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.
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.
No add it up, can you read or understand concepts. The timeframe of which I was spending time in the Bay was during an ~4 year period, at its peak I was there for more time (~3 weeks a month) for about 18 months of that time. No strawman at all
But again, do you have anywhere close to similar time in Philly for perspective? I see you never addressed that either...
And your personal attacks are both false and a bit cowardly honestly
And snide comments, have you ever looked in mirror?
What you have done is answer the thread's question yet again. Yes it can be argued. Now to the point of reductio ad absurdum.
I end up thinking the two cities are similar in enough ways that sweeping generalizations do them no justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
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.
One thing lost in the SF vs. Philly argument is that SF achieves peak density in a somewhat gritty part of town (Tenderloin), whereas Philly's peak density occurs in the nicest part of town (Rittenhouse Sq.) -- the effect of this is an abundance of fine restaurants, boutiques, etc. right in the city's center, and with a density that is reminiscent of Manhattan, at least for a few blocks square. In other words, the most vibrant parts of Philly are also the nicest and the densest, which is a good thing.
I agree that Rittenhouse Square is a lovely oasis of culture and refinement and Im no expert on Philadelphia's geography but I would like to respectfully point out that according to city-data, RS is actually the 8th most densely populated neighborhood in Philadelphia:
Neighborhood, Population/area in sq miles/pop density
Antique Row, 1,002/0.027/37,402
Gayborhood, 4,356/0.118/37,009
Powelton Village, 4,996/0.156/32,108
South Philadelphia, 22,053/0.702/31,414
Financial District, 1,913/0.063/30,274
Spruce Hill, 8,289/0.274/30,215
Rittenhouse, 19,917/0.665/29,938
Now many of these might all be connected, I dont know, but I just wanted to point that out.
Also, here are the SF Neighborhoods that are more densely populated than Rittenhouse Square: Neighborhood, Population/area in sq miles/pop density
Little Saigon, 985/0.012/83,075
Tenderloin, 24,913/ 0.350/ 71,254
Chinatown, 13,103/0.212/61,897
Lower Nob Hill, 18,713/0.344/54,467 Nob Hill, 20,396/0.395/51,694
Downtown San Francisco, 21,021/0.426/49,335 Telegraph Hill, 8,275/0.215/38,513 Mint Hill, 2,762/0.080/34,348
Polk Gulch, 3,195/0.094/33,955 North Beach, 20,193/0.620/32,594 The Hub(Mid Market), 2,684/0.085/31,633 Hayes Valley, 5,698/0.180/31,619 Deco Ghetto, 2,881/0.092/31,220
Mission Dolores, 10,846/0.352/30,839 Alamo Square, 5,573/0.181/30,815 Lower Haight, 9,074/0.298/30,500
Baja Noe, 2,106/0.069/30,334
The neighborhoods is red are affluent, upscale areas.
Those numbers only prove what a fallacy it is to use residential density as a measure of urbanity. Antique Row is quaint, like main street in a small town, distinctly not urban. Gayborhood is distinctly urban and hopping, with clubs, bars, etc. - and the Financial District is exactly what people think of when you say 'urban' - cabs, subways, street vendors, skyscrapers, homeless people, art galleries, you name it. Residential density has almost nothing to do with how urban each of those parts of Philly is, so I think we can put the ole Tenderloin argument to rest now. Harlem, too.
So really what you have done with this last observation is deflate the argument that a neighborhood's density translates directly to urbanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
I agree that Rittenhouse Square is a lovely oasis of culture and refinement and Im no expert on Philadelphia's geography but I would like to respectfully point out that according to city-data, RS is actually the 8th most densely populated neighborhood in Philadelphia:
Neighborhood, Population/area in sq miles/pop density
Antique Row, 1,002/0.027/37,402
Gayborhood, 4,356/0.118/37,009
Powelton Village, 4,996/0.156/32,108
South Philadelphia, 22,053/0.702/31,414
Financial District, 1,913/0.063/30,274
Spruce Hill, 8,289/0.274/30,215
Rittenhouse, 19,917/0.665/29,938
Now many of these might all be connected, I dont know, but I just wanted to point that out.
Also, here are the SF Neighborhoods that are more densely populated than Rittenhouse Square: Neighborhood, Population/area in sq miles/pop density
Little Saigon, 985/0.012/83,075
Tenderloin, 24,913/ 0.350/ 71,254
Chinatown, 13,103/0.212/61,897
Lower Nob Hill, 18,713/0.344/54,467 Nob Hill, 20,396/0.395/51,694
Downtown San Francisco, 21,021/0.426/49,335 Telegraph Hill, 8,275/0.215/38,513 Mint Hill, 2,762/0.080/34,348
Polk Gulch, 3,195/0.094/33,955 North Beach, 20,193/0.620/32,594 The Hub(Mid Market), 2,684/0.085/31,633 Hayes Valley, 5,698/0.180/31,619 Deco Ghetto, 2,881/0.092/31,220
Mission Dolores, 10,846/0.352/30,839 Alamo Square, 5,573/0.181/30,815 Lower Haight, 9,074/0.298/30,500
Baja Noe, 2,106/0.069/30,334
The neighborhoods is red are affluent, upscale areas.
