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.
Guess what, I agree too. I love SF and it is one of the few cities I'd pay my own good money to go spend time in. As I have done in the past. Great place to visit AND great place to live. Almost everybody knows that, and much of the reason is that it is such a dense, complete city with so much character and history. My own great-grandmother lived in SF before tragedy sent her back to Greece when she was a child.
Philly draws a similar amount of tourism as SF. More day visitors in Philly, but the annual spending is about identical for both. However this is a new phenomenon for Philly and progress is fitful. If the American Commerce Center were to be built, that alone would significantly improve Philly's 'urban credentials'.
By the way, many of those parking lots are going to disappear in the next few years. I take pictures for the biggest lot owner in the city and they specialize in multi-use high-rise developments. The city that rises out of it is going to amaze people. No doubt Philly has a specific urban vision, grid, public squares, narrow streets giving way to narrower alleys that are pedestrian-only. No billboards. A bar on every corner (which is both a blessing and a curse, depends on where you live). I sure do love cities.
The only category I'm going to tease about is baseball. Congrats about last year, SF. This year, Philly goes all the way.
Well I'm not sure what exactly you think you're proving here by not actually referencing anything that's "SF" for comparison, but since you're bringing this up it should be noted that Bruce Lee, Cung Le, Jake Shields, Andre Ward, Nonito Donaire, Gilbert Melendez, Cain Velasquez, Frank Shamrock, Jon Fitch and Jenna Castillo (just to name a few) are all either from the Bay Area or fighting out of here; some of the top MMA, Muay Thai and Sanshou gyms are in the Bay Area; tons of fighters from all over come out here to train at these gyms; and several world champions that currently hold titles are among the aforementioned.
I mean Rocky was cool and all, but y'all need more than that to get props here. (I'm playin lol.)
But for real though, there's some beasts coming out the Bay that I don't think you know about. I'm sure you may have heard of Andre Ward in the 2004 Olympics (maybe?), but he and Nonito Donaire (26-1, 18 KO) are both current world champions from here. Donaire is the current WBC and WBO Bantamweight World Champion, and is currently rated by "The Ring" as the number three pound-for-pound boxer in the world. He is also the former WBA Super Flyweight Interim World Champion, IBF World Flyweight Champion and IBO World Flyweight Champion.
Andre Ward (24-0, 13 KO) is the current WBA World Super Middleweight champion, he won the first American boxing gold medal in 8 years at the 2004 Olympics, and "The Ring" currently ranks him as the number nine pound-for-pound boxer in the world.
MMA is where its at nowadays though, and the Bay destroys Philly in that regard. Of the current ranking of the top ten best MMA fighters in the world right now, 6 are from the US and 3 of those are coming from the Bay - Cain Velasquez (current UFC Heavyweight Champion, 9-0 w/ 8 KO's), Jake Shields (26-5-1) and Jon Fitch (23-3). By contrast, the only one in this list from anywhere near your neck of the woods is Frankie Edgar (13-1-1) out of Toms River, NJ.
Several Strikeforce champs have come from the Bay as well and were among those listed earlier like Cung Le, Frank Shamrock, Eugene Jackson and Jake Shields (4 of the only 5 middleweights to hold the title at all), but also Nick Diaz (the only welterweight champ), Gilbert Melendez and Josh Thompson (2 of the 3 lightweights, and the 3rd was fighting out of SF for a while in the past too).
And even though she's from Sac its worth mentioning Miesha Tate, the current Strikeforce Women's Bantamweight Champion (and the current Freestyle Cage Fighting Women's Bantamweight Champion as well) who just won the title this past Friday. She's currently ranked the #4 pound-for-pound female MMA fighter in the world.
And then there's Cung Le, who's just a bada$$ plain and simple. Dude remains undefeated in professional Sanshou/Kickboxing (16-0), dominated the IKF and won championships in multiple weight classes before entering into K-1 competitions and going 3-0. Then he got into MMA and went 7-1 (all 7 were KO's), beat Frank Shamrock by breaking his arm, and remained undefeated in his pro career for ANY martial art until his one and only loss at age 37. And then 6 months later he avenged his one defeat by knocking dude out in the 2nd round. Cung Le is no joke, even now at age 39.
