy and culture, which lend it a sufficiently urban air. Philidelphia's a lot older, and its full of little neighborhoods crammed with classic brick row houses and warehouses and such. They're both of similar size, give or take a few hundred thousand people. I'd say phili, just because i've been both places and philidelphia felt slightly more 'urban' in a classical sense. But it really is splitting hairs, its not as clear-cut as arguing the urban-ness of say, New York and Los Angeles (though that's not really even an argument)
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.
