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.
Now you're saying SF doesn't act as Manhattan for the Bay Area? Last time I checked SF was the financial and urban heart of the bay... you seem to be getting in your panties in a bunch over something else entirely than what I'm saying. If you are taking issue with what I'm saying, then please point out exactly what, because none of what I've seen you post thus far warrants the attitude.
EDIT: And yes, I have made the comparison in other threads, specifically in threads comparing the Bay Area and New York. Point out where I made it in this thread. I'll shut up if you do. Otherwise, I'm going to have to suggest that you do the same.
no, manhattan is one part of NYC, 1.6 mil out of 8.X million.
SF is 100% of SF...
the Financial area and NE quadrant acts like manhattan for SF, if anything.
NYC is just too much of a beast to even bring the comparison in the first place, it's a bit absurd actually and a huge stretch of the imagination. I mean outside of NYC proper, you still have another 14 million people to go in the CSA, that still haven't been accounted for.
NO THEY ARE NOT, THAT IS WHY YOU ARE TRIPPING, DELUSIONAL OR JUST A MASSIVE HOMER.
I have lived in both Manhattan and San Francisco and Im telling both of you that it is totally acceptable to say that people in the Bay Area regard SF the same way people in the NY Area regard Manhattan. Its titally true. SF is the City and so is Manhattan for much the same reason. Ive heard several people in both Manhattan and SF say that.
To say otherwise is total denial on your part.
Quote:
Look me and kidphilly have BOTH lived out there
And so you shouldnt need an explanation.
Quote:
I have no reason to lie about it, I'm just telling it how it is, you guys just seem straight up delusional sometimes with your comparisons of San Francisco to other areas.
That's because when we weigh not only population density and URBANE components that one uses to define a great urban experience, SF is heads and shoulders above the rest(Boston and Chicago are up there too tho)----except for Manhattan.
Quote:
It's a great area, polished, exquisite, uber wealthy, diverse, high end, and many other adjectives I could describe it with
JUST LIKE MANHATTAN.
Can Philadelphia say that? Statistically speaking, no, not really.
Quote:
but come onnn, other cities just beat it in other aspects, especially size and/or urbanity, it's just a no brainer.
No, I dont think so.
We have already established that the Bay Area is larger in population, but also has greater density over a much farther expanse of land.
San Francisco is denser going all the way to San Jose with a constant density of 5,000+ for about 50 miles. In fact, all around the Bay Area has many more areas that surpass 5,000+ persons per square mile.
no, manhattan is one part of NYC, 1.6 mil out of 8.X million.
SF is 100% of SF...
the Financial area and NE quadrant acts like manhattan for SF, if anything.
NYC is just too much of a beast to even bring the comparison in the first place, it's a bit absurd actually and a huge stretch of the imagination. I mean outside of NYC proper, you still have another 14 million people to go in the CSA, that still haven't been accounted for.
Jesus Christ... you're acting thicker than usual. I wasn't literally saying that SF = Manhattan, I was saying that in a lot of ways it serves the same cultural purpose for the Bay that Manhattan serves for the rest of New York City. If that escapes you then I'm not sure what the hang up is
People get so hung up on SFs 47 sq miles they forget that when you leave the City, there are other parts of the Bay Area that are by themselves, among the densest urban places in the US.
This is a post of mine from page 30 of this thread:
It turns out that there are connected neighborhoods of 10,000ppsm+ extending all the way into San Leandro(3 neighborhoods connected to Oakland) and Albany(1 neighborhood connected to Berkeley) as well as about 2 dozen other Oakland neighborhoods that are connected to the former list of areas.
the area of 10,000+persons per square mile Extends over an area that is 18 Miles North to South from Downtown Albany to Farrelly Pond, San Leandro.
