How can anyone argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco? (state, better)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, not so fast there...



And so, in 2000, The Bay Area fit 7.1 Million people into 1,093 square miles of developed land which comes out to 6,495 persons per square mile.

If we only weigh total residential land usage(61% of 1,093 square miles) then the Bay Area fits 7.1 Million people into 667 sq miles and that equals 10,644 persons per square mile overall.




That was a jab....not being serous.

well nice stats but also a bit cherry picked, Shall i exclude the unihabited and or preserved land as well? I do agree that the burbs of the bay are more dense though, no argument here, especially on average. I also believe the city of Philly is more urban and more dense, and that i can also quantify, save a few sq blocks. If the question was whicg metro has denser burbs, i agree with you the bay would be the choice. on which city is urban, well frankly that just isnt the case.

Your stats suggest it is more dense than Chicago, which it isnt. I do actually in some ways prefer the development style today outside of the core in CA, it does utilize land resources better than much of the new development on the east coast.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

well nice stats but also a bit cherry picked, Shall i exclude the unihabited and or preserved land as well? I do agree that the burbs of the bay are more dense though, no argument here, especially on average. I also believe the city of Philly is more urban and more dense, and that i can also quantify, save a few sq blocks. If the question was whicg metro has denser burbs, i agree with you the bay would be the choice. on which city is urban, well frankly that just isnt the case.

Your stats suggest it is more dense than Chicago, which it isnt. I do actually in some ways prefer the development style today outside of the core in CA, it does utilize land resources better than much of the new development on the east coast.

thats only water, so like take out Delaware Bay and Major lakes. SF bay has Preserves too, ya know.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

And that only accentuates the fact that we are not talking about 2 areas that are very comparable.

I think its ironic that for the 50 or so posts in this thread focusing on San Francisco's 47 square miles, when we zoom out, it becomes clear, crystal clear, that the Bay Area is actually far larger and far denser, spreads out far more and is really at a different level.

honestly with a statement like that you are smoking something.

A couple of things, the burbs of the bay are denser (wow ur burbs are denser than mine)

the UA of a combined bay area is still smaller than the truncated Philly UA not to mention it is continuous and includes 30 million people etc.

Frankly I am really failing to see why burbs are really being discussed. Isnt this about things urban, not suburban

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

well nice stats but also a bit cherry picked, Shall i exclude the unihabited and or preserved land as well? I do agree that the burbs of the bay are more dense though, no argument here, especially on average. I also believe the city of Philly is more urban and more dense, and that i can also quantify, save a few sq blocks. If the question was whicg metro has denser burbs, i agree with you the bay would be the choice. on which city is urban, well frankly that just isnt the case.

Your stats suggest it is more dense than Chicago, which it isnt. I do actually in some ways prefer the development style today outside of the core in CA, it does utilize land resources better than much of the new development on the east coast.

Also, remember we arent talking a huge 'blob' but several different areas. So Im sure Philly's single mass is still larger than SFs single, uninterrupted mass-Im looking from a regional perspective.

About Chicago, its not inconceivable considering how dense all the Bay Area's urbanized areas compared to nearly everywhere else.

In any event, Im on data overload for what should be a lazy sunday. LOL.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

honestly with a statement like that you are smoking something.

A couple of things, the burbs of the bay are denser (wow ur burbs are denser than mine)

the UA of a combined bay area is still smaller than the truncated Philly UA not to mention it is continuous and includes 30 million people etc.

Frankly I am really failing to see why burbs are really being discussed. Isnt this about things urban, not suburban

I agree. That was just another knee jerk post. LOL.

I do however stand by my assertion that the Bay Area is more dense overall.

[18Montclair]

Furthermore, I was looking at inner Philly Areas and really like much of what I saw. TONS of potential.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Also, remember we arent talking a huge 'blob' but several different areas. So Im sure Philly's single mass is still larger than SFs single, uninterrupted mass-Im looking from a regional perspective.

About Chicago, its not inconceivable considering how dense all the Bay Area's urbanized areas compared to nearly everywhere else.

