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.
That is well known but I like the honesty here lol... Aside from some nagging issues it really is a great city to defend and boast for really. I am a repeat visitor not just because of friends there but because I really do enjoy the city and its attributes. Also, be careful because if you come up here in certain ways a certain place might grab you in ways you wouldn't expect
The US East Coast bias of this board is shining brightly here. Objectively based on the criteria San Francisco should be right there with Chicago and well above Philly and Boston. Toronto is also way low.
The US East Coast bias of this board is shining brightly here. Objectively based on the criteria San Francisco should be right there with Chicago and well above Philly and Boston. Toronto is also way low.
San Francisco is not right there with Chicago... Chicago's urban core is much, much larger. San Francisco is much closer to Philly and Boston. Although, I agree with you that SF is above these two, although really not by much.
I've visited all but DC fairly recently. SF's core seems much larger and busier than Boston's or Philly's. But all three are fantastic in quality terms.
Toronto is starting to challenge Chicago for largest core. More housing, less office.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightonWalnut
San Francisco is not right there with Chicago... Chicago's urban core is much, much larger. San Francisco is much closer to Philly and Boston. Although, I agree with you that SF is above these two, although really not by much.
The knock against San Francisco when compared to Philadelphia and Boston is that its public transportation is noticeably weaker (which is why Uber was created), its walkability suffers due to geography (aka those hills) and its urban core is condensed. So while it has a higher density in the immediate core, along with better vibrancy and shopping, it drops off outside of that. Philadelphia, even with its blight, maintains its urbanity over a much larger area, as does Boston with its surrounding municipalities. An argument can be made for all three, though I find them to be in the same tier, below Chicago and Toronto, and arguably above DC.
The knock against San Francisco when compared to Philadelphia and Boston is that its public transportation is noticeably weaker (which is why Uber was created), its walkability suffers due to geography (aka those hills) and its urban core is condensed. So while it has a higher density in the immediate core, along with better vibrancy and shopping, it drops off outside of that. Philadelphia, even with its blight, maintains its urbanity over a much larger area, as does Boston with its surrounding municipalities. An argument can be made for all three, though I find them to be in the same tier, below Chicago and Toronto, and arguably above DC.
Agree 100%
Although, every year, Philadelphia's vibrant urban core expands outward farther as more neighborhoods change and gentrify.
Seattle and Boston [Boston + Cambridge] are kicking far above their weight. Seattle is off the charts, of course.... but when Boston construction matures in 3-6 years, you all are gonna shard yourselves on their astonishing new reaches in urban density, especially when you factor in the college students. Boston will be topping 21,000 [residents + students] / sq mile as the Walsh machine pushes toward it's third term running Boston.
Sadly all over the urban core, 30 story highrise proposals are getting knocked down to 20~25 stories, where Seattle is going 30, 35 and 40 story residential, with a few going well-higher still.
Yes, Boston, is very much stuck on the old ways.
Still waiting for anyone outside of Boston to dare count the sq ft on this list, all serviced existing and new public transit.
Just what will 80~90M sq ft of office and residential look like when the build out matures?
I've visited all but DC fairly recently. SF's core seems much larger and busier than Boston's or Philly's. But all three are fantastic in quality terms.
Toronto is starting to challenge Chicago for largest core. More housing, less office.
SF's core seems much larger because it has more highrises... that's really it. Philadelphia's core is actually that largest out of the three square mileage wise, but has less highrises than SF.
Boston's "core" Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods is actually the smallest of the three, but feels much larger once you add in Cambridge.
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.
