How can anyone argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco? (live, state)
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 sorry, but SF can't win this because SF MSA is smaller than Philadelphia MSA. Philadelphia's population is larger than San Francisco. That's the bottom line for mature adults here.
Yes, I have experienced this in Philadelphia and its great, but I wouldnt place the level of vibrancy there above San Francisco-not overall.
But that's me. I respect your opinion.
Philadelphia has a british colonial flair in parts of its urban core-this is evidenced by its architecture and narrow streets but that's not really more or less European than the decidedly Mediterrenean flair that San Francisco definitely exudes from its temperate climate to its sweeping water vistas and even some of the architecture beckons to Europe.
I will concede the influence of college students, Philadelphia has more in its downtown.
But I think that's offset by the fact that DT SF draws in more folks who come to shop and spend the day in the City than DT Philadelphia does. At least that's my perception.
On vibrancy, I think they are different enough that they are hard to compare. Either way they are close, to argue one more than the other on this is a little bit of splitting hairs. And more, I am not sure I would say more overall, but i wouldnt really say less either. Both are among the best in the country for urban vibrance. SF is more refined and Philly is a little more raw, yet SF is a little more liberal where Philly is more conservative (though both are liberal leaning by far relative to the rest of the country in general). There are aspects where both excel a little more. SF to your point is more a shopping destination, Philly has more energy from different elements, like sports (which SF is actually very good for a west coast city but not the same, sorry to SF sports fans). Both have great restaurant scenes, good bars/clubs, cultural activities, great public spaces etc.
My comments on vibrancy were more from a response to someone suggesting that there is some significant difference or level SF achieves not available in Philly from this perspective, of which i would disagree. To me there are far to few cities in the US that can achieve great urban vibrancy and these are tow of the best examples; both to me are top 4 in the country (ranked per the individual and to me to much arguement about a rank order is too personal to be quantified)
Also on the European feel, yes I can see the Southern eurpopean idea though some to me feels more superficial in the dramtic scenery (weather a bit because the Bay is far cooler than most of the Med that actually has summer more similar to philly). Also on the brit colonial aspect yes, and there is still some waspy aspects in Philly (especially old gaurd clubs like the Union League, Philsophiacal Society, and even the Racquetclub. But In some ways Philly feels like it has more cultural influence from the Med, especially the italian influence; though would say more pronounced mezzgiorno (which fits its more raw flavor). i am an oddity and not in Philly, I am half Italian and half Irish in decent (not a surprise here at all) but my italian heritage is tuscon, not typical here.
SF is alo interesting in that it may have blended influences better than most in the US, yes some Med, even some pronounced Italian influence, with obvious Asian and a bit of the Californian spanish influence from spanish speaking central america. SF is harder to peg as a specific to me, which is cool in its own way.
One thing different is that SF is very much CA, and portrays urban California, Philly is most def old gaurd NE urban, NYC and Philly (Boston to a slightly lessor extent) exude this in ways that no other cities do, warts and all.
In many ways I have always thought SF is the only city that almost feels like it could be on the East coast, if you can get past the way it looks, there are more similarities than differences to me; especially relative to 95% of the rest of the US. Which to me actually speaks to its urbanity and vibrancy. It functions more like an East Coast than any other on the West Coast (maybe even Chicago for that matter)
The arguments seem to be trending now on which city is more upscale, not which is more urban.
I'm personally done with arguing on this thread but vibrant does not = upscale... The Mission for example is not upscale but it's vibrant. Chinatown is not upscale but it's vibrant. Fruitvale in Oakland is not upscale but it's vibrant. etc.
The arguments seem to be trending now on which city is more upscale, not which is more urban.
Agree that was a diferction, on that SF is more up scale overall, though even on that they are closer than perceptions would demonstrate. SF is overblown in this regard (in real life a good thing to me) and Philly is underblown. But the Bay is more up scale feeling.
The arguments seem to be trending now on which city is more upscale and ritzy, not which is more urban.
No, but as I stated 15 pages ago to BajanYankee, who cares about crowded ghettos, show me urban areas that people actually want to spend time in and enjoy themselves.
I posed a question also about 15 pages ago, for a neighborhood in Philadephia or Environs 12-15 miles from Downtown that had 10,000+ppsm and is considered desirable.
I was trying to find an equivalent to Oakland's Adams Point, Lakeshore and Grand Lake Areas.
That request was received with all sorts of responses about how that's not the definition of urban but it totally proved my point.
That we have nicer densely populated neighborhoods over a much wider area.