Here is the updated list of Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Albany connected neighborhoods with a density of 10,000+ppsm Neighborhood, City, Population Per Square Mile
Oak Tree Neighborhood, Oakland 34,447
Gold Coast Neighborhood, Oakland 29,212
Telegraph Ave neighborhood, Berkeley 28,188
Adams Point Neighborhood, Oakland 26,632
Clinton Neighborhood, Oakland 25,677
Ivy Hill Neighborhood, Oakland 22,866
St Elizabeth Neighborhood, Oakland 21,327
Merritt Neighborhood, Oakland 19,957
Harrington Neighborhood, Oakland 19,951
Patten Neighborhood, Oakland 19,950
Highland Terrace Neighborhood, Oakland 18,625
Allendale Neighborhood, Oakland 18,880
Seminary Neighborhood, Oakland 17,899
Tuxedo Neighborhood, Oakland 17,502
Rancho San Antonio Neighborhood, Oakland 17,290
School Neighborhood, Oakland, CA 16,916
Hawthorne Neighborhood, Oakland 16,752
Meadow Brook Neighborhood, Oakland 16,772
Grand Lake Neighborhood, Oakland 16,716
Bella Vista Neighborhood, Oakland 16,713
Chinatown Neighborhood, Oakland 16,554
Southside Neighborhood, Berkeley 16,438
Fremont Neighborhood, Oakland 16,096
Oakland Ave/Harrison St Neighborhood, Oakland 15,980
Cox Neighborhood, Oakland 15,674
Hegenberger Neighborhood, Oakland 15,406
Fairfax Business Neighborhood, Oakland 15,242
Sausal Creek Neighborhood, Oakland 15,138
Peralta Hacienda Neighborhood, Oakland 14,811
Jefferson Neighborhood, Oakland 14,807
Wentworth-Holland Neighborhood, Oakland 14,794
Elmwood Neighborhood, Berkeley 14,603
Webster Neighborhood, Oakland 14,294
College Avenue Neighborhood, Berkeley 14,125
Eastmont Neighborhood, Oakland 14,002
Upper Peralta Creek Neighborhood, Oakland 13,959
East Peralta Neighborhood, Oakland 13,948
Highland Park Neighborhood, Oakland 13,705
Gourmet Ghetto Neighborhood, Berkeley 13,494
Castlemont Neighborhood, Oakland 13,414
Arroyo Viejo Neighborhood, Oakland 13,404
Cleveland Heights Neighborhood, Oakland 13,354
Fairfax Neighborhood, Oakland 12,993
Civic Center Neighborhood, Oakland, 12,856
North Neighborhood, Berkeley 12,815
Old Oakland Neighborhood, Oakland 12,280
Gaskill Neighborhood, Oakland 12,276
Iveywood Neighborhood, Oakland 12,136
Paradise Park neighborhood, Oakland 11,886
Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood, Oakland 11,798
South Berkeley neighborhood, Berkeley 11,749
Havenscourt Neighborhood, Oakland 11,639
North Stonehurst Neighborhood, Oakland 11,625
Farelly Pond Neighborhood, San Leandro 11,315
Central Berkeley Neighborhood, Berkeley 11,280
Fairview Park Neighborhood, Oakland 11,213
San Pablo Gateway Neighborhood, Oakland 11,151
Santa Fe Neighborhood, Oakland 11,132
Upper Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 11,117
Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 10,973
Longfellow Neighborhood, Oakland 10,896
Downtown Neighborhood, Albany 10,888
Las Palmas Neighborhood, Oakland 10,838
Bushrod Neighborhood, Oakland 10,810
Eastshore Neighborhood, San Leandro 10,738
Lakeshore Neighborhood, Oakland 10,736
Upper Dimond Neighborhood, Oakland 10,626
Creekside Neighborhood, San Leandro 10,393
Also, there is another large cluster a few miles North of the Oakland-Berkeley cluster of 10,000+ppsm in Richmond-San Pablo which includes the entire city of San Pablo and the entire Unincorporated town of Rollingwood
Richmond & San Pablo connected neighborhoods
Rollingwood CDP, 14,879 persons per square mile
Forest Park Neighborhood, Richmond 14,475 persons per square mile
City Center Neighborhood, Richmond 13,706 persons per square mile
Belding Woods Neighborhood, Richmond 13,273 persons per square mile
Eastshore Neighborhood, Richmond 11,710 persons per square mile
San Pablo City, 12,057 persons per square mile
Iron Triangle Neighborhood, Richmond 10,389 persons per square mile
Panhandle Annex Neighborhood, Richmond 10,299 persons per square mile
There are also other areas in San Leandro near the Hayward border which tells me that Hayward probably has 10,000ppsm neighborhoods too.
