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.
Of course you would say that. For skyline, there is not any building that stands out in San Francisco besides the transamerica pyramid
uhhhh
That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. What do you mean by "stand out" anyways? Height?
In that case:
Bank of America tower?
Millennium Tower?
50 Fremont?
Rincon Towers?
100 Van Ness?
45 Lansing?
345 California Center?
The Embarcadero Center?
etc, etc...
Those all stand out on the skyline quite a bit from various angles, and a few of them are visible from pretty much anywhere.
Or do you mean architecture? Those buildings i listed above certainly look decent enough (especially the Millennium, IMO). But SF also has plenty of good-looking towers that are on the shorter side, or that are surrounded by other towers, that don't stand out much from afar: the Shell Tower, PacBell Tower, Russ Building, St. Regis tower, 535 Mission, 350 Mission, Lumina towers, etc. Hell, even City Hall tops 300'.
Plus, the Salesforce tower (1,070'), and 181 Fremont (802') are under construction right now, and those will change the skyline massively in a year. There's also Oceanwide center going through approvals (910' and 625') and a 750+ footer planned.
Quote:
Also for transportation it's clearly Philadelphia. Philadelphia is more compact than San Francisco due to Center City having narrower streets and more rapid transit options than Downtown San Francisco. Downtown San Francisco trains all go the same exact direction and is very lacking in coverage compared to Philadelphia.
BART has more riders per day than SEPTA rapid transit (452,000 vs. 343,000). And then there's Muni Metro too, which also has more daily riders than the SEPTA light rail/trolleys (156,000 vs. 111,000). You're right though that train coverage could be better, Philly does have an advantage there. Philly has more commuter rail passengers too (134,000 vs. 57,000), though BART is a hybrid commuter system, so if you add both cities' rapid and commuter transit rider numbers up they end up almost equal (509,000 for SF, 477,000 for Philly). So there are more rail passengers in SF (665,000 for SF, 588,000 for Philly). Note that i'm only counting systems that go through SF and Philly city-proper, not others within their metro areas.
And for the record, most public transit trips in SF are done by bus. Buses are the unglamorous and often overlooked workhorse of SF public transit, and have great coverage throughout the city (SF has the largest trolleybus fleet in North America too). Looks like it's the same in Philly (555,000 daily bus riders in Philly, 485,000 in SF). Philly does beat SF in the amount of riders per capita in the city-proper by a small amount (39% vs. 34% as of 2010, not sure what the most recent numbers are), but it's not much of a difference.
As for compactness...philly doesn't even get close to the population density peaks that you see in downtown SF. And it has plenty of wide streets in center city to go along with the narrow streets, just like SF has plenty of narrow streets to go along with the wide streets. Though yeah, I guess center city does have a larger amount of narrow streets. But SF has an advantage not only in population density, but also in continuous unbroken urban development. It's not cut off from the rest of the city to quite the degree that Philly is (not that Philly is bad in that department, it's just a bit more disjointed compared to SF). Philly also has quite a few more empty lots in center city when compared to downtown SF.
Of course you would say that. For skyline, there is not any building that stands out in San Francisco besides the transamerica pyramid so Philadelphia has the edge here. Also for transportation it's clearly Philadelphia. Philadelphia is more compact than San Francisco due to Center City having narrower streets and more rapid transit options than Downtown San Francisco. Downtown San Francisco trains all go the same exact direction and is very lacking in coverage compared to Philadelphia.
I don't care for Comcast and I much prefer the density of DT SF a lot more high rises. I posted the stats earlier in the thread.
Transportation wise, SF has a lot more options then trains.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
uhhhh
That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. What do you mean by "stand out" anyways? Height?
In that case:
Bank of America tower?
Millennium Tower? 50 Fremont?
Rincon Towers? 100 Van Ness?
45 Lansing?
345 California Center?
The Embarcadero Center?
etc, etc...
Those all stand out on the skyline quite a bit from various angles, and a few of them are visible from pretty much anywhere.
