U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Philly-San Francisco A Reasonable Comparison?
Yes 65 49.62%
No 66 50.38%
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-21-2012, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,702 posts, read 11,874,878 times
Reputation: 3571

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Well the point is like Downtown Philadelphia, Downtown Oakland also has tons of parking lots and your desire to put up pretty pics doesnt really change that---does it?

Yes, Downtown Philadelphia is larger and more vibrant than Downtown Oakland, but it still has a lot of parking lots compared to San Francisco, just like Oakland has many dt parking lots compared to SF.

I guess in that respect, Oakland and Philly are kindred spirits.

lol
There aren't THAT many parking lots in Center City... come on now this isn't LA

Plus most of the parking lots in Center City are getting built on now as we speak... I can think of 5 off the top of my head.

Last edited by RightonWalnut; 06-21-2012 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2012, 10:38 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,099,201 times
Reputation: 2508
Both cities have some similarities, and many differences. But to answer the OP's question, yes, overall I would say it is "reasonable" to compare them. It's not like they're really that similar, but they sure are more comparable to each other than they are to Phoenix, or Miami, or Minneapolis...etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 10:44 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,099,201 times
Reputation: 2508
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFrom215 View Post

I've also noticed that the definition of "San Francisco" seems to be kind of elastic; sometimes, when the
numbers don't favor SF proper, the definition seems to stretch to include all of the Bay Area including
Oakland and San Jose. [/b]
It's called a metropolitan area. Philly has one too. Anyone truly interested in urban issues should know that city limits are basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

What I dislike is how people often try and ignore SF's metro area, and act like it has nothing to do with SF itself, in obvious attempts to try and make SF look smaller/less important than it actually is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Center City
6,828 posts, read 7,755,500 times
Reputation: 9388
Although it's been done to death, I think an interesting comparison has been the various Bay Area v. the Delaware Valley threads (please though - let's not have another one). But the OP has asked if it's fair to compare the cities of SF and Philadelphia. In my view - no. While SF is vibrant city that clearly punches above its weight when compared to similarly-sized cities (Indy, Austin, Columbus and the like), those who persist on forcing comparison of the two cities themselves do SF a disservice.

Last edited by Pine to Vine; 06-21-2012 at 01:26 PM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 01:16 PM
 
163 posts, read 201,271 times
Reputation: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
It's called a metropolitan area. Philly has one too. Anyone truly interested in urban issues should know that city limits are basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

What I dislike is how people often try and ignore SF's metro area, and act like it has nothing to do with SF itself, in obvious attempts to try and make SF look smaller/less important than it actually is.
Obviously. My point, though....and I think it's a fair one....is that sometimes, some Bay Area posters seem to want to have it both ways; when it's convenient, the whole Bay Area is "San Francisco": SF/Oakland/San Jose are almost as interconnected as the boroughs NYC, with SF as Manhattan. When it's inconvenient, however, they are three entirely independent and discrete metros, and the problems or short-comings of the other cities don't have any bearing on San Francisco. That is my perception of SOME posters from SF. I'm not being facetious....if I'm mistaken or mis-characterizing, please set me straight. I realize, too, that the Philly/SF metros are very different in many ways. It might be accurate to consider the SF metro as single entity for some reasons, and not for others, but by the same token, as others have pointed out, the area that truly comprises the geographic Greater Philadelphia region is often seriously under-represented in many official surveys and studies, due in part to it's proximity to NYC and Washington DC. In real terms, as anyone from the region understands, "Greater Philadelphia" is MUCH larger than the five county area....as a practical matter, it's the ENTIRE southern half of NJ and ALL of southeastern PA in an arc out past Allentown, Reading, York and Lancaster (some would argue even farther.) The entire northern half of Delaware, and a tasty bite of extreme northern Maryland. Not sure what the demo's on that are....but it's massive. Metro definitions are notoriously elastic and nebulous. and people will always tend to choose the definition that paints their city or region in the most favorable light. San Francisco, Philly, and every other city in the world. And believe me, I have NO desire to diminish or disparage San Francisco. It's merits are as numerous as they are self-evident. As I mentioned in the OP, it's name recognition and international profile are almost certainly higher that Philly's....but I think it's a very close race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 01:23 PM
 
1,242 posts, read 1,587,005 times
Reputation: 1068
No. San francisco is more reasonably comparable with fellow smaller cities like Seattle, Boston and DC.

