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.
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.
The total density of Philadelphia is over a larger area--SF's total density would be dragged down considerably if you went due south of the SF border in order to include parts of the peninsula in order to make up the difference between 135 square miles and 47 square miles. This is pretty obvious, isn't it? It might be a more fair comparison since it would also include the area needed for the international airport and other non-residential spaces.
Kidphilly's actually gone through the effort of figuring out the stats for this and makes a reasonable argument.
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.
yeah the airport, the largest oil refinery ouside of the gulf coast, a second airport, a larger port and distribution area than all of the bay areas' combined port facilities, 10,000 acres of park land, a Navy base among other things. All removed the density goes way up. Also the extreme northern parts of the Far Northeast are like 5k ppsm, really considered suburban here, most of the border towns have higher (many more dense than the Philly average actually) and this area also includes an outlet mall that takes up a few sq miles. The airports, ports, navy base, and refineries alone take up 26 of the 135 sq miles of Philly.
The core 47 sq miles of Philly come in over a million residents with a density of 22K ppsm. I can document exactly what the reasons are and quantify all the metrics, what are you not getting. My real suggestion is make the trip if you really want to compare the two places.
Facts are facts. Philadelphia has more people within the same square miles.
Really? I will say it with no problem. Philadelphia is a MORE VIBRANT and LIVELY city than San Francisco!
Because...?
So far, none of the Philadelphia posters for why Philly offers a more compelling urban experience than San Francisco. The arguments have revolved around urban footprints, which while somewhat interesting as factoids do not make for interesting city comparisons. Using the logic that KidPhilly uses (SF's urban footprint is interspaced by the Bay so it doesn't really count), you could literally use the exact same argument against Manhattan as you cannot go to Brooklyn, NJ or Queens without crossing water. On the same token, however, nobody is going to be stupid enough to make any sort of post that elevates Philly's urban experience over Manhattan or NYC because of this.
I ask you: What about the urban experience in Philly elevates it over SF other than that it's bigger?
Yes and you also must not have seen that I feel they are equally vibrant. Come to Philly sometime so you actually make a real world comprsion. I love SF but believe it or not there are many cities in the NE as vibrant as SF; we have a ton of options here, it is the norm not the exception here.
yeah the airport, the largest oil refinery ouside of the gulf coast, a second airport, a larger port and distribution area than all of the bay areas' combined port facilities, 10,000 acres of park land, a Navy base among other things. All removed the density goes way up. Also the extreme northern parts of the Far Northeast are like 5k ppsm, really considered suburban here, most of the border towns have higher (many more dense than the Philly average actually) and this area also includes an outlet mall that takes up a few sq miles. The airports, ports, navy base, and refineries alone take up 26 of the 135 sq miles of Philly.
The core 47 sq miles of Philly come in over a million residents with a density of 22K ppsm. I can document exactly what the reasons are and quantify all the metrics, what are you not getting. My real suggestion is make the trip if you really want to compare the two places.
My point is that you're not making any sort of argument that shows that Philly as a whole offers a better urban experience than SF as a whole. And SF is not all developed either... look at Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced, the harbor, the western and northern coastline, the warehouse districts along the eastern coastline, etc. In this case the percentage of land that's developed is what matters, not the size. And SF's peak and average density still remains larger than Philly's.
Can you make ANY sort of argument other than a density argument depending on cutting out the densest 47 miles of Philly for why Philly offers better urbanity than SF?
Montclair - you are up to your typical Douchebaggery.
I always respond in kind.
Quote:
Nope nothing in the philly area is Wealthy, polished, or sophisticated.
I've said it 20 times. Philadelphia is a great city with all the amenities.
But when it comes to being a residence for the rich and educated and a magnet for those kinds of people from around the world, San Francisco, even its tiny 47 square miles, just whallops Philadelphia.
Resident Billionaires 2011(Forbes)
San Francisco, CA 14
Philadelphia, PA 1
Foreign Born Population, 2005-2009
San Francisco, CA 273,632..........34.5%
Philadephia, PA 168,583..............10.9%
Households earning $150,000+ Annually
San Francisco, CA 63,784..........19.6%
Philadelphia, PA 22,730...............4.0%
Adults With a Bachelor's Degree
San Francisco, CA 197,908..............31.7%
Philadelphia, PA 129,575..................12.9%
Adults With a Graduate Degree
San Francisco, CA 120,917..............19.3%
Philadelphia, PA 91,523.....................9.1%
The total density of Philadelphia is over a larger area--SF's total density would be dragged down considerably if you went due south of the SF border in order to include parts of the peninsula in order to make up the difference between 135 square miles and 47 square miles. This is pretty obvious, isn't it? It might be a more fair comparison since it would also include the area needed for the international airport and other non-residential spaces.
Kidphilly's actually gone through the effort of figuring out the stats for this and makes a reasonable argument.
If your only view of urbanity is density then he makes a reasonable argument, but density is obviously not the only part of urbanity - far from it - so it's not a particularly reasonable argument.
Yes and you also must not have seen that I feel they are equally vibrant. Come to Philly sometime so you actually make a real world comprsion. I love SF but believe it or not there are many cities in the NE as vibrant as SF; we have a ton of options here, it is the norm not the exception here.
This is what I disagree with. Which "many cities" would you be referencing? Because the only contenders apart from NYC seem to be Philly and Boston. DC and Baltimore are not...what "many cities" does that leave?
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.
Well, in the context of city-data let's do everyone a favor and keep our borders precise. Nothing separates New York from Washington DC, but that doesn't give me the green light to "steal" some of Washington DC's stats. Hell, nothing separates me from San Francisco or Los Angeles either.
Hunterdon County is part of the New York metro and that's that.
Last edited by andover11; 08-14-2011 at 12:52 AM..
My point is that you're not making any sort of argument that shows that Philly as a whole offers a better urban experience than SF as a whole. And SF is not all developed either... look at Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced, the harbor, the western and northern coastline, the warehouse districts along the eastern coastline, etc. In this case the percentage of land that's developed is what matters, not the size. And SF's peak and average density still remains larger than Philly's.
Can you make ANY sort of argument other than a density argument depending on cutting out the densest 47 miles of Philly for why Philly offers better urbanity than SF?
Again visit both and check back. they are both equally as vibrant, dense (though Philly has more cohesive and continuous density) as to better urbanity, dunno, not sure there is a better (vibrancy is more important to your point where they are likely equal just Philly has more of it).
And warehouse districts, umm are you suggesting they dont exist in Philly (actually do with much more etc.)
Spend time in both and you may understand
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.