I agree that Rittenhouse Square is a lovely oasis of culture and refinement and Im no expert on Philadelphia's geography but I would like to respectfully point out that according to city-data, RS is actually the 8th most densely populated neighborhood in Philadelphia:
Neighborhood, Population/area in sq miles/pop density
Antique Row, 1,002/0.027/37,402
Gayborhood, 4,356/0.118/37,009
Powelton Village, 4,996/0.156/32,108
South Philadelphia, 22,053/0.702/31,414
Financial District, 1,913/0.063/30,274
Spruce Hill, 8,289/0.274/30,215
Rittenhouse, 19,917/0.665/29,938
Now many of these might all be connected, I dont know, but I just wanted to point that out.
Also, here are the SF Neighborhoods that are more densely populated than Rittenhouse Square: Neighborhood, Population/area in sq miles/pop density
Little Saigon, 985/0.012/83,075
Tenderloin, 24,913/ 0.350/ 71,254
Chinatown, 13,103/0.212/61,897
Lower Nob Hill, 18,713/0.344/54,467 Nob Hill, 20,396/0.395/51,694 Downtown San Francisco, 21,021/0.426/49,335 Telegraph Hill, 8,275/0.215/38,513
Mint Hill, 2,762/0.080/34,348
Polk Gulch, 3,195/0.094/33,955 North Beach, 20,193/0.620/32,594
The Hub(Mid Market), 2,684/0.085/31,633 Hayes Valley, 5,698/0.180/31,619
Deco Ghetto, 2,881/0.092/31,220
Mission Dolores, 10,846/0.352/30,839 Alamo Square, 5,573/0.181/30,815
Lower Haight, 9,074/0.298/30,500
Baja Noe, 2,106/0.069/30,334
The neighborhoods is red are affluent, upscale areas.
Rittenhouse has areas of high density and low density because of the borders. Also note that this from 2000 and since then the population has grown by 24%. Including many new highrise condos/apartments (Liberty 2/Ritx/Murano/10 Rittenhouse/Pheonix/Symphony House) in the area.
The top tracts in Rittenhouse are at
55K ppsm
50K ppsm
47K ppsm
The lowest and also largest area wise representing ~25% of the whole neighborhood is at 4K ppsm as there was virtually no residential in the area right at city hall and west to 18th. This tract now actually includes the new Ritz residences, Phoenix and Liberty 2.
Directly next to Rittenhouse is zip 19107 which experienced the highest growth rate in the city since the last census pushing 30% as of 2000 the zip had a density of 46k ppsm (estimated with a nearly 30% increase it would be today at 59k ppsm) and a highly desireable neighborhood.
I am absolutely certain I am not the first person to post that link.
Montclair loves the high life, no doubt, so he often talks it up... Who cares? That doesn't mean you have to resort to childish generalizations of an entire population. Don't tell me you actually believe that an episode of a satirical cartoon is proof of anything?
If you wanna go that route, i guess i can say that all Philadelphians talk like they're mildly retarded...cuz, you know, Rocky.
I am absolutely certain I am not the first person to post that link.
Puhleeze.
It was you who introduced the concept of density in the nicest part of town, and now upon being reminded that SF has a lot of that as well, you go off the deep end?
And here I thought the conversation had turned civil. So much for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
LOL. Who gives a f*ck?
Most definitely YOU since you appear to be more emotionally invested in this debate than anyone else BY FAR, so incapable of containing your inability to accept reality, you seek the validation of others by creating an outlandish thread with the expressed purpose of humiliating SF--and that appears to be falling apart(that's what you get btw).
So to answer your question, go look in the mirror.
Those numbers only prove what a fallacy it is to use residential density as a measure of urbanity. Antique Row is quaint, like main street in a small town, distinctly not urban. Gayborhood is distinctly urban and hopping, with clubs, bars, etc. - and the Financial District is exactly what people think of when you say 'urban' - cabs, subways, street vendors, skyscrapers, homeless people, art galleries, you name it. Residential density has almost nothing to do with how urban each of those parts of Philly is, so I think we can put the ole Tenderloin to rest now. Harlem, too.
So really what you have done with this last observation is deflate the argument that a neighborhood's density translates directly to urbanity.
Here's the bottom line: Can we find an aparment building in Philadelphia that has 983 residents and call it a neighborhood? We can call it "Tougherloin."
Here's the bottom line: Can we find an aparment building in Philadelphia that has 983 residents and call it a neighborhood? We can call it "Tougherloin."
Here's the bottom line: Can we find an aparment building in Philadelphia that has 983 residents and call it a neighborhood? We can call it "Tougherloin."
The Tenderloin has over 25,000 residents - but, nice try.
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.