In any event, Im on data overload for what should be a lazy sunday. LOL.

but that is somewhat of the point, geography plays a significant role obviously, a blessing and a curse in some ways, though the dramatic scenery to me is mostly a plus for the bay. But also remember that even Philly with less geographic constraints has many blobs. I know u will say trenton isnt part of the Philly MSA (It is way closer than SJ though and still factors in the function and populous no matter how you slice it) but Trenton is like 13K ppsm, Wilmington in the city is way above ten, Norristown is very urban and dense. Reading is a small city. Allentown and Bethlehem are two cities etc (These same blobs exist and are within the same distances yet even without Philly still has the larger urban core). These other blobs (in SF and Philly) are outside the core and that doesnt even take into account the city blob after city blob that stratches from Philly to NYC. There is just flat more people here and more people living in an urban environment, bar none. Look I really do love the bay, a tremndous are to live, work, play, truly but it is far more isolated and far less cohesive in its urbanity. Back to the cores; SF and Philly are both excellent, regardless of which larger both are envied in terms of urbanity and the positive vibrancy it yields by all but maybe two or three other cities in the US. All the rest pissmantics

Edit: Yes too many knee jerk reactions and sadly I feel you are better (even if many times personally annoying as i am sure I am to many) than a lot of what your conjecture has been, and i am also guilty of similar tact.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

but that is somewhat of the point, geography plays a significant role obviously, a blessing and a curse in some ways, though the dramatic scenery to me is mostly a plus for the bay. But also remember that even Philly with less geographic cinstraints has many blobs. I know u will say trenton isnt part of the Philly MSA (It is way closer than SJ though and still factors in the function and populous no matter how you slice it) but Trenton is like 13K ppsm, Wilmington in the city is way above ten, Norristown is very urban and dense. Reading is a small city. Allentown and Bethlehem are two cities etc (These same blobs exist and are within the same distances yet even without Philly still has the larger urban core). These other blobs (in SF and Philly) are outside the core and that doesnt even take into account the city blob after city blob that stratches from Philly to NYC. There is just flat more people here and more people living in an urban environment, bar none. Look I really do love the bay, a tremndous are to live, work, play, truly but it is far more isolated and far less cohesive in its urbanity. Back to the cores; SF and Philly are both excellent, regardless of which larger both are envied in terms of urbanity and the positive vibrancy it yields by all but maybe two or three other cities in the US. All the rest pissmantics

Using that logic Harford Ct beats you al because through semi rural suburbs it conects to Springfield, Ma and New Haven ( I'm tAlking Philly to reading).

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

Using that logic Harford Ct beats you al because through semi rural suburbs it conects to Springfield, Ma and New Haven ( I'm tAlking Philly to reading).

Yep Hartford and Springfield are definately more urban, maybe, or maybe just better womans college hoops, not sure

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

great suburban markers - Didnt we establish that the burbs in SF are denser a long time show a map at 10K and maybe it would be interesting. Also i really dont see this difference you speak, especially when you dont show other areas or cherry pick maps from the Bay that are even further. In that case add in A/B, Reading, trenton etc but with 10K markers not this 5K crap u keep poting, right your laundry list of 10k neighborhoods.

I'll bite... I'll do the areas that Montclair didn't do yet. Some of the data might end up surprising you...

List of Bay Area cities in the peninsula/south bay that are 10K+ density besides SF:

East Palo Alto 10,779.1/sq mi
Daly City 13,194.5/sq mi
North Fair Oaks 12,239.2/sq mi
Alum Rock 12,316/sq mi

neighborhoods (all the ones I listed are at least .1 sq miles and don't overlap):