Man you can't see us in the female fighters department! Hahaha.
But you're right, the Bay Area really doesn't know the first thing about fighting.
LOL.
Oh and before you go and respond with an outdated list of Philly boxers or some videos of more of the same, I'm only making the point that the Bay Area has quite a lot that you are unaware of (I only scratched the surface really), and shutting down the "SF ???" claims you made lol. Not trying to even comment on one of our cities being "tougher" overall than the other, but just pointing out that we can hold our own better than you (or many people) probably think.
Guess what, I agree too. I love SF and it is one of the few cities I'd pay my own good money to go spend time in. As I have done in the past. Great place to visit AND great place to live. Almost everybody knows that, and much of the reason is that it is such a dense, complete city with so much character and history. My own great-grandmother lived in SF before tragedy sent her back to Greece when she was a child.
Philly draws a similar amount of tourism as SF. More day visitors in Philly, but the annual spending is about identical for both. However this is a new phenomenon for Philly and progress is fitful. If the American Commerce Center were to be built, that alone would significantly improve Philly's 'urban credentials'.
By the way, many of those parking lots are going to disappear in the next few years. I take pictures for the biggest lot owner in the city and they specialize in multi-use high-rise developments. The city that rises out of it is going to amaze people. No doubt Philly has a specific urban vision, grid, public squares, narrow streets giving way to narrower alleys that are pedestrian-only. No billboards. A bar on every corner (which is both a blessing and a curse, depends on where you live). I sure do love cities.
The only category I'm going to tease about is baseball. Congrats about last year, SF. This year, Philly goes all the way.
Thats awesome, when it fills in like you are describing thats always an improvement. And thats how it goes. Cities evolve and develop.
I tend to agree on the Phillies, but.....thats a lot of pressure, because if they dont win it, they will go down as one of the biggest under achievers of all time!
Thats all I said....
..its an experience thing, but Montclairs data backs it up.
And unless you "lived there" continuously, then you were just visiting too.
I concur. But who knows what the REAL story is since he tells it different every time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
And Again Slo I have lived in both and call complete BS on where SF nor Philly feels any bit dramatically different from one another. I know you visited a cousin in Philly. I lived in both and NYC (which blows either away on these aspects).
Hmmm...."calling complete BS" sounds like a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Well 18 months living there is not a lifetime (am guessing SIGNIFICANTLY more time than you have spent in Philly) in SF, a little less than the time I lived in NYC and much less than my time in either DC or Philly for that matter. But a lot longer than a week
On your experience, ok but as a comparator have you lived in NYC for at least 2 years, SF/Philly for at least 18 months? If not I I will argue my EXPERIENCE is far more substantial to make the comparison of Philly to SF, Philly to NYC, or SF to NYC.
7-24-2011 - My response to this:
Originally Posted by kidphilly And these numbers seem about right to me as someone who lived in both.
Actually I will completely disagree with these statements. And this is from someone who has lived in both cities
And this is your opinion, not mine - Have you lived in both? Either for that matter...
I have lived in both as well as DC and NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
You have mentioned this many times, but IIRC didn't you only STAY in SF for something like 2 weekends per month for 6 months, or something like that? I seem to remember you stating this originally, and I was under the impression that you did an extended stay deal for work, rather than paying rent and having your mail delivered to your own SF address, and living here day in and day out for any extended period of time.
Response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
About 9 months in the city 3-3.5 weeks per month and another 9 months in Burligame. Still am in SF 6-8 times a year
Hmmmm....okay. 18 months in a certain instance turns into 9 months in SF and 9 in Burlingame. That could work, sort of, except for the questionable "3-3.5 weeks per month" figure that alters it a bit. But no big.
But why was the answer in June of last year this then?
6-27-2010 - post #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Read my other post in regards to Transit. I still spend and used to basically live in SF one week a month for years, so YES I have.
I have lived in both Philly and DC and spent 4 years (a week per month in SF usually with two weekends thrown in). Personally I would disagree but am curious on why you think "way more exciting"
Tell me kidphilly, is "Complete BS" the name of a buddy of yours, or some service you call when you need to come up with a semi-believable sounding lie? Because this sure appears to be complete BS to me!
