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.
Not in the least. 18 Montclair never provides context for the data he presents. If density is the primary measure of how "urban" a city is (and it is a primary consideration, but in his book, "primary" must mean something like 95%), then a logical extension of that premise is that Little Saigon is more urban than Harlem. He backs away from that sequitur by basically saying, "I'm just saying...technically, those three blocks are denser than Harlem. I never said it was more urban than Harlem." Then what exactly is the point of him clubbing us over the head with all of his statistical data? The OP's question relates to "urbanity," not "density," doesn't it? If we wanted to know which city was denser, I'd go to Wikipedia, look it up, and then continue working on this memo I'm writing. Case closed.
Honestly, it's not the use of data I have problem with since data is obviously, well, useful. It's more the way he uses data and the conclusions he draws from it that I have a problem with. Comparing small tracts in San Francisco that statistically have higher densities than Harlem, but in reality do not look or feel nearly as urban as Harlem (and also failing to acknowledge that Harlem is not even a neighborhood...it's a district that has many neighborhoods that are considerably denser than the Tenderloin and Chinatown), is negligent at best and disingenuous at worst.
When he presents data, I think the first step has to be making sure we're comparing apples-to-apples. When you make a statement like, "There are several small neighborhoods in NYC that are denser than Harlem!" and then Sugar Hill is one of the neighborhoods in his data (which is in Harlem), it causes me to question his integrity more so than the integrity of the data.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 08-04-2011 at 08:49 AM..
BTW was watching the US version of the tourist and the opening scenes in the movie of Paris oddly made me laugh in their beauty on the earlier references to equating SF to Paris
I think we all agree the core areas are little more dense
Translation:
"I'm throwing in the towel since you clearly have presented data that proves your claim to be correct and shows that we are outdone in an area that I cannot spin in Philly's favor for once. Now I will mock your presentation of the data by acting as though you are the only one here who is self-congratulatory, while up until this point I have been secretly chanting, "Philadelphia, NYC, THE NORTHEAST!!" repeatedly for hours after every bit of data I have spun in Philly's favor.
Oh, and I'd better not forget to throw in a final passive-aggressive jab that is completely irrelevant to anything in this thread b/c otherwise I'll feel as though they won this round."
I think the argument is won on SF's behalf, but I don't think it's a blowout. Geography has quite a bit to do with it, Philly has more space. A more appropriate conclusion is that SF has greater residential population density in many parts of its urban core than Philly does.This decreased density in no way affects how urban Philly looks or feels, since it is way above the threshold needed to maintain a vital downtown. What is being ignored throughout this thread is that Philly has twice the actual city population, and it also has 90,000 more commuters coming in by rail every day than SF does. The effect of this is that Center City, as a downtown is larger and more 'urban' than San Francisco's downtown. That's what I originally though this thread was going to be about, not whether people can be packed into apartment buildings like sardines.
I fully agree, and think this thread has run its course. When peoples' feelings get hurt after data has been presented (as is obviously the case for some folks here ), then the discussion will no longer go anywhere good. I can't believe it has actually dragged out this far. Most people seem to be in agreement that Philly and SF are comparable in terms of urbanity, and the facts/merits of both cities have been presented sufficiently by now.
And lol @ your last line, I would have thought the same thing had I not known already going in. Your point about Center City's daytime population though is also true in SF's case. Not trying to open that can of worms tho, just sayin. Lol.
Not in the least. 18 Montclair never provides context for the data he presents. If density is the primary measure of how "urban" a city is (and it is a primary consideration, but in his book, "primary" must mean something like 95%), then a logical extension of that premise is that Little Saigon is more urban than Harlem. He backs away from that sequitur by basically saying, "I'm just saying...technically, those three blocks are denser than Harlem. I never said it was more urban than Harlem." Then what exactly is the point of him clubbing us over the head with all of his statistical data? The OP's question relates to "urbanity," not "density," doesn't it? If we wanted to know which city was denser, I'd go to Wikipedia, look it up, and then continue working on this memo I'm writing. Case closed.
Honestly, it's not the use of data I have problem with since data is obviously, well, useful. It's more the way he uses data and the conclusions he draws from it that I have a problem with. Comparing small tracts in San Francisco that statistically have higher densities than Harlem, but in reality do not look or feel nearly as urban as Harlem (and also failing to acknowledge that Harlem is not even a neighborhood...it's a district that has many neighborhoods that are considerably denser than the Tenderloin and Chinatown), is negligent at best and disingenuous at worst.
Density is only an indicator of an urban area. Someone else brought up Harlem. His last set of data was purely SF to Philly. Who cares about Harlem in context to this thread? The data showed clearly defined neighborhoods. I know you are bringing up density of neighborhoods to somehow show that it doesnt matter that much. And in a way, it is not the end all be all.
Between SF and Philly we are arguing minutia. Bringing up Harlem means nothing. Its not more urban than the Tenderloin, theres just more of it. Big difference.