Alexander (San Jose) 13,0006/sq mi
Alma (San Jose) 10,678/sq mi
Anderson East (San Jose) 15,767/sq mi
Barbera-Stokes (San Jose) 11,018/sq mi
Berryessa Creek (San Jose) 10,095/sq mi
Beverly (San Jose) 11,198/sq mi
Bonita-24th (San Jose) 14,132/sq mi
Brush Glen (San Jose) 10,836/sq mi
Brookwood Terrace (San Jose) 13,698/sq mi
Buena Vista (San Jose) 15,195/sq mi
California Maison (San Jose) 16,726/sq mi
Capitol-Goss (San Jose) 11,572/sq mi
Carmine-Parkmont (San Jose) 10,826/sq mi
Cassell (San Jose) 14,631/sq mi
Castlemont (San Jose) 11,908/sq mi
Centerwood (San Jose) 10,845/sq mi
Checkers (San Jose) 15,175/sq mi
Cinderella (San Jose) 14,421/sq mi
Coldwater (San Jose) 10,880/sq mi
Cornwall-Sunshadow (San Jose) 12,407/sq mi
De Marietta (San Jose) 21,381/sq mi
Dorsa-Miller (San Jose) 14,669/sq mi
Dove Hill (San Jose) 10,072/sq mi
East Campus (San Jose) 24,251/sq mi
Edenvale (San Jose) 15,287/sq mi
Edge (San Jose) 15,149/sq mi
Everdale (San Jose) 10,982/sq mi
Gawain-Percivale (San Jose) 11/988/sq mi
Goodyear-Mastic (San Jose) 16,617/sq mi
Hammer (San Jose) 10,447/sq mi
Hensley (San Jose) 14,544/sq mi
Hillsdale (San Jose) 11,730/sq mi
Hillview (San Jose) 12,221/sq mi
Horace Mann (San Jose) 17,264/sq mi
Junipero Serra (San Jose) 11,523/sq mi
Kennedy (San Jose) 11,369/sq mi
Little Portugal South (San Jose) 16,098/sq mi
Lanai-Cunningham (San Jose) 12,892/sq mi
Lochridge-Luby (San Jose) 19,431/sq mi
Loma Linda (San Jose) 20,965/sq mi
Lone Bluff (San Jose) 12,846/sq mi
Los Arboles (San Jose) 20,615/sq mi
Mayfair (San Jose) 11,253/sq mi
Mayfair North (San Jose) 12,608/sq mi
Mayfair West (San Jose) 12,991/sq mi
Mc Kuen (San Jose) 12,741/sq mi
McKay-Ringwood (San Jose) 16,862/sq mi
McKinley (San Jose) 13,229/sq mi
Meadow Fair (San Jose) 13,540/sq mi
Meadows (San Jose) 12,138/sq mi
Mount Pleasant North (San Jose) 11,463/sq mi
Mount Pleasant South (San Jose) 10,427/sq mi
Northlake (San Jose) 13,021/sq mi
Notting Hill (San Jose) 12,097/sq mi
Oak Grove (San Jose) 13,468/sq mi
Olinder (San Jose) 14,695/sq mi
Piedmont (San Jose) 11,115/sq mi
River Oaks (San Jose) 14,921/sq mi
Roberts (San Jose) 12,635/sq mi
Rodgers (San Jose) 10,033/sq mi
Rose Glen (San Jose) 14,552/sq mi
Santee Ferrari (San Jose) 17,410/sq mi
Saratoga Creek (San Jose) 13,122/sq mi
Serenede (San Jose) 13,246/sq mi
Seven Trees (San Jose) 14,774/sq mi
Sierra (San Jose) 10,444/sq mi
South Campus (San Jose) 25,974/sq mi
Spartan (San Jose) 10,562/sq mi
Starbird (San Jose) 11/438/sq mi
Summerside (San Jose) 20,515/sq mi
Sylvandale West (San Jose) 10,564/sq mi
Tamien (San Jose) 11,322/sq mi
Tanglewood (San Jose) 13,298/sq mi
The Woods (San Jose) 14,111/sq mi
Townsend (San Jose) 11,159/sq mi
Trade Winds (San Jose) 12,269/sq mi
Tropicana (San Jose) 16,670/sq mi
Washington (San Jose) 15,403/sq mi
West Northside (San Jose) 12,120/sq mi
Whaley (San Jose) 16,348/sq mi
Yerba Buena (San Jose) 16,240/sq mi


North Central (San Mateo) 12,873/sq mi
Laurie Meadows (San Mateo) 10,789/sq mi
Parrot Park (San Mateo) 10,037/sq mi


Mezes Park (Redwood City) 12,378/sq mi
Palm Park (Redwood City) 13,196/sq mi


Lomita Park (San Bruno) 12,266/sq mi
San Bruno Park (San Bruno) 11,895/sq mi
Shelter Creek (San Bruno) 14,041/sq mi

Downtown (South San Francisco) 15,877/sq mi

Escondido Village (Stanford) 14,406/sq mi

Snail (Sunnyvale) 10,047/sq mi
San Miguel (Sunnyvale) 12,385/sq mi

Waterford (Newark) 13,846/sq mi