So which is it actually? "Basically" living here one week a month for "years" with some occasional weekends, or 2 stints of almost 9 complete months at a time, minus a few days or a week here and there? Because these are obviously not the same thing, so you're obviously full of crap one way or another!
I think the truth, along with the reason you're so shady/evasive when questioned about it, is that you were a frequent visitor for extended periods of time and have been overstating your experience here to no end this whole time. I imagine you never had your own SF address other than a hotel room, and you have been conveniently avoiding acknowledging this as you attempt time and again to act as though you have credibility when it comes to SF b/c you "lived here." Lol what a load of crap!
You have SOME level of familiarity with SOME aspects of SF/the Bay Area, but overall your perspective is pretty limited and your claims of having "lived here" are total BS. That much is definitely clear now.
Bet you didn't think I'd go back and look that up, did ya? If you didn't bring it up so ridiculously often, I never would have. SMH.
Second, you would be foolish to think or ever suggest that anywhere in San Francisco comes close to being as dense as anywhere in Harlem.
Think you're MAYBE being just a tad overdramatic?
There are places in Philly, Chicago, and tons of other US cities that this would be true of statistically as well. Why are you trippin? Lol. The numbers are the numbers, not lies made up to ruin Harlem's stock. Relax already. He never said that Chinatown and the TL were comparable to Harlem, he just pointed out the fact that their density was at that level. He did note that they were much smaller, ya know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's just a ridiculous assertion.
Sooooo what better way to follow it up than to try and outdo it with an even MORE ridiculous assertion of your own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
The whole entire city of New York (which includes the farms of Staten Island and the beaches of Queens) is denser than some of the densest neighborhoods in San Francisco, but yet you claim that San Francisco has denser neighborhoods than Manhattan's densest residential area. C'mon, man!
Right. Because SF's densest neighborhoods aren't anywhere over 25K per sq mi. Now you're just getting carried away lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
You guys really are delusional. All of your stats and figures have lost all credibility with that one statement.
Well that's a shame given the non-delusional rational response that you just gave here. I guess you're just looking for company in the "no-credibility zone" now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Scrutiny is one thing. Sour Grapes is another.
LOL
Why am I not surprised that you arent also picking out the tiny Philadelphia neighborhoods as well?
LOL seriously!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Projection. It's what's for dinner!
LMAO nice one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
YOU were the one who posted the data. I've said all along that statistics (as we all know) can be misleading. And now your boy, rah, is even arguing that the Tenderloin is denser than Harlem because, well, his data says so. I mean, San Francisco has denser and more urban neighborhoods than Harlem, so it's no wonder why little ol' Philadelphia doesn't have a fighting chance against that 47 sq. mile juggernaut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's nothing. Little Saigon in San Francisco, with its population density of 83,000 plus, makes Co-Op City look like Dunn, North Carolina!
You've already established that the Tenderloin is denser than Harlem, which in effect means the Tenderloin is the densest residential section of the United States.
Lol you're really hung up on this one, huh? Dude, just b/c it has a higher RATE of density does not mean the two areas are comparable in size or that anyone was claiming the TL covers an area anywhere near what Harlem does with density as widespread. You're making too much of this.
Please calm down and actually READ the data you are referencing before you "stick the knife in" anyone. Let me help you out. Per your links:
Harlem
Population (2008)
-Total 215, 753
-Density 55,735.7/sq mi (21,519.7/km sq)
Tenderloin
Population (2008)
-Total 25,067
(Here comes the tricky part. I'll write it as it is on the page but highlight where you erred.
-Density 27,681.2/km sq (71,694/sq mi)
See what happened there? Honest mistake, I know, but hilarious for its "foot-in-mouth" value considering how obnoxious you were attempting to be in your efforts to not let this one go. Those are the numbers, they are what they are. He was only stating fact in regards to the respective rates of each.
The fact that the TL is 1/10 Harlem's population kind of makes it easier to make happen. Its not really that big a deal though. No prize is awarded to the winner here.
Its kind of like if a city of 5,000 had 10 murders one year, boosting its rate to like 1,000 per capita. That wouldn't automatically make it more dangerous than Camden or Detroit in reality though, ya know. So let's just let this one go please. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
It's amazing the stupid stuff homerism makes people say.