Is this a joke? If there is one thing Philly beats SF at, hands down, it's ghettos and violence. We've got the murder stats right here in the city that invented graffiti. Our flash mobs are more brazen. http://www.pottsmerc.com/content/articles/2010/04/06/news/doc4bbb3174c776c6881408011.jpg (broken link)
Flash mobs lol? I guess haha.
Nah, I wasn't joking, nor was I saying that SF was worse than Philly in the crime-department. I was just spreading the word about the neighborhood that was being dismissed as nothing. Its something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub King
It's silly to describe SF as somehow isolated, transit-wise. I've successfully used CalTrain and BART. SF has a very cohesive transit system in place. Philly does not have an extensive subway system, just two lines. On the flip side, being a pure grid makes using the busses and trolleys, in conjunction with those two lines, very simple. PATCO is kind of a third line but it runs independently because it goes to Jersey. SEPTA Regional Rail is very extensive, no surprise there as Philly was the railroad capital of the world once upon a time. If I had to choose a way to commute, SEPTA regional would be a top choice, but I prefer no commute, no driving, so I live in Center City. I'm under no delusions though, the population of Center City is small compared to true urban cores. It's just that people can get in and out of Phillly so easily, you don't need a huge amount of people to actually live in a neighborhood in order for it to have nighttime foot traffic. South Street being the most obvious example.
I see. Well it really sounds like Philly's accessibility is one of it's greatest strengths.
I fully agree, and think this thread has run its course. When peoples' feelings get hurt after data has been presented (as is obviously the case for some folks here ), then the discussion will no longer go anywhere good. I can't believe it has actually dragged out this far. Most people seem to be in agreement that Philly and SF are comparable in terms of urbanity, and the facts/merits of both cities have been presented sufficiently by now.
And lol @ your last line, I would have thought the same thing had I not known already going in. Your point about Center City's daytime population though is also true in SF's case. Not trying to open that can of worms tho, just sayin. Lol.
Btw, I think it's funny that you're always accusing everyone else of "butthurtness" when you're the one usually jumping in the fray and talking more ish than just a lil' bit. Nineties Flava took the thread for a turn by posting pictures of San Francisco housing projects, which obviously did nothing to push the conversation forward. When 18Montclair felt he was losing ground, he resorted to challenging us to come up with areas located 18 miles from Center City that are affluent. Totally irrelevant. If somebody's "butthurt," it's you guys who go to the extreme to show us how "urban" you are. Housing projects and affluent neighborhoods 18 miles away from downtown? Posts with data that take up a whole page? Really? Who's really reaching here?
Any normal person could have answered the question by simply looking at Google maps. No multivariate regression analysis required.
Center City being larger than Downtown SF is questionable, seeing as they are both roughly 2 square miles in size. Center city being "more" urban is debatable too, seeing as downtown SF has almost the same amount of residents (around 70,000 vs. Center City's 88,000), higher population densities, and more highrises than Philly does, not to mention there are around 200,000 people coming into SF on a daily basis as well.
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.
Ah yes, no better way to own up to being caught BSing than to set up a brief strawman and then finish with an attempted snide comment that neither stings nor relates to anything more than a single post. Lol that's pathetic.
Now you have spent 600-700 nights here (Over two years now? Lol okay!) apparently not accounting for the discrepancy in your 4 years vs. 18 months and your one week per month vs your 3-3.5. LMAO WHATEVER! There's no reason to believe anything you say at this point, nor does it matter. All that matters is that it is a known fact that you are both in the habit of not telling the whole truth, and exaggerating your imaginary "residency" out here.
Center City being larger than Downtown SF is questionable, seeing as they are both roughly 2 square miles in size. Center city being "more" urban is debatable too, seeing as downtown SF has almost the same amount of residents (around 70,000 vs. Center City's 88,000), higher population densities, and more highrises than Philly does, not to mention there are around 200,000 people coming into SF on a daily basis as well.
There are basically three arguments circulating here:
1. San Francisco proper is denser than Philadelphia proper (sounds weird cuz nobody says "proper," just "Philly"). Therefore, San Francisco is more urban.
2. The Bay Area's "urban core" (whatever that means) is denser than Philly's urban core (or vice versa, depending on whose calculation we use). This is what most of the arguing has been about thus far.
3. Philly is a bigger city proper and has more contiguous urban areas over a greater distance than the Bay Area. Therefore, Philly is more urban because there is more "city" than there is to San Francisco.
So the answer to the question, "Which one is more urban?" can't really be answered. If you think San Francisco is more urban because it's densest census tract is denser than Philly's densest census tract, then that's your opinion. If you think Philly is more urban because of the greater continuity of its urban fabric, then that's your opinion. But one thing is clear: Point #3 provides a very valid basis for arguing that Philly is more urban than San Francisco.
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.
