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.
Having spent a lot of time in both cities, I think it's pure East Coast bias that someone would try and argue Philly is somehow more urban than SF.
Outside of downtown, its not even close. SF wins by a pretty good margin. Philly has huge surface lots, random empty fields, significant abandoned stretches, a number of wide roads with somewhat sparse development. San Francisco is wall-to-wall urbanity from Castro to North Beach.
Honestly, just go to google maps and choose random spots on both cities. In SF you'll likley find a crammed urban space. In Philly, you may find an abandoned broad road with some sparse brick buildings, a parking lot, and an open field. The urban fabric in Philly is much, much less consistant.
I never lived in Philly, but it seems much more similar to NYC.
I have lived in NYC and SF.
What I hated about SF is that it tries to be urban, but isn't. The train system is geared for commuters. If you live in say the Mission and you want to get to Fisherman's Wharf. Well, good luck. There isn't a subway system in place for you to easily do that.
Also, once you are outside of the immediate San Francisco area, really good luck. SF is completely surrounded by suburbs upon suburbs upon highways ans strip malls galore.
I don't know much about Philly, but it sounds like most of their suburbs are walkable to some degree, or that's what I've always heard. Something about them being created with streetcar system back before suburbs were spread out car-oriented degree messes the way the SF suburbs are.
lol @ sf...call me when they have decent sports teams or a sports culture like phily does. they dont even have a basketball team (its in oakland), or a hockey team. in fact, they have to go to another metro to get hockey.
Let us know when the Eagles win a Superbowl.........
Well at 5K plus you may be right - so you are saying that SJ makes SF more urban?
Actually who was it that brought up UAs?
Im simply pointing out that at UA level, San Francisco and San Jose are more densely populated than Philadelphia and New York btw. Does that constitute 'more urban'? No, but this example is proof that density is not the only decider of what is and what is not urban.
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.
We 2 verifiable facts here.
Philadelphia has the larger urbanized area.
Bay Area is more dense.
Actually the bay area is the more populated CSA - and potentially with changes coming in 2013 the more populated MSA.
Well yes but remeber the fringe of the UA is IMHO exurban (If you back I have whole threads on where the UA is too low by a long stretch in my opinion to me it should be like 5K or higher but another topic) in Philly and drastically brings the average down. The core 1,000 sq miles for Philly has about 4.8 million people. Also the development pattern on the East and West coast is different. CA or even an area like Houston for example will actually have much higher density in it burbs than those on the east coast. LA is amazing in the sustained development pattern, more consistent than NYC especially further from the core. But the coree 1,000 sq miles of Philly would be about 5K ppsm with basically a similar UA population to the combined SF/SJ. The core 500 sq miles would surpass either. Stats are interesting but I believe always need context.
I also on this topic find it hard to say one is really that much more urban than another, though as a city as a whole Philly to me feels more urban, probably less refined too.
Also another poster mentioned that Philly seems as dense in the core of the city and less outside. Actually to me if anything it is the complete opposite. the City itself of Philadelphia is a tad less dense in the core and maintains more consistent high density radiating out. Philly has less people in the core 5 miles, more in the core 15, 47, 135, 250, and 500
But this is splitting hairs on many levels but the as far as the Density numbers remember in the core 47 sq miles Philly has a densisty of 21K
So one your metric
Philly (Core 47 Miles) = 21,900 PPSM
SF (47 Mile City Limit) = 17,200 PPSM
And these numbers seem about right to me as someone who lived in both.
But -with the 47 sq. miles comparison - that's including areas like the Presidio and industrial sections in the southern part of the city for SF and not for Philly. Not really a fair comparison.
One thing I think is hard to deny is that SF has a significantly more consistant urban fabric (aside from the above mentioned areas, which are really on the edge of the city) than Philly - even with just the 47 sq. mile comparison. With a few small exceptions, SF is consistantly urban block for block. Philly, even within a few miles of the core, has stretches that are relatively under-developed, although it also has sections that are super-urban.
Actually the bay area is the more populated CSA - and potentially with changes coming in 2013 the more populated MSA.