First, Harlem is not really a neighborhood. Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville, Morningside Heights (gentrified Harlem) and Sugar Hill (as in the Wesley Snipes movie) are neighborhoods within Harlem. It's really a residential district that has its own distinct little neighborhoods. Second, you would be foolish to think or ever suggest that anywhere in San Francisco comes close to being as dense as anywhere in Harlem. That's just a ridiculous assertion.
Completely wrong. The 3 densest census tracts in the Tenderloin and Harlem are:
The whole entire city of New York (which includes the farms of Staten Island and the beaches of Queens) is denser than some of the densest neighborhoods in San Francisco
Wrong, SF's denses neighborhoods are more dense than NYC as a whole.
New York: 27,532 pp/sq. mile
SF hoods with 27,532+ pp/q. mile:
Tenderloin - 71,254
Chinatown - 61,897
Lower Nob Hill - 54,467
Nob Hill - 51,694
Downtown San Francisco - 49,335
Telegraph Hill - 38,513
Polk Gulch - 33,955
North Beach - 32,594
Hayes Valley - 31,619
Deco Ghetto - 31,220
Mission Dolores - 30,839
Alamo Square - 30,815
Lower Haight - 30,500
Western Addition - 27,822
The Mission District is also mostly denser than that, but it includes some industrial ares, bringing it down to 25,000 pp/sq. mile. Lots of other neighborhoods are just below the 27,000 mark too.
Quote:
yet you claim that San Francisco has denser neighborhoods than Manhattan's densest residential area.
It does: The Tenderloin and Chinatown (is Harlem actually Manhattan's densest area though?)
I concur. But who knows what the REAL story is since he tells it different every time?
Hmmm...."calling complete BS" sounds like a good idea.
7-24-2011 - My response to this:
Originally Posted by kidphilly And these numbers seem about right to me as someone who lived in both.
Actually I will completely disagree with these statements. And this is from someone who has lived in both cities
And this is your opinion, not mine - Have you lived in both? Either for that matter...
I have lived in both as well as DC and NYC
Response:
Hmmmm....okay. 18 months in a certain instance turns into 9 months in SF and 9 in Burlingame. That could work, sort of, except for the questionable "3-3.5 weeks per month" figure that alters it a bit. But no big.
But why was the answer in June of last year this then?
Tell me kidphilly, is "Complete BS" the name of a buddy of yours, or some service you call when you need to come up with a semi-believable sounding lie? Because this sure appears to be complete BS to me!
So which is it actually? "Basically" living here one week a month for "years" with some occasional weekends, or 2 stints of almost 9 complete months at a time, minus a few days or a week here and there? Because these are obviously not the same thing, so you're obviously full of crap one way or another!
I think the truth, along with the reason you're so shady/evasive when questioned about it, is that you were a frequent visitor for extended periods of time and have been overstating your experience here to no end this whole time. I imagine you never had your own SF address other than a hotel room, and you have been conveniently avoiding acknowledging this as you attempt time and again to act as though you have credibility when it comes to SF b/c you "lived here." Lol what a load of crap!
You have SOME level of familiarity with SOME aspects of SF/the Bay Area, but overall your perspective is pretty limited and your claims of having "lived here" are total BS. That much is definitely clear now.
Bet you didn't think I'd go back and look that up, did ya? If you didn't bring it up so ridiculously often, I never would have. SMH.
My own address, no. I spent many years consulting for a large Pharma Co in South SF. At its peak I did spend the better part of 18 months 9 in the city and 9 in Burlingame and over a longer period extended week or so stays. As far as an address, not sure how that matters really in that I was there for a specific reason and was not going to move; lived in corporate housing then in an effeciency. I have gone to bed and woken up probably 600-700 nights in the Bay, so if you can claim anything close to similar experience in both I would welcome the perspective; if not continue to post videos of also ran boxers.
I realize you guys do serious NY stroking but I didnt realize it was actually worship.
LOL no kidding! Its crazy how many feathers get ruffled when a simple comment regarding something outside the NE at all comparing to anything in NYC. The populace of the entire NE region place it on so high of a pedestal that they take direct offense to any such suggestion, as though one of us had taken their mother down a notch. Its both ridiculous and hilarious at the same time.
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.
(I'm playin lol.)