Or do you mean architecture? Those buildings i listed above certainly look decent enough (especially the Millennium, IMO). But SF also has plenty of good-looking towers that are on the shorter side, or that are surrounded by other towers, that don't stand out much from afar: the Shell Tower, PacBell Tower, Russ Building, St. Regis tower, 535 Mission, 350 Mission, Lumina towers, etc. Hell, even City Hall tops 300'.
Plus, the Salesforce tower (1,070'), and 181 Fremont (802') are under construction right now, and those will change the skyline massively in a year. There's also Oceanwide center going through approvals (910' and 625') and a 750+ footer planned.
BART has more riders per day than SEPTA rapid transit (452,000 vs. 343,000). And then there's Muni Metro too, which also has more daily riders than the SEPTA light rail/trolleys (156,000 vs. 111,000). You're right though that train coverage could be better, Philly does have an advantage there. Philly has more commuter rail passengers too (134,000 vs. 57,000), though BART is a hybrid commuter system, so if you add both cities' rapid and commuter transit rider numbers up they end up almost equal (509,000 for SF, 477,000 for Philly). So there are more rail passengers in SF (665,000 for SF, 588,000 for Philly). Note that i'm only counting systems that go through SF and Philly city-proper, not others within their metro areas.
And for the record, most public transit trips in SF are done by bus. Buses are the unglamorous and often overlooked workhorse of SF public transit, and have great coverage throughout the city (SF has the largest trolleybus fleet in North America too). Looks like it's the same in Philly (555,000 daily bus riders in Philly, 485,000 in SF). Philly does beat SF in the amount of riders per capita in the city-proper by a small amount (39% vs. 34% as of 2010, not sure what the most recent numbers are), but it's not much of a difference.
As for compactness...philly doesn't even get close to the population density peaks that you see in downtown SF. And it has plenty of wide streets in center city to go along with the narrow streets, just like SF has plenty of narrow streets to go along with the wide streets. Though yeah, I guess center city does have a larger amount of narrow streets. But SF has an advantage not only in population density, but also in continuous unbroken urban development. It's not cut off from the rest of the city to quite the degree that Philly is (not that Philly is bad in that department, it's just a bit more disjointed compared to SF). Philly also has quite a few more empty lots in center city when compared to downtown SF.
Outside of the Rincon Towers and Millennium Tower, San Francisco's skyline is quite old, ugly and muted--to include the Transamerica Pyramid, quite possibly the ugliest defining skycraper in any city's skyline. Unique does not equal aesthetically pleasing, imo, and I think it only gets a "pass" because it's stuck around so long. It's telling that the SF skyline is 90% of the time shot with the bay, mountains and Golden Gate/Bay Bridge in the background--those buildings, aside from density, don't do much on their own.
So it is a good thing that Salesforce and Fremont are going up--those appear to be quite lovely, modern skyscrapers that will do much for the skyline. But Philadelphia has newer, taller skyscrapers than San Francisco, with possibly two more supertalls to come (the CITC for sure, already going up faster than Salesforce, and a 1,000 footer at the proposed Schuylkill Yards). And since you mentioned City Hall, Philly's City Hall is an architectural masterpiece that surpasses any building in San Francisco.
As far as your transportation point, I don't see how pointing out SF's slightly larger ridership numbers (it is a significantly larger metro afterall) negates his point about its poor coverage. I also don't see what population density peaks have anything to do with whether streets are narrow or not. Philly is older and should have more narrow streets, which it does--even in its CBD. Not many other major cities have one lane, one way streets with parked cars on both sides right in their downtown--those are usually in city outskirts, or some cute boutique suburb. And I don't see how Philly has Center City cut off from the rest of the city. Go north or south, it's unbroken development. Go west, and it's a very short walk across a bridge to even more development. Given Philly's substantially larger footprint, I'd say it has more continuous urban development by default, just in terms of pure sq miles. You're right about more empty lots, but Philly has a much bigger urban footprint to cover and competition from its suburbs. It's a lot harder to utilize every sq mile in its city proper to its fullest like SF or Boston do.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
I'll say that Wilshire Grand's spire doesn't really justify it being "taller" than Salesforce. But CITC has a much thicker "spire" that is far more organic to the building and visually makes a much stronger impact. It's pretty bulky, and gives off a "roof height" top-off effect to the naked eye--you'll be able to see it clear as day from any angle, with no squinting involved. Besides, Philly will have a taller roof top height tower anyway in the Schuylkill Yards 1095' tower.
