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.
Do you understand that doesn't mean it's BETTER? Menlo Park is not BETTER than NYC. Avenue of the Stars is not BETTER than other downtowns. They're more expensive, but that does not mean better. Only the Bay Area argues that being expensive is a winning factor.
Not a be all end all but a factor yes. There's no question San Francisco is a better city than Philly. There's no factors on your side!?
Not a be all end all but a factor yes. There's no question San Francisco is a better city than Philly. There's no factors on your side!?
Better transit. Less human feces, urine and vomit to step over. Better nightlife.
Skyline: Philly has the better built skyline, SF benefits from a better geographic location. Tie.
Cohesiveness: Not sure
Museums: Philly in downtown. Equal city-wide.
Restaurants: Philly downtown, equal city-wide. Downtown SF is not a foodie destination as are other neighborhoods like the Mission, Marina, North Beach, etc.
Shopping: SF
Green Space: Philly
Growth and Development: SF, but Philly isn't lacking
Transportation: Philly
Vibrancy: Tie. Downtown SF is a shopping/tourist/office destination. It's not vibrant late at night since it's not a nightlife destination like Mission, Castro, parts of SoMa not considered downtown, Polk, etc. Center City is the nightlife destination for Philly. It has the more vibrant peak densities, but Philly has a more consistent flow.
Not a be all end all but a factor yes. There's no question San Francisco is a better city than Philly. There's no factors on your side!?
So outside of shopping what aspect for SF is noticeably better
Also you say no factors for Philly are better DT. Are you saying museums and cultural venues in the SF DT are better let alone match what is in the Philly DT? Also are you saying nightlife in the SF downtown is better then Philly
So outside of shopping what aspect for SF is noticeably better
Also you say no factors for Philly are better DT. Are you saying museums and cultural venues in the SF DT are better let alone match what is in the Philly DT? Also are you saying nightlife in the SF downtown is better then Philly
Just curious
That's all well and good, but do you have any idea how valuable the real estate of museums in downtown San Francisco are compared to the value of the real estate of the museums in Center City are? Sure the downtown Philadelphia venues are larger, but if you're taking the land values at dollar per square foot, downtown SF's museums will blow Center City's museums away. I also don't see how the nightlife in downtown San Francisco can possibly be better when a bar in even a sketchier part of the Tenderloin is probably sitting in a space that could be as expensive per month to rent as any equivalent space in an actual decently nice part of Center City. How can you even enjoy your drink in Center City when you know that somewhere a similar bar is sitting in a building that is worth way more?! That's absurd!
That's all well and good, but do you have any idea how valuable the real estate of museums in downtown San Francisco are compared to the value of the real estate of the museums in Center City are? Sure the downtown Philadelphia venues are larger, but if you're taking the land values at dollar per square foot, downtown SF's museums will blow Center City's museums away. I also don't see how the nightlife in downtown San Francisco can possibly be better when a bar in even a sketchier part of the Tenderloin is probably sitting in a space that could be as expensive per month to rent as any equivalent space in an actual decently nice part of Center City. How can you even enjoy your drink in Center City when you know that somewhere a similar bar is sitting in a building that is worth way more?! That's absurd!
Not only are those bars and museums worth more in San Francisco, but more millionaires visit them as well. Ha! That clearly makes us better!
That's all well and good, but do you have any idea how valuable the real estate of museums in downtown San Francisco are compared to the value of the real estate of the museums in Center City are? Sure the downtown Philadelphia venues are larger, but if you're taking the land values at dollar per square foot, downtown SF's museums will blow Center City's museums away. I also don't see how the nightlife in downtown San Francisco can possibly be better when a bar in even a sketchier part of the Tenderloin is probably sitting in a space that could be as expensive per month to rent as any equivalent space in an actual decently nice part of Center City. How can you even enjoy your drink in Center City when you know that somewhere a similar bar is sitting in a building that is worth way more?! That's absurd!
I know when I live in a house, it's better if I paid an arm and a leg. I know that when I go to a bar, I only get a nice buzz on if I paid an exorbitant amount for my drink. I know that when I look at architecture, the only thing that makes it impressive is if it's capable of netting a giant sum in a real estate transaction.
What a pathetic argument. Some of the best things in life are free or low-cost. I've had more fun and a better overall time in Peru than I have in Zurich. And that doesn't mean there's not some great things about Zurich, but the high COL in Switzerland certainly doesn't make the place or the people better.
Generally when people start making fringe arguments, it means they're desperate. SF has a great downtown, but I'll stick with CC. As an overall city, SF is in better shape, no question. But downtowns? Not IMO.
Do you understand that doesn't mean it's BETTER? Menlo Park is not BETTER than NYC. Avenue of the Stars is not BETTER than other downtowns. They're more expensive, but that does not mean better. Only the Bay Area argues that being expensive is a winning factor.
But Menlo Park isn't more expensive than NYC. And Avenue of the Stars isn't more expensive than top-tier downtowns. Apples to apples these places are much cheaper.
And yeah, a more expensive place is considered a better place. It means people are willing to pay more to live there. More expensive = more desirable.
Now, granted, you or I might not agree with this general assessment of these places, but the price people are willing to pay is a very good proxy for how people think about living in these places. You cannot argue a city is both extremely expensive and undesirable or extremely cheap and desirable.
So outside of shopping what aspect for SF is noticeably better
Also you say no factors for Philly are better DT. Are you saying museums and cultural venues in the SF DT are better let alone match what is in the Philly DT? Also are you saying nightlife in the SF downtown is better then Philly
Just curious
SF the downtown spreads so far out, it is certainly not just the cbd, thats not how SF functions. I would take a line on maybe 3 blocks west of Van Ness north south. North till it hits the bay, south till it hits Market and then due east toward AT&T Park. That would take in city hall. To me the only arguable factor is museums, but thats not abig deal SF's are all in close proximity very close distance and you dont leave 'the city' in any way.
Those guys can discount land values and cost all they want, but we all know there are tangible reasons why that have nothing to do with the city being constrained.
I dont think its any knock on Philly that SF is more popular, more visited, has more skyscrapers & shopping, more projects under construction not just now, but over long periods of time. Its more vibrant, the only city in the US Ive been in that surpasses the vibrancy in the US is NY. Yes, Chicago is bigger n badder, but SF pound for pound is much more vibrant year round.
Philly is bouncing back nicely but it doesnt have the full package that SF does RIGHT now. Its awakened from its decades long sleep, which is great. It has a ton going on to - keep it up!
Its [SF] more vibrant, the only city in the US Ive been in that surpasses the vibrancy in the US is NY. Yes, Chicago is bigger n badder, but SF pound for pound is much more vibrant year round.
Looks like for now, you haven't even wrapped up No. 3. I'd focus my energies there before I attempt No. 2.
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.