I made a map to satisfy my own curiosity. That large red area of 10,000+ppsm in Hayward is 27 miles from the City.
Montclair - you are up to your typical Douchebaggery. Nope nothing in the philly area is Wealthy, polished, or sophisticated... WTF serously, this is truly when you do come off as an a$$. parts of the main line, chestnut hill, society hill, camden county, Chester county, bucks county can really go toe to toe with anywhere on thse aspects; especially on wealth. Philly has great disparity so the means and even medians are off, income is also a poor prxy as much of the wealth in Philly is not even derived from income but from blue blood money, i dont necesarily say it is better or worse but your point was, as you have said earlier, Montclair is caught up in typical douchebaggery posts.
As a percentage the city no, though many areas are and many areas directly bordering (even if at 5K ppsm). Yep douchbagery
Also your maps at 5K (really should at leasdt at a 10K ppsm cutoff) are somwhat laughable as they include too much from perspective to be considered urban for this exercise
this is over 5K and not urban to me at all, we call this the suburbs here, this is not the urban being discussed,
if so then you must immeadiately get of your no wealth kick as there many areas of 5K ppsm wealth in Philly, not as many in the 10K plus though, places like this
so what is it 5K or 10K, it appears you chose for your points preety freeform relative o your point. Stick with one or none. On the topic, philly is more urban, by a lot no, SF is wealthier, by a lot, no
also SF is NOT Mnahttan, nor ever will be, nor will oakland be BK etc. on urbanity they are not even close. SF is wonderful place but urbanity in the truset form is not comparable, other aspects yes
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.
Last edited by kidphilly; 08-13-2011 at 11:47 PM..
People get so hung up on SFs 47 sq miles they forget that when you leave the City, there are other parts of the Bay Area that are by themselves, among the densest urban places in the US.
This is a post of mine from page 30 of this thread:
It turns out that there are connected neighborhoods of 10,000ppsm+ extending all the way into San Leandro(3 neighborhoods connected to Oakland) and Albany(1 neighborhood connected to Berkeley) as well as about 2 dozen other Oakland neighborhoods that are connected to the former list of areas.
the area of 10,000+persons per square mile Extends over an area that is 18 Miles North to South from Downtown Albany to Farrelly Pond, San Leandro.