Last edited by nephi215; 06-21-2012 at 01:29 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 01:25 PM
 
10,931 posts, read 5,000,957 times
Reputation: 4884
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFrom215 View Post
Obviously. My point, though....and I think it's a fair one....is that sometimes, some Bay Area posters seem to want to have it both ways; when it's convenient, the whole Bay Area is "San Francisco": SF/Oakland/San Jose are almost as interconnected as the boroughs NYC, with SF as Manhattan. When it's inconvenient, however, they are three entirely independent and discrete metros, and the problems or short-comings of the other cities don't have any bearing on San Francisco. That is my perception of SOME posters from SF. I'm not being facetious....if I'm mistaken or mis-characterizing, please set me straight. I realize, too, that the Philly/SF metros are very different in many ways. It might be accurate to consider the SF metro as single entity for some reasons, and not for others, but by the same token, as others have pointed out, the area that truly comprises the geographic Greater Philadelphia region is often seriously under-represented in many official surveys and studies, due in part to it's proximity to NYC and Washington DC. In real terms, as anyone from the region understands, "Greater Philadelphia" is MUCH larger than the five county area....as a practical matter, it's the ENTIRE southern half of NJ and ALL of southeastern PA in an arc out past Allentown, Reading, York and Lancaster (some would argue even farther.) The entire northern half of Delaware, and a tasty bite of extreme northern Maryland. Not sure what the demo's on that are....but it's massive. Metro definitions are notoriously elastic and nebulous. and people will always tend to choose the definition that paints their city or region in the most favorable light. San Francisco, Philly, and every other city in the world. And believe me, I have NO desire to diminish or disparage San Francisco. It's merits are as numerous as they are self-evident. As I mentioned in the OP, it's name recognition and international profile are almost certainly higher that Philly's....but I think it's a very close race.
I don't disagree. But, I think we can all agree that there are idiots on all sides of the argument making ridiculous claims (and failing to acknowledge any shortcomings), though. I don't think you should let that give all SF/Philly posters a bad rap.

Regarding metro distinctions, the fact that southern/south central Jersey (mercer co) is considered "NYC" is just as preposterous as splitting up the Bay Area into two "metros". I personally feel the Census does a very poor job of accurately representing the Bay Area or the Philly metro area. I understand they have reasons for splitting them up using their formulas, but I still feel they don't make sense to anyone actually familiar with both metro areas.

Last edited by HockeyMac18; 06-21-2012 at 02:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,368,925 times
Reputation: 1080
I never did get a response from you rainingrocks about that beach picture. So where is it really? I know its not in NJ and PA doesn't have a coastline.

Your no response speaks for itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 02:09 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,920 posts, read 12,332,567 times
Reputation: 3060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343 View Post
Also most of San Fran's crime is centered outside of the city in places like Oakland

No, "San Fran's" crime is centered in SF. Imagine that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,368,925 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
I would tend to agree on avg. the city of SF's housing stock is much more enviable than the city of Philadelphias, that is no surprise.
Good you admit as much.
Quote:
This info is somewhat outdated(2007)

Claritas- 2007 Household Income

Regional Households Income worth $1,000,000 to $1,999,999

NYC- 189,669
LA- 127,556
Chicago- 87,440
Philadelphia- 76,561
SF- 72,631
Washington-72,463
Boston-64,090
Dallas- 51,832
Atlanta-50,834
Detroit-50,164



Regional Household worth $2,000,000 +

NYC- 130,807
LA- 85,313
CHI-56,608
SF-50,990
Wash-50,498
Philadelphia- 48,831
Boston 42,380
Dallas- 33,071
Atlanta 32,1777
Detroit- 31,687
Let me bring you back to our time on household income.

Phily $78,752
San Jose $108,623
San Francisco $99,386

American FactFinder - Results
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top