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 is actually not that "urban". Only like 15% of it on the NW corner looks like a city. Even a city like Lisbon or Toulouse is more urban than San Francisco.
SF is actually not that "urban". Only like 15% of it on the NW corner looks like a city. Even a city