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 physically larger than Manhattan, as is Oakland.
Are you trippin???
Manhattan has double the pop of SF for one. NYC has 10x the pop of SF for 2...and is all fairly connected outside of Staten Island.
Don't make that comparison again please.
Manhattan runs straight into Bronx also...which is another borough with approaching double your pop...
Then going into Brooklyn and queens is over a small river, not the freaking ocean and bay (you know BAY AREA)
Please tell me this in any ways resembles going into Oakland.
Sorry I have heard this tired argument way too many times, can you stop the SF NYC comparison? They don't compare at a all.
This is BK Bridge and Manhattan Bridge going into BK, not seen is Williamsburg also, these are both short bridges as can clearly be seen and don't really make an impact anything like SF being surrounded by the ocean, a mountain range and the gigantic bay in comparison. SF feels small, urban and great neighborhoods yes, but still small. I don't see where you guys are even fathoming this argument like it is a big metropolis, it feels absolutely nothing like it.
Again, it isn't about the sq miles, it's about the disconnected feeling the bay/ocean create around SF.
Manhattan has double the pop of SF for one. NYC has 10x the pop of SF for 2...and is all fairly connected outside of Staten Island.
Don't make that comparison again please.
Manhattan runs straight into Bronx also...which is another borough with approaching double your pop...
Then going into Brooklyn and queens is over a small river, not the freaking ocean and bay (you know BAY AREA)
Please tell me this in any ways resembles going into Oakland.
Sorry I have heard this tired argument way too many times, can you stop the SF NYC comparison? They don't compare at a all.
This is BK Bridge and Manhattan Bridge going into BK, not seen is Williamsburg also, these are both short bridges as can clearly be seen and don't really make an impact anything like SF being surrounded by the ocean, a mountain range and the gigantic bay in comparison. SF feels small, urban and great neighborhoods yes, but still small. I don't see where you guys are even fathoming this argument like it is a big metropolis, it feels absolutely nothing like it.
Again, it isn't about the sq miles, it's about the disconnected feeling the bay/ocean create around SF.
No, I'm not tripping. Both SF and Oakland are physically larger than Manhattan.
Oakland: 55.786 sq mi
San Francisco: 46.87 sq mi
Manhattan: 22.96 sq mi
The other poster had said that SF was like taking a couple of the neighborhoods in Manhattan and dropping them on some Hills. I was making the point that SF is physically larger than Manhattan so that's not necessarily the best comparison when Manhattan is 3.5x denser than SF. SF and Manhattan are only similar in terms of their function for their surrounding areas...
You're the one who's tripping, and for no real reason that I know of...
No, I'm not tripping. Both SF and Oakland are physically larger than Manhattan.
Oakland: 55.786 sq mi
San Francisco: 46.87 sq mi
Manhattan: 22.96 sq mi
The other poster had said that SF was like taking a couple of the neighborhoods in Manhattan and dropping them on some Hills. I was making the point that SF is physically larger than Manhattan so that's not necessarily the best comparison when Manhattan is 3.5x denser than SF. SF and Manhattan are only similar in terms of their function for their surrounding areas...
You're the one who's tripping, and for no real reason that I know of...
Yes but I think point was the ultra urban area is like a few blocks of Manhattan, honestly Philly feels significantly larger as a city in many many aspects. Not all as pretty but urban, most definately. You (Or maybe jenkins) talk about a 4 mile walk or even 7 mile walk, we double or triple that in philly and you are closer to reality. SF has a brief moment of extreme urbanity and then drops off quickly, that just isnt the case in Philly.
Comparisons to NYC are just silly - honestly on urbanity in most ways SF feels more like the size of Hudson county NJ, the burbs so to speak of NYC; an afterthought there. You reference SF (or Oakland) being larger than Manhattan, what about the BX, BK, or Queens, all 4 put SF to shame in terms of urbanity. SF references to NYC just seem stupid, ill informed, and silly quite honestly. For people who understnad both places the references detract from credibility. I agree with Grapico, dont do that again, and this from two people who both very much like the bay and have lived there in he and I...
