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.
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.
That tends to happen when you are shoe-horned between an Ocean and a mountain range, with a Bay thrown in the middle for good measure.
But that doesnt change the fact that overall Philadelphia has a larger urbanized area which was the original point.
That tends to happen when you are shoe-horned between an Ocean and a mountain range, with a Bay thrown in the middle for good measure.
But that doesnt change the fact that overall Philadelphia has a larger urbanized area which was the original point.
Yes, Philadelphia sprawls out more because it has more land, but San Francisco is more dense on a regional basis.
If San Francisco didnt have the physical constraints you mentioned, who knows what the density would be? But we do have those constraints and that has forced high density over an extended area.
Last edited by 18Montclair; 07-23-2011 at 12:49 PM..
Yes, Philadelphia sprawls out more because it has more land, but San Francisco is more dense on a regional basis.
If San Francisco didnt have the physical constraints you mentions, who knows what the density would be? But we do have those constraints and that has forced high density over an extended area.
Agree 100% and conversely if Philadelphia wasnt surrounded 360 by pleasant livable land its density numbers would probably be off the charts due to its location and early american influence.
That's a ridiculous statement. Golden Gate Park is a beautiful, world-class urban park with tons of amenities. It is different than Central Park, but definitely in the same league. Fairmount Park is great for what it is, but it does not compare to either GG or Central.
Golden Gate park is filled with bums and heroin addict junkies. Not a place for an evening stroll, unless you are looking to score.
Those peak density tracts are where you feel the vibrancy in SF. Roughly the northern half of the city.
SF's skyline is much better also....I agree. None of this slights Philly, it just is.
Northern half - Why dont you look at how large those tracts are. Northern half Mile or Northern half - big difference actually
And yes the core is a bit more dense in SF though drops quicker and is less consistent. I am by no means arguing it (SF) is nor dense or urban but these tracts are strong and very SMALL in area
Tract 12502 is how large? .1 sq miles or something - yes these tracts are impressive but the most densly populated zip in SF at .3 sq miles (includes the tenderloin) is at 54K ppsm. The most densly populated zip at .7 sq miles is 48K ppsm for Philly. The tracts split hairs. They are NOT the norm in SF but very SMALL isolated areas of very high density. Yes the core is a bit more dense but it drops back and below Philly denisty raditing from the core within a fairly short distance.
Also I am pretty sure the tract zips you are posting for Philly are from 2000; remember the core of Philly grew in population by 24% in the last ten years (SF's core grew by 2%)
But yes there are higher tracts in SF, agree, there is a couple blocks that maintain this but then again there is census tract in Silver Spring MD that is 30K than philly - more urban not so much as these tracts at times in the cores are the size of suburban lawns...
On Montclair - your visuals to me in the core actually shows where it (Philly) has a larger blob of high density. I also agree the typical suburban density in the area between SF and SJ will be higher than the Western or Southern burbs of Philly - especially Landsdale PA or Wilmington DE - Also funny where you centered on the Trenton map versus the the Vallejo but that is spling hairs a bit
This comparison is a bit unfair to Philadelphia. It is trying to compare a healthy boxer in his prime with a boxer who had cancer and lost a quarter of his weight.
The question of urbanity involves people, no doubt, and Philadelphia has lost a quarter of its people as a casualty of its role in America -the workshop of the world, first stop for slaves to be free, heavy industry. San Francisco is, at this census, the most populated it has ever been. It's really kicking a city when it is down.
Perhaps a better comparison would be San Francisco and Philadelphia when the cities were equally healthy... perhaps 1950. Although San Francisco may or may not have more overall urbanity, its really a case of comparing San Francisco in its best moment to Philadelphia in its recovery. Not exactly an even playing field.
We wouldn't compare Philadelphia to San Francisco in 1907, and nitpick all the burnt buildings, now would we? Wouldn't be fair to the latter.
This comparison is a bit unfair to Philadelphia. It is trying to compare a healthy boxer in his prime with a boxer who had cancer and lost a quarter of his weight.
The question of urbanity involves people, no doubt, and Philadelphia has lost a quarter of its people as a casualty of its role in America. San Francisco is most populated it has ever been. It's really kicking a city when it is down.
Perhaps a better comparison would be San Francisco and Philadelphia when the cities were equally healthy... perhaps 1950, when these abandoned buildings had people, and these warehouses had workers.
That's an interesting point...except for the fact that it is currently 2011, so why would we compare cities based on how they were decades ago (unless that's the point of the thread)? I don't see how it's unfair...it simply is what it is. Cities are not people. Plus, it's not like SF wrecks Philly in a comparison in the first place. In some fields maybe, but Philly wins in others as well.
Well at 5K plus you may be right - so you are saying that SJ makes SF more urban?
Not sure if 10K+ maps exist might be a better proxy of city as opposed to the 5k - CA in general, especially the bay with more geographic constraints keep the burbs more developed. But a place like Burligame is not exactly city, urban at some level but not in the truest sense
Question for you Montclair - Is the Bay area in a more urban and populated area than the NE or even more specifically the Philly/NJ/NYC area? But to me this isnt the really the question. the thread went off on a tangent when UA was posted; of which Philly is larger than SF, SF more urban, then Bay folks said add SJ (which i agree) and I showed where the Census is combining the Bay as well as the region between Philly and NYC.
But I am not sure this thread is about the urbanity of Morrisville PA or Burligame CA for that matter.
And another honest question for you, Do you believe that SF is significantly more or less urban when compared to Philly. I do not nor believe Philly is significantly more urban (maybe a tad and also a little grungier) but both are pretty close more splitiing hairs really...
As a city Philly is likely larger as a region the Bay is likely a little larger both are among the largest in the country and as city both are among best and most urban for folks who like that.
That's an interesting point...except for the fact that it is currently 2011, so why would we compare cities based on how they were decades ago (unless that's the point of the thread)? I don't see how it's unfair...it simply is what it is. Cities are not people. Plus, it's not like SF wrecks Philly in a comparison in the first place. In some fields maybe, but Philly wins in others as well.
Actually agree and also think on the topic there is likely no clear cut city more urban among these two.
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.
Wouldn't be fair to the latter.