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 don't find that more urban. Urban to me also means that there's extremely easy access to urban amenities... that looks like the middle of nowhere in an east coast city neighborhood.
According to google these are the main strips by front st:
That doesn't look vibrant or lively at all to me. San Francisco on the other hand has many lively strips and neighborhoods outside of the core. A neighborhood doesn't have to be well off to be lively either... the Philly examples just do not look lively at all. If by urban you mean "dense" then it still stands that SF is denser overall than Philly no matter how much you try to twist it with pointless arguments like "the core 47 miles of Philly are denser". And? San Francisco was not built with 100 miles of land in mind, it was built with 47. If it truly didn't feel as uniformly dense as Philly then it wouldn't be denser than Philly period. Point out the areas of SF that don't feel "dense" and I can just as easily point out areas of Philly that don't. And Philly obviously has a larger percentage of it that isn't as dense or otherwise it would be an O/A denser city.
I think you are missing the point, these areas are continuously developed out miles (not like your examples, these are the periphery) on your built out part, well there are more geogrpahic constraints and even with them the core 47 miles of Philly are neaqly 4K ppsm more dense than SF at the same sq mileage. Philly is a bigger city with a bigger footprint even with Oakland and Berkeley thrown in. SF feels urban, absolutely but it is not as large and makes it feel smaller and less urban, the bay has denser suburbs but the city part this is the city is and feels much smaller from an urban perspective
The same distance from the SF core yields this if you head south (relative to your Castor example), which personally i may find more attractive but on urbanity there is a clear difference. Also on the Tyson example, that is the Rosevelt mall area, one of the first malls in the country and an attempt at suburban development in a city, was a failure in my book but there is a lot about this and how they imploded the neighborhood to put a mall in off the boulevard in this specific location and retro-fitted with strip malls, not at all the norm in Philly but you are right in that it is a few blocks from the street i posted, which there literally 10's of thousnds of those blocks and streets with continous row homes. Streetview only goes so far and you now have stated that you have never been to philly which makes sense as to me one is much larger on the urban scale, and would make sense if you spent time in both. Same distance example in the SF area in the below link
Also on the comparionsos it is rather silly in isolation, include SJ or whatever on soze and wealth (of which it has ZERO to do with urbanity) but really... I grew up half my youth in very wealthy area of Bucks county (Bucks has a large area of very high wealth though lower bucks is more middle to working class), which borders Mercer (like 2 miles from wehere I grew up) or Hunterdon (3 miles the other direction; one the wealthiest counties of any population size in the US and wealthier than any in the whole Bay area) the notion of lack of wealth in the area around Philly is just flat out ill-informed.
Hunterdon County is part of the New York metro. Not Philly.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,295,036 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
Yeah, if you completely ignore the rest of Philadelphia. That's the ticket.
Facts are facts. Philadelphia has more people within the same square miles.
Quote:
And while you speak of transit, none of you have dared to say that overall Philly is a more vibrant and lively city than San Francisco, which is ultimately what most people are looking for when they look for urbanity. If all you care about when it comes to urbanity is living around a bunch of three story buildings without regard for what I mentioned then move to your city's warehouse district.
Really? I will say it with no problem. Philadelphia is a MORE VIBRANT and LIVELY city than San Francisco!
Hunterdon County is part of the New York metro. Not Philly.
Yes it is, people never cross the border from one to another. I would impagine that no one from hunterdon would ever consider going into New Hope for dinner or vice versa. These are the comments that show why census designation in certain areas are just flat out stupid. It would be like saying people from Waltham MA have no association or intraction with Watertown MA, or couldn't work off totten pond because they are different municipalities. Do you really think the census borders are some line of demarcation, they are purely lines on a map and in real life are no barrier to interaction, work, money flow, or people connectivity. I mean people actually walk from Bucks to Hunterton county for work and vice versa, maybe we should tell them not to, they are classified by the Census as different.