Sheesh SF fiends want claim to everything.
For The same reason that SF is denser than Philly(scarce real estate) that works against SF in more expansive categories like urban areas.
Urban areas in the United States are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000 /sq mi with any census block groups around this core having a density of at least 500 /sq mi Urban areas are delineated without regard to political boundaries
1 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT UA 17,799,861
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA UA 11,789,487
3 Chicago, IL-IN UA 8,307,904 4 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD UA 5,149,079
5 Miami, FL UA 4,919,036 2890.7
6 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX UA 4,145,659
7 Boston, MA-NH-RI UA 4,032,484 4496.7
8 Washington, DC-VA-MD UA 3,933,920
9 Detroit, MI UA 3,903,377
10 Houston, TX UA 3,822,509
11 Atlanta, GA UA 3,499,804 12 San Francisco-Oakland, CA UA 3,228,
So... you're looking at the metros in a city comparison? And one that doesn't include San Jose or any of Silicon Valley? Notice that the land area covered in the SF-Oakland metro is 1/4th that of the land area in the Philly area... add SJ to the equation and that list would be telling a different story... never mind that the list is ranked by population and not urbanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Well here is the story actually Philly is part of an Urban area with over 29 Million; the Bay area is large with nearly 5.9 million combined (And regardless the Philly MSA/UA is cut in highly developed urban area on multiple borders)
Im simply pointing out that at UA level, San Francisco and San Jose are more densely populated than Philadelphia and New York btw. Does that constitute 'more urban'? No, but this example is proof that density is not the only decider of what is and what is not urban.
But -with the 47 sq. miles comparison - that's including areas like the Presidio and industrial sections in the southern part of the city for SF and not for Philly. Not really a fair comparison.
One thing I think is hard to deny is that SF has a significantly more consistant urban fabric (aside from the above mentioned areas, which are really on the edge of the city) than Philly - even with just the 47 sq. mile comparison. With a few small exceptions, SF is consistantly urban block for block. Philly, even within a few miles of the core, has stretches that are relatively under-developed, although it also has sections that are super-urban.
Actually I will completely disagree with these statements. And this is from someone who has lived in both cities
And in the 47 sq miles for Philly are you suggesting it includes no industrial areas?
Yes the 47 I used for Philadelphia exclude 12 sq miles (outside the core BTW that are completely uninhabited because of the airport and very large refinery area but it does include many areas with large industrial and warehouse facilities but these are the sections that take the density way down from what the typical residential area would be in going to the 135 sq mile total; in the calculation to get SF to 135 sq miles it deliberately excluded SFO whereas the Philly number includes all of PHL).
And I disagree completedly that is an unfair comparison at all. If anything Philly has MORE industrial/warehouse areas in the calculation. You understand what built out Philadelphia and the industrial complex it was. Seriously the more I review and think about it Philly has far MORE industrial in this space than does SF; I am just not buying these arguments. And regardless if you can prove that there 23% more (the density percentage Philly exceeded SF in the core 47 mile comparison) of this in the SF calculation I will agree. People keep casting stones without proof.
And I will say this again I think both are urban and more splitting hairs to differentiate but I will disagree with many of the comments made on here
more consistent etc. (maybe in the burbs)
on the block to block and while SF is very consistent from my travels and living experiences NYC is the only city more consistently urban than Philly. The consistency of rowhomes in Philly goes on for miles
I used gmap pedometer to estimate the coverage of these rowhouse blocks as 13 miles South to North (Snyder ave to Cottman Ave in the NE) which is the same distance as Fishermans wharf to SFO.
And the east/west is 8 miles from Front street to 69th street (though it doesnt stop there but that is the city limit Upper Darby is a continuous extension of more rowhomes) which in comparison for SF would be from 3rd street to 3 miles out in to the Pacific.
And these are the neighborhoods that are just continuous rowhouse streets, block after block
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.
Notice that the land area covered in the SF-Oakland metro is 1/4th that of the land area in the Philly area... add SJ to the equation and that list would be telling a different story... never mind that the list is ranked by population and not urbanity.