Whereas in Philly, it seems all the nice urban areas are quarantined to the immediate Downtown areas and I get the impression that a person from Rittenhouse Square probably wouldnt be caught dead in many parts of urban Philadelphia outside of their relatively small chic area.
No, but as I stated 15 pages ago to BajanYankee, who cares about crowded ghettos, show me urban areas that people actually want to spend time in and enjoy themselves.
I posed a question also about 15 pages ago, for a neighborhood in Philadephia or Environs 12-15 miles from Downtown that had 10,000+ppsm and is considered desirable.
I was trying to find an equivalent to Oakland's Adams Point, Lakeshore and Grand Lake Areas.
That request was received with all sorts of responses about how that's not the definition of urban but it totally proved my point.
That we have nicer densely populated neighborhoods over a much wider area.
Whereas in Philly, it seems all the nice urban areas are quarantined to the immediate Downtown areas and I get the impression that a person from Rittenhouse Square probably wouldnt be caught dead in many parts of urban Philadelphia outside of their relatively small chic area.
there is some truth to this but not in totality. i did show you examples in the metro as far as 25 miles away from the core that are 10K+ density and highly desireable. There are also many areas that are about 8K ppsm with exceptional rail access (to CC, and yes in these areas wealthy people use transit) and walkable vibrant DTs. There are also tremendous little town pockets that are highly desireable that dot the metro. The bay and the EC are different in this way. Philly is by far more of middle class city than is SF. But remember that about 500-600K people in Philly live in highly desireable urban areas, not insignificant by any means. Philly absolutely has larger areas of less desireable ares within the city compared to SF. there is more wealth overall in close in burbs to philly like the main line or Haddonfield NJ as an example. Haddonfield in isolation is a 12 minute subway ride to a a station one block from Rittenhouse and offers fairly dense living in an area that looks straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting. There are positives to both though on urbanity to me a place like Haddonfiled, which is very desirable for example is not urban in the truest form, as to me are some areas in the bay that actually meet the 10K pppsm. We can get into semantics on a lot of this but on the whole I would disagree on your premis in many ways. Many of the desireable areas you noted on the East bay do feel a notch below what to me it truly urban, though great areas and very desireable, that dont really feel like a true "city" per se. Even Berkeley to me feels a little hybrid. That doesnt mean bad, these areas are very pleasant and offer a temedous lifestyle that many prefer.
Also because of the Bay itself the construct and development pattern in the Bay make it a bit of apples to oranges. Philly radiates in all directions so most is concetrated (though there are places like Wilmington/Trenton etc that have highly desireble urban neighborhoods further away) wheras the bay has linear development that aligns the Bay itself. Part of this is a great asset to the bay as even in these areas you can be basically undeveloped areas in a matter of minutes and while the linear aspect extends. It feels in places a mile long and an inch deep if that makes sense, not the same feeling you get in Philly from that perspective.
The majority of what you find 12-15 miles from Center City consists of desirable, high density suburbs. Manayunk is in the city, Conshahocken and Norristown are dense and nice. King of Prussia confirms how much wealth there is concentrated in that area. Wayne is a very idyllic town. Cherry Hill, NJ almost certainly qualifies as a good example, and it's dense, too. Actually anything along PATCO except for Camden probably qualifies as a good example, as do all the towns along the Main Line. Lots and lots of wealth and nice main streets and density. This 'Philly is compact, rich city center surrounded entirely by the hood' is akin to saying SF is just a city full of Chinese people and gays plus a few liberal Democrats who run the whole show, and Oakland is the dump where all the poor people have to live. Does that sound accurate because if not, consider how the Philly=Ghetto argument is sounding to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
No, but as I stated 15 pages ago to BajanYankee, who cares about crowded ghettos, show me urban areas that people actually want to spend time in and enjoy themselves.
I posed a question also about 15 pages ago, for a neighborhood in Philadephia or Environs 12-15 miles from Downtown that had 10,000+ppsm and is considered desirable.
I was trying to find an equivalent to Oakland's Adams Point, Lakeshore and Grand Lake Areas.
That request was received with all sorts of responses about how that's not the definition of urban but it totally proved my point.
That we have nicer densely populated neighborhoods over a much wider area.
Whereas in Philly, it seems all the nice urban areas are quarantined to the immediate Downtown areas and I get the impression that a person from Rittenhouse Square probably wouldnt be caught dead in many parts of urban Philadelphia outside of their relatively small chic area.
Last edited by Dub King; 08-14-2011 at 01:18 PM..
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.