I think you are missing the point, these areas are continuously developed out miles (not like your examples, these are the periphery) on your built out part, well there are more geogrpahic constraints and even with them the core 47 mile sof Philly are neaqrly 4K ppsm more dense than SF at the same sq mileage. Philly is a biiger city with a bigger footprint even with POakland and berkely thrown in. SF feels urban, absolutely but it is not as large and makes it feel smaller and less urban, the bay has denser suburbs but the city part is and feels much smaller
The same distance from the SF core yields this if you head south to your Castor example, which personally i may find more attractive but on urbanity there is a clear difference. Also on the Tyson example, that is the Rosevelt mall, one of the first malls in the country and an attaempt at suburban development in a city, was a failure in my book but there is a lot about this and how they imploded the neighborhood to put a mall in off the boulevard in this specific location and retro-fitted with strip malls, not at all the norm in Philly but you are right in that it is a few blocks from the street i poster, which there literally 10's of thousnds of those blocks and streets with continous row homes. Streetview only goes so far and you how now stated that you have never been to philly which makes sense as to me one is much larger on the urban scale, and would make sense if you spent time in both. Same distance example in the SF area in the below link
I don't get why you bring up San Bruno in a discussion about Philly Vs. SF. Obviously the mile distance isn't going to work the same for SF as San Francisco is not the same size. Going to the outskirts of SF itself however yields this:
But anyway, I don't care about the footprint... I care about which city offers more. Both cities are obviously very dense so for me it comes down more to what's actually in the cities... vibrancy is also important. If density was the only metric then highrise housing projects should be some of the finest examples of urbanity in NYC as opposed to neighborhoods like the Upper West Side along Columbus/9th Ave... right?
Yeah, if you completely ignore the rest of Philadelphia. That's the ticket.
And while you speak of transit, none of you have dared to say that overall Philly is a more vibrant and lively city than San Francisco, which is ultimately what most people are looking for when they look for urbanity. If all you care about when it comes to urbanity is living around a bunch of three story buildings without regard for what I mentioned then move to your city's warehouse district.
Umm how so? seriously, you JUST stated you have never been, it is FACT that philly has more people in core 47 sq mile area than does SF, a 100% truth, and what parts exactly are ignored. Philly has more people, in 47, 100, 150, 200 sq miles, how does that ignore the rest of the city
I think Philly is as vibrant and lively as SF (Shocker i am sure, I will keep it quiet though so you can continue your delusion), and yes I DARE say that. I have lived in both. You have never been to Philly, correct? I am sure you are well situated to make the comparison. Out of the 4 cities I have lived, NYC is most urban and vibrant, Philly is second most urban and tied with SF on vibrancy, DC is 4th on both aspects. On vibancy I think it hard to clearly say one is more between Philly and SF both have elements where they are better in term of vibrancy but on the whole very very close.
I don't get why you bring up San Bruno in a discussion about Philly Vs. SF. Obviously the mile distance isn't going to work the same for SF as San Francisco is not the same size. Going to the outskirts of SF itself however yields this:
ehh for purposes of showing the continuous footprint differences, but whatever... You are basing your comparisons on experience in only one of the places so you have ZERO basis or qualification to make any comparisons at all on this.
To be honest Grapico that view in that pic looks pretty ugly LOL, however your point was made and the only 2 cities that even have a chance of giving NYC's urbanity a run for its money outside of Manhattan is Philly and Chicago IMO.
Chicago and Philly are nowhere in that equation because they would compete under a rubric of urbanity that is very much dominated by New York. The only real possible contender in actually equalling New York is Los Angeles, but that's because you would have an argument about the definition of urbanity.
Umm how so? seriously, you JUST stated you have never been, it is FACT that philly has more people in core area than does SF, a 100% truth, and what parts exactly are ignored. Philly has more people, in 47, 100, 150, 200 sq miles, how does that ignore the rest of the city
I think Philly is as vibrant and lively as SF (Shocker i am sure, I will keep it quiet though so you can continue your delusion), and yes I DARE say that. I have lived in both. You have never been to Philly, correct? I am sure you are well situated to make the comparison. Out of the 4 cities I have lived, NYC is most urban and vibrant, Philly is second most urban and tied with SF on vibrancy, DC is 4th on both aspects. On vibancy I think it hard to clearly say one is more between Philly and SF both have elements where there are better in term of vibrancy but on the whole very very close.
You're asking how so? Look at the actual total density of Philly. Something is dragging that number down... you tell me what it is if not the rest of Philly.
ehh for purposes of showing the continuous footprint differences, but whatever... You are basing your comparisons on experience in only one of the places so you have ZERO basis or qualification to make any comparisons at all on this.
You left out this part of the post you quoted:
Quote:
But anyway, I don't care about the footprint... I care about which city offers more. Both cities are obviously very dense so for me it comes down more to what's actually in the cities... vibrancy is also important. If density was the only metric then highrise housing projects should be some of the finest examples of urbanity in NYC as opposed to neighborhoods like the Upper West Side along Columbus/9th Ave... right?
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.