Here is the updated list of Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Albany connected neighborhoods with a density of 10,000+ppsm Neighborhood, City, Population Per Square Mile
Oak Tree Neighborhood, Oakland 34,447
Gold Coast Neighborhood, Oakland 29,212
Telegraph Ave neighborhood, Berkeley 28,188
Adams Point Neighborhood, Oakland 26,632
Clinton Neighborhood, Oakland 25,677
Ivy Hill Neighborhood, Oakland 22,866
St Elizabeth Neighborhood, Oakland 21,327
Merritt Neighborhood, Oakland 19,957
Harrington Neighborhood, Oakland 19,951
Patten Neighborhood, Oakland 19,950
Highland Terrace Neighborhood, Oakland 18,625
Allendale Neighborhood, Oakland 18,880
Seminary Neighborhood, Oakland 17,899
Tuxedo Neighborhood, Oakland 17,502
Rancho San Antonio Neighborhood, Oakland 17,290
School Neighborhood, Oakland, CA 16,916
Hawthorne Neighborhood, Oakland 16,752
Meadow Brook Neighborhood, Oakland 16,772
Grand Lake Neighborhood, Oakland 16,716
Bella Vista Neighborhood, Oakland 16,713
Chinatown Neighborhood, Oakland 16,554
Southside Neighborhood, Berkeley 16,438
Fremont Neighborhood, Oakland 16,096
Oakland Ave/Harrison St Neighborhood, Oakland 15,980
Cox Neighborhood, Oakland 15,674
Hegenberger Neighborhood, Oakland 15,406
Fairfax Business Neighborhood, Oakland 15,242
Sausal Creek Neighborhood, Oakland 15,138
Peralta Hacienda Neighborhood, Oakland 14,811
Jefferson Neighborhood, Oakland 14,807
Wentworth-Holland Neighborhood, Oakland 14,794
Elmwood Neighborhood, Berkeley 14,603
Webster Neighborhood, Oakland 14,294
College Avenue Neighborhood, Berkeley 14,125
Eastmont Neighborhood, Oakland 14,002
Upper Peralta Creek Neighborhood, Oakland 13,959
East Peralta Neighborhood, Oakland 13,948
Highland Park Neighborhood, Oakland 13,705
Gourmet Ghetto Neighborhood, Berkeley 13,494
Castlemont Neighborhood, Oakland 13,414
Arroyo Viejo Neighborhood, Oakland 13,404
Cleveland Heights Neighborhood, Oakland 13,354
Fairfax Neighborhood, Oakland 12,993
Civic Center Neighborhood, Oakland, 12,856
North Neighborhood, Berkeley 12,815
Old Oakland Neighborhood, Oakland 12,280
Gaskill Neighborhood, Oakland 12,276
Iveywood Neighborhood, Oakland 12,136
Paradise Park neighborhood, Oakland 11,886
Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood, Oakland 11,798
South Berkeley neighborhood, Berkeley 11,749
Havenscourt Neighborhood, Oakland 11,639
North Stonehurst Neighborhood, Oakland 11,625
Farelly Pond Neighborhood, San Leandro 11,315
Central Berkeley Neighborhood, Berkeley 11,280
Fairview Park Neighborhood, Oakland 11,213
San Pablo Gateway Neighborhood, Oakland 11,151
Santa Fe Neighborhood, Oakland 11,132
Upper Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 11,117
Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 10,973
Longfellow Neighborhood, Oakland 10,896
Downtown Neighborhood, Albany 10,888
Las Palmas Neighborhood, Oakland 10,838
Bushrod Neighborhood, Oakland 10,810
Eastshore Neighborhood, San Leandro 10,738
Lakeshore Neighborhood, Oakland 10,736
Upper Dimond Neighborhood, Oakland 10,626
Creekside Neighborhood, San Leandro 10,393
Also, there is another large cluster a few miles North of the Oakland-Berkeley cluster of 10,000+ppsm in Richmond-San Pablo which includes the entire city of San Pablo and the entire Unincorporated town of Rollingwood
Richmond & San Pablo connected neighborhoods
Rollingwood CDP, 14,879 persons per square mile
Forest Park Neighborhood, Richmond 14,475 persons per square mile
City Center Neighborhood, Richmond 13,706 persons per square mile
Belding Woods Neighborhood, Richmond 13,273 persons per square mile
Eastshore Neighborhood, Richmond 11,710 persons per square mile
San Pablo City, 12,057 persons per square mile
Iron Triangle Neighborhood, Richmond 10,389 persons per square mile
Panhandle Annex Neighborhood, Richmond 10,299 persons per square mile
There are also other areas in San Leandro near the Hayward border which tells me that Hayward probably has 10,000ppsm neighborhoods too.
I made a map to satisfy my own curiosity.
That large red area of 10,000+ppsm in Hayward is 27 miles from the City.