And on this Philly DOES feel a lot more massive, how many people have really spent time in South, West, North Philly to understand how large the city and urbanity spreads (Continuously not interupted by large water or linear, they really are less close than is even mostly described in this thread) - I have seen very little understanding of this in the thread. SF has a climax of urbanity mostly surrounded by moderate spurts of linear urban feel, it truly isnt the same.
Whatever, I have seen your posts and others, don't act naive like this is the first time you have made the comparison... only fooling yourself, and I was stopping it in it's tracks before it got anywhere this time.
Here you go again"
"SF and Manhattan are only similar in terms of their function for their surrounding areas..."
NO THEY ARE NOT, THAT IS WHY YOU ARE TRIPPING, DELUSIONAL OR JUST A MASSIVE HOMER. Look me and kidphilly have BOTH lived out there, 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. It's a great area, polished, exquisite, uber wealthy, diverse, high end, and many other adjectives I could describe it with, but come onnn, other cities just beat it in other aspects, especially size and/or urbanity, it's just a no brainer. ...
The only place I have ever heard of such argument, is reluctantly on this board.
edit": hahaha, I just saw kidphilly posted something similar... NICE...read my mind.
To be honest Grapico that view in that pic looks pretty ugly LOL, however your point was made and the only 2 cities that even have a chance of giving NYC's urbanity a run for its money outside of Manhattan is Philly and Chicago IMO.
Yes but I think point was the ultra urban area is like a few blocks of Manhattan, honestly Philly feels significantly larger as a city in many many aspects. Not all as pretty but urban, most definately. You (Or maybe jenkins) talk about a 4 mile walk or even 7 mile walk, we double or triple that in philly and you are closer to reality. SF has a brief moment of extreme urbanity and then drops off quickly, that just isnt the case in Philly.
Comparisons to NYC are just silly - honestly on urbanity in most ways SF feels more like the size of Hudson county NJ, the burbs so to speak of NYC; an afterthought there. You reference SF (or Oakland) being larger than Manhattan, what about the BX, BK, or Queens, all 4 put SF to shame in terms of urbanity. SF references to NYC just seem stupid, ill informed, and silly quite honestly. For people who understnad both places the references detract from credibility. I agree with Grapico, dont do that again, and this from two people who both very much like the bay and have lived there in he and I...
And on this Philly DOES feel a lot more massive, how many people have really spent time in South, West, North Philly to understand how large the city and urbanity spreads (Continuously not interupted by large water or linear, they really are less close than is even mostly described in this thread) - I have seen very little understanding of this in the thread. SF has a climax of urbanity mostly surrounded by moderate spurts of linear urban feel, it truly isnt the same.
I'm not the one who compared SF to the NYC... that was an east coaster. Is it suddenly an insult to you for someone to point out a simple fact that both SF and Oakland are physically larger than Manhattan? Because I didn't say anything other than that... both of you come off as insulting more than anything.
And what in Philly outside of Downtown is particularly more urban than the average SF neighborhood?
Whatever, I have seen your posts and others, don't act naive like this is the first time you have made the comparison... only fooling yourself, and I was stopping it in it's tracks before it got anywhere this time.
Here you go again"
"SF and Manhattan are only similar in terms of their function for their surrounding areas..."
NO THEY ARE NOT, THAT IS WHY YOU ARE TRIPPING, DELUSIONAL OR JUST A MASSIVE HOMER. Look me and kidphilly have BOTH lived out there, 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. It's a great area, polished, exquisite, uber wealthy, diverse, high end, and many other adjectives I could describe it with, but come onnn, other cities just beat it in other aspects, especially size and/or urbanity, it's just a no brainer. ...
The only place I have ever heard of such argument, is reluctantly on this board.
edit": hahaha, I just saw kidphilly posted something similar... NICE...read my mind.
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.
I'm not the one who compared SF to the NYC... that was an east coaster. Is it suddenly an insult to you for someone to point out a simple fact that both SF and Oakland are physically larger than Manhattan? Because I didn't say anything other than that... both of you come off as insulting more than anything.
And what in Philly outside of Downtown is particularly more urban than the average SF neighborhood?
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)?
Last edited by kidphilly; 08-13-2011 at 10:58 PM..
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.