Outside of the Rincon Towers and Millennium Tower, San Francisco's skyline is quite old, ugly and muted--to include the Transamerica Pyramid, quite possibly the ugliest defining skycraper in any city's skyline. Unique does not equal aesthetically pleasing, imo, and I think it only gets a "pass" because it's stuck around so long. It's telling that the SF skyline is 90% of the time shot with the bay, mountains and Golden Gate/Bay Bridge in the background--those buildings, aside from density, don't do much on their own.
So it is a good thing that Salesforce and Fremont are going up--those appear to be quite lovely, modern skyscrapers that will do much for the skyline. But Philadelphia has newer, taller skyscrapers than San Francisco, with possibly two more supertalls to come (the CITC for sure, already going up faster than Salesforce, and a 1,000 footer at the proposed Schuylkill Yards). And since you mentioned City Hall, Philly's City Hall is an architectural masterpiece that surpasses any building in San Francisco.
The Transamerica Pyramid is one of my favorite skyscrapers, I know its subjective but I haven't heard too many people call it ugly.
Again its subjective but that's quite a bold statement, I don't really how Philly's City Hall is any more of a masterpiece than SF's honestly. Philly has one of the best looking in the nation but so does SF.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
The Transamerica Pyramid is one of my favorite skyscrapers, I know its subjective but I haven't heard too many people call it ugly.
Again its subjective but that's quite a bold statement, I don't really how Philly's City Hall is any more of a masterpiece than SF's honestly. Philly has one of the best looking in the nation but so does SF.
Yea, it is all subjective, but I'm not a big fan of pyramid buildings. I don't care for the Shard in London, either, and whatever building North Korea has yet to finish (and it's North Korea lol).
The Transamerica wasn't beloved when it was first proposed and built--it's kind of like that French saying about old whores and buildings getting respect with age, though I'm personally still not a fan of this one.
And while SF's City Hall is a beauty, it isn't particularly unique when compared to other capitol buildings. Philly's City Hall is older, more ornate, much taller, has an observation deck, and has the tallest statue (William Penn) upon any building in the world. It is also literally right in the center of the city, and still acts as the main focus of Center City, even with all of the new glass skyscrapers. And according to the American Institute of Architects, it is their 21st favorite structure in America, ahead of SF's City Hall at 49 (and to be fair here, the Transamerica Building is listed at 61 on this list, so back to that whole subjectivity thing).
Yea, it is all subjective, but I'm not a big fan of pyramid buildings. I don't care for the Shard in London, either, and whatever building North Korea has yet to finish (and it's North Korea lol).
The Transamerica wasn't beloved when it was first proposed and built--it's kind of like that French saying about old whores and buildings getting respect with age, though I'm personally still not a fan of this one.
And while SF's City Hall is a beauty, it isn't particularly unique when compared to other capitol buildings. Philly's City Hall is older, more ornate, much taller, has an observation deck, and has the tallest statue (William Penn) upon any building in the world. It is also literally right in the center of the city, and still acts as the main focus of Center City, even with all of the new glass skyscrapers. And according to the American Institute of Architects, it is their 21st favorite structure in America, ahead of SF's City Hall at 49 (and to be fair here, the Transamerica Building is listed at 61 on this list, so back to that whole subjectivity thing).
Settling on Center City and a few adjacent blocks going north south and west versus SF's equivalent which would be parts or all of union square, fidi, civic center, tenderloin, soma, chinatown, and nob hill.
Skyline: Center City has the more varied skyline, but I can't really say I'm much in for one or the other. The Transamerica Pyramid is ugly to me, but it's distinct enough to be kind of endearing. Like the face of a bulldog.