Ok so again the footprint at 1.5 million of 10K average ois still 75% that of the 2+ million in the continuous (not broken by bays) footprint of Philly which again i think is the point, Philly density like SF doesnt stop at the borders. So there is a line along the bay, hooray, it still covers a smaller footprint
Jesus Christ... you're acting thicker than usual. I wasn't literally saying that SF = Manhattan, I was saying that in a lot of ways it serves the same cultural purpose for the Bay that Manhattan serves for the rest of New York City. If that escapes you then I'm not sure what the hang up is
I understand that, I was more stopping the argument from going down that particular path. I have to go to bed, I'll address some more stuff tomorrow, too much data to gather. We are mostly arguing two different things (at least right now as it is off on a tangent)
KP has right idea of where I'm going to go with it, and it's due to the bays geography...it changes the game. Nobody is saying there aren't other urban areas of the Bay, there are... but SF drops off into the ocean, literally.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,296,920 times
Reputation: 432
Kidphilly has posted facts that have shown Philadelphia would have around 200,000 more people within the same square miles as San Francisco. Therefore, the densities are similar with a slight edge going to Philadelphia. However, how urban can a city truly be with a poor transit system? This is where Philadelphia CRUSHES San Francisco!
BART is just an awful system overall. BART is late and doesn't offer enough stops or lines throughout the city. The majority of San Francisco is hard to live in without a car and BART closes at around midnight. Basicly, BART is a commuter rail with a couple lines and stops trying to pose itself as an actual subway system. This might fly and be legit according to west coast standards, but this wouldn't fly in the Northeast. This is exactly why SF natives never post maps of their transit system or speak of it in general. They know their system lacks in overall quality and quantity. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has more extensive coverage and PATCO runs 24 hours a day. How urban can a city be without a good subway system?
Last edited by Gateway Region; 08-13-2011 at 11:48 PM..
Not insulting, the truth, and on the bolded, obviously you havent a clue; try spending considerable time in both and check back with an objective viewpoint, especially on continuity; outside of the cores is where there IS the dramatic difference on this comparsion, their cores are actually the are where they are more comparable; not outside of them.
Bigger than Manhattan, footprint, well the urban city footprint of NYC is closer to 10-11 million (include JC, Boke, Yonkers, Newrak, White plains etc.) people covered, no place is even REMATOLY close, on this alone any allusion is just flat out laughable....
SF in urban comparisons to NY is like saying Biloxi is LV
and i mean really the Mission district/Wester Addition (they are like a mile from the central part of SF), you can walk into DT fairly easily from there, for intents and purposes that is still the core; try 10 miles of uninterrupted development like that (no bays or linear space where can walk out of it in a half mile) are you serious with these, they are a dime a dozen for miles and miles. Seriously, those locations seem foolish for your point and only further a smaller place in comparson. Have you ever really spent time in Philly, especially outside the core (and i dont mean a mile away, try like ten)?
^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.
Kidphilly has posted facts that have shown Philadelphia would have around 200,000 more people within the same square miles as San Francisco. Therefore, the densities are similar with a slight edge going to Philadelphia. However, how urban can a city truly be with a poor transit system? This is where Philadelphia CRUSHES San Francisco!
BART is just an awful system overall. BART is late and doesn't offer enough stops or lines throughout the city. The majority of San Francisco is hard to live in without a car and BART closes at around midnight. Basicly, BART is a commuter rail with a couple lines and stops trying to pose itself as an actual subway system. This might fly and be legit according to west coast standards, but this wouldn't fly in the Northeast. This is exactly why SF natives never post maps of their transit system or speak of it in general. They know their system lacks in overall quality and quantity. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has more extensive coverage and PATCO runs 24 hours a day. How urban can a city be without a good subway system?
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.
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.
Last time I checked SF was the financial and urban heart of the bay... you seem to be getting in your panties in a bunch over something else entirely than what I'm saying. If you are taking issue with what I'm saying, then please point out exactly what, because none of what I've seen you post thus far warrants the attitude.
