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.
Don't kill the messenger , just passing along this particular data, i'm sure another publication may have different results. Ill add in Chicago into the mix for comparisons sake. Manhattan clearly in another stratosphere not worth mentioning here. Interesting Chicagos downtown employment prowess is off the charts(735 k) yet its downtown residential population on par with SF/Philly/Bos.
Except downtown Philadelphia is not more expansive and uniformly dense at the same time. That area across the freeway whete the Mormon Temple is being built, is quite dead in my experience.
Even near the Comcast building, there is a surprisingly empty feel imo.
Downtown SF is more packed in by a long shot, is more universally dense, even the areas that around SOMA that the center of building activity, feel more connected to the rest of DT and have far more vibrancy than equivalent Philly areas.
And I just returned from abroad and I cant believe how fast the skyline is growing even before the city's 2 new tallest buildings appear to drivers from the bay bridge.
I just dont see how that^ is "less" urban than Philly.
I agree. And this is one of the few things I will agree with you about. Center City, Philadelphia is certainly not more urban than San Francisco.
Downtown San Francisco is, IMO, one of three "Downtowns" larger and more urban than Center City Philadelphia. However, if Center City and University City continue to build up and connect to each other, the "feeling" of the size of the Downtown area will possibly be bigger than San Francisco.
Still, I think we can agree that Center City comes in at a comfortable number 4 after Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco.
I just dont see how that^ is "less" urban than Philly.
That video was awesome. The Bay Bridge at night... like damn.. beautiful. What Philly lacks is that polish that makes SF and Boston so currently appealing. Philly use to be a denser city 80 years ago, and now it has a certain emptiness and quietness to it in a lot of areas, that are urban explorers paradise. Why does Philly feel like a bigger city? Well Idk, but it can be pretty beautiful in its own way in my opinion
Lovely Philly pics and vids. We arent talking about 3 cities that are starkly different. All 3 are quite urban, have lively downtowns, are the de facto centers of culture and art for their regions, are the nexus of activity, etc.
An urbanist would be perfectly happy in any of the 3.
Lovely Philly pics and vids. We arent talking about 3 cities that are starkly different. All 3 are quite urban, have lively downtowns, are the de facto centers of culture and art for their regions, are the nexus of activity, etc.
An urbanist would be perfectly happy in any of the 3.
Exactly. They're not too far off, but San Francisco is certainly the most built up. San Francisco felt slightly larger, more consistently built up in the Downtown area, and more vibrant as far as street level activity especially in the busiest parts. Boston is also built up but Philadelphia is just larger.
The largest US Downtown's I would rank as:
Manhattan
Chicago
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Washington DC
Boston
Define "Urban". If you're talking about density, then San Francisco wins by a long shot. Within the city limits it's density is eclipsed only by Manhattan in the US.
The difference between San Fran and Boston in terms of density is 4,557 people per square mile.
The difference between San Fran and Manhattan is 52,928 people per square mile.
And Boston suffers from weird city boundaries; if the cities north of the Boston were included, and some of the leafier residential neighborhoods in Southern Boston were not, then Boston's density would be a lot closer to SF.
The difference between San Fran and Boston in terms of density is 4,557 people per square mile.
The difference between San Fran and Manhattan is 52,928 people per square mile.
And Boston suffers from weird city boundaries; if the cities north of the Boston were included, and some of the leafier residential neighborhoods in Southern Boston were not, then Boston's density would be a lot closer to SF.
SF hardly "wins by a long shot".
If "Boston" areas were included like Brookline and the northern cities were, maybe to an area equal to that of Philly, whats an estimate on the density? Would it increase or decrease per sq mi?
Agreed. SF has a fantastic urban core, but the comparisons to Manhattan do the city a disservice. Like Boston and Philly, it excels very well at low/mid-rise density with great street life.
Incredible videos by the way, everyone. The rich images that drones are able to capture have truly revolutionized aerial views and make all of these cities very appealing.
Lovely Philly pics and vids. We arent talking about 3 cities that are starkly different. All 3 are quite urban, have lively downtowns, are the de facto centers of culture and art for their regions, are the nexus of activity, etc.
An urbanist would be perfectly happy in any of the 3.
Nice post, Monty. Agree 100%. That video of San Francisco from the air, at night, was pretty cool as well. Beautiful city. Kudos.
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.