Cohesiveness: I would describe Center City as more cohesive than downtown SF in terms of the general area seeming to be more mixed use overall with less segmentation and generally flowing from one area to another
Museums: Center City pretty strongly for this one. Part of this is because some of SF's major museums simply aren't anywhere near downtown while virtually all of Philadelphia's are.
Restaurants: About tie--keep in mind though, this is talking about downtown. SF's number of quality restaurants outside of downtown is definitely higher and more notable. Downtown-wise, it feels like a wash overall.
Shopping: SF downtown has the larger variety of large name brands and luxury brands and is more of a shopping destination, chinatown and tenderloin do pretty well in the odd and varied stuff, personally prefer Center City but realize that it's probably because I know people making things in Philadelphia which means I know more about odds and ends there?
Green Space: Center City and its squares are nicer. Its major park, Fairmount, is right nearby. Again, this is one of those categories that goes overwhelmingly in favor of SF if you talk about the city as a whole.
Growth and Development: SF seems to have a huge amount of construction downtown, don't remember as much going construction in Center City
Transportation: Center City, easily. Transit in SF isn't really that great, not to say Philadelphia's is amazing, but I think the difference is pretty immediate when you start trying to get around especially on weekends. BART is really one single subway line when in SF and is pretty terrible as a subway system during weekends when it becomes especially infrequent; meanwhile, SEPTA's two subway lines actually increase service hours to 24 hours by providing overnight weekend service while the non-SEPTA Patco Speedline is 24.7. Muni Metro misses out and quite a few places and becomes crushingly slow pretty often. For SF, Uber/Lyft have been great with this being my first uber'd trip in SF helping immensely. The only thing SF has in favor over Philadelphia when it comes transit is that they are actually expanding the system and seems to recognize that expansion is necessary. Haven't heard much about expanding service lines or frequencies in Philadelphia.
Vibrancy: Peaks higher in SF, but pretty similar when evened out over the greater downtown area. Nightlife is better in Philadelphia. SF goes to sleep early except for the large transient population who seem pretty good about taking shifts to cover any time of day or night.
Also, interesting similarities between the two:
- Market Street as the main defining street cutting through the middle of downtown
- Working waterfront that was (in SF's case) or is (in Philadelphia's case) cut off from the heart of the city because of an expressway/freeway. Philadelphia's still studying making a cap for the I-95 after all these decades of talk
- Mixed-mode main trunk for transit on Market Street downtown with a level for rapid transit and a level for the light rail/trolley system going under Market Street
- Pretty good
Would overall say these two are probably the most comparable downtowns in the US.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-13-2016 at 11:02 AM..
Yea, it is all subjective, but I'm not a big fan of pyramid buildings. I don't care for the Shard in London, either, and whatever building North Korea has yet to finish (and it's North Korea lol).
The Transamerica wasn't beloved when it was first proposed and built--it's kind of like that French saying about old whores and buildings getting respect with age, though I'm personally still not a fan of this one.
And while SF's City Hall is a beauty, it isn't particularly unique when compared to other capitol buildings. Philly's City Hall is older, more ornate, much taller, has an observation deck, and has the tallest statue (William Penn) upon any building in the world. It is also literally right in the center of the city, and still acts as the main focus of Center City, even with all of the new glass skyscrapers. And according to the American Institute of Architects, it is their 21st favorite structure in America, ahead of SF's City Hall at 49 (and to be fair here, the Transamerica Building is listed at 61 on this list, so back to that whole subjectivity thing).
I realize it was hated when it was first built but the 60's and 70's wasn't exactly a great period for architecture so it's not like people had much taste back then anyways. Either way that doesn't really negate how it looks and people feel about it today.
You just said "Unique does not equal aesthetically pleasing" so I'm not sure what your point is with that regarding how beautiful Philly's or SF's City Hall is or isn't. They all may be true but none of it somehow equates to Philly's City Hall being anymore of an "architectural masterpiece" than SF's City Hall.
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.
