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.
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!
land value is demand based and the price points are higher no doubt
Having lived in both outside of the retail area I don't see it as more vibrant or even more complete (it does have more retail and office space though neither are lacking in Philly). I also find the DT area even expanded to be less active into the evening. There are pluses and minuses to both I just don't see where they are as different as you proclaim, I find them to be quite comparable DT which is where we differ. I also am willing to bet I have a lot more experience in both to make the comparison. Further afield (beyond your extensions) is where SF maintains better vibrancy overall though again Philly may have as much just has more less desirable places as well and are less consistent when movinfg further afield).
And Philly never died to reawaken honestly it has spread considerably making it only better.
SF doe get more tourists but again they are by no means lacking in Philly. the only area where I see a real difference is in retail. I see more concentration of cultural activities in DT Philly and also see more nightlife personally.
In terms of full package, if its missing anything it would comparable retail but again its not as if its lacking by any means. No Nordstroms and a few other things but really I don't see thi as saying its not complete or probably the most comparable DT in so many ways. This notion seems to be a bone of contention with the Bay faithful. SF has many qualities to be envious of but for comparing these two DTs I don't see many differences and far more similarities. if comparing the cities as whole Philly has far more blight and crime and flat out awful areas. The DT and extended is not the area where this difference is.
Philly in these areas is also not cheap, especially on the residential side its just not as expensive as SF. Its similar to Chicago in this regard which I feel is a differentially better DT then either, another area where I am sure we disagree. And honestly outside of the Bay faithful and even among people who really like or love SF and its DT (me being one of those) a significant majority find Chicago's DT as a clear number 2.
I actually enjoyed SF more 20 years ago, sadly its loosing it edge and becoming more homogenous (which also has some pluses)
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!
land value is demand based and the price points are higher no doubt
Having lived in both outside of the retail area I don't see it as more vibrant or even more complete (it does have more retail and office space though neither are lacking in Philly). I also find the DT area even expanded to be less active into the evening. There are pluses and minuses to both I just don't see where they are as different as you proclaim, I find them to be quite comparable DT which is where we differ. I also am willing to bet I have a lot more experience in both to make the comparison. Further afield (beyond your extensions) is where SF maintains better vibrancy overall though again Philly may have as much just has more less desirable places as well and are less consistent when movinfg further afield).
And Philly never died to reawaken honestly it has spread considerably making it only better.
SF doe get more tourists but again they are by no means lacking in Philly. the only area where I see a real difference is in retail. I see more concentration of cultural activities in DT Philly and also see more nightlife personally.
In terms of full package, if its missing anything it would comparable retail but again its not as if its lacking by any means. No Nordstroms and a few other things but really I don't see thi as saying its not complete or probably the most comparable DT in so many ways. This notion seems to be a bone of contention with the Bay faithful. SF has many qualities to be envious of but for comparing these two DTs I don't see many differences and far more similarities. if comparing the cities as whole Philly has far more blight and crime and flat out awful areas. The DT and extended is not the area where this difference is.
Philly in these areas is also not cheap, especially on the residential side its just not as expensive as SF. Its similar to Chicago in this regard which I feel is a differentially better DT then either, another area where I am sure we disagree. And honestly outside of the Bay faithful and even among people who really like or love SF and its DT (me being one of those) a significant majority find Chicago's DT as a clear number 2.
I actually enjoyed SF more 20 years ago, sadly its loosing it edge and becoming more homogenous (which also has some pluses)
^^^honestly I think Chicago wins those polls based on its history and the size of the skyline. If you look at it from a full urban experience I think there are very valid arguments to put SF in the 2 position regardless of size.
I think there are several areas that Philly does well and is close with SF, but the ones where SF is ahead are by significant margins. Thats not to say SF doesnt have its well known problems because it clearly does, but it doesnt seem to slow down or affect things overall.
Its not meant as a knock to say Philly has awakened, because there were a lot of cities that went through severe urban regression, but are bouncing back. Philly is clearly one of those.
I 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.
But it does make Zurich much more desirable than Lima.
More desirable doesn't mean better, of course. That's totally subjective. But clearly Zurich is more desirable.
But it does make Zurich much more desirable than Lima.
More desirable doesn't mean better, of course. That's totally subjective. But clearly Zurich is more desirable.
I don't think you can even draw that conclusion. By saying a place is more desirable because of its COL, you assume that people would choose to live in Zurich over Lima in a vacuum. There is way more to it than that. Regional populations (e.g. population density), natural resources, government policies (including monetary policies), availability of housing, economics, etc. all play into it.
Between Philly and SF, I believe that SF is more desirable as a whole, DESPITE its COL. Although perhaps that will change. People tire of "barely making it" or paying $3,500/month for a shoebox. That certainly doesn't make life better.
I don't think you can even draw that conclusion. By saying a place is more desirable because of its COL, you assume that people would choose to live in Zurich over Lima in a vacuum. There is way more to it than that. Regional populations (e.g. population density), natural resources, government policies (including monetary policies), availability of housing, economics, etc. all play into it.
Yes, but that still makes Zurich more desirable. The "why" (economics, housing, monetary policies, etc.) are irrelevant.
I think as something becomes more desirable for people who are well off, it becomes less desirable to the average person. For many Americans, less expensive and affordable are more desirable. That's something Philly has in its corner and why the poll is so close.
I think as something becomes more desirable for people who are well off, it becomes less desirable to the average person. For many Americans, less expensive and affordable are more desirable. That's something Philly has in its corner and why the poll is so close.
IMO, the poll is so close because of the criteria used for the downtowns of each rather than the cities or metros as a whole. A rundown of the criteria is:
Skyline: Obviously no consensus and no one is yet claiming one has a dramatically better skyline than the other
Cohesiveness: Sort of an ambiguous topic that either side claims
Museums: The two are close in regards to museums as a whole when talking about the cities, but Center City gets this by a large margin as many of San Francisco's prized museums are located outside of the downtown area such as the Legion of Honor, the de Young Museum, and California Academy of Science are outside of any area that can be construed as downtown San Francisco
Restaurants: Tied for the most part, but little edging towards any one way or another; again, this has something to do with the number of San Francisco and the Bay Area's restaurants being outside of downtown San Francisco while much of Philadelphia's best are concentrated in or near Center City
Shopping: downtown San Francisco gets this for the vast majority of people
Green Space: this is one of the areas where San Francisco as a whole would have a huge edge over Philadelphia as a whole or as a metro region, but this isn't the case when talking about the respective downtowns as the squares of Center City are amazing urban green spaces that don't have real equivalents in downtown San Francisco and meanwhile the main major municipal park of Philadelphia is bordering Center City while the really great parks of San Francisco are not in downtown
Growth and Development: San Francisco gets this through larger population growth and construction with Center City going through rapid changes, but not to the same extent
Transportation: Easily goes to Center City as transit in Philadelphia, focused on downtown as is the same in San Francisco, is much better in both coverage and hours. The good thing about San Francisco is that the Central Subway is under construction while Philadelphia seems to be aiming much lower with expansions, but even with that, downtown San Francisco probably won't be on the same footing though this would help things dramatically. A combination of the Central Subway and some way of increasing frequencies of the cable cars and actually making it more of a real part of the transit system with fare prices and integration might be enough to get transit (those goddamn lines and that fare price kind of makes this not so great) within downtown San Francisco itself about par with Center City's provided Philadelphia, SEPTA and other regional agencies continue to lackadaisical about expansion of any kind. Philadelphia has pretty strong possibility of better utilizing its lines such as running Regional Rail more like a S-Bahn and/or better integrating the Patco Speedline for transit within the city, but it doesn't look to be happening anytime soon even if the infrastructure is more or less there already. For both Regional Rail and the Speedline, the rubric would be that within the city itself and within Center City or parts close to it in Philadelphia, when does the suggestion of using either to get around a greater Center City/downtown become not a ridiculous option for most people. When that happens, the substantial difference between transit options in downtown Philadelphia and downtown San Francisco can drastically change even when San Francisco finishes its Central Subway.
Vibrancy: Peak numbers higher in downtown San Francisco, but an issue with nightlife being in favor of Philadelphia as well as the many smaller streets. There's also a different vibrancy going on with Philadelphia where a very large mix of people are actually residents of Center City.
There's a pretty even break with some metrics favoring one over the other. It's understandable when people are talking about metro areas (the Bay Area as a whole is a much better metro in many, many ways; just look at the closest neighbors of North Bay versus mainline cities in the Philadelphia metro or having Oakland and Berkeley across the waters versus Camden or an amazingly productive South Bay for the metro area versus the dispersed suburbs of Philadelphia that sometimes have nice historic downtowns but aren't really a great attraction or bustling economically in and of themselves; anyone hear of ways to actually better this system? Maybe increasing frequencies by at least 50% and then allowing residents with Clipper cards to tag in for a non-ridiculous transit fee?), but when talking about downtowns the story is different as Philadelphia has really centralized the city and the entire metropolitan areas's best offerings much more so than San Francisco or the Bay Area as a whole has.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-16-2016 at 02:43 PM..
Yes, but that still makes Zurich more desirable. The "why" (economics, housing, monetary policies, etc.) are irrelevant.
Basically.
I like Lima but its not Zurich.
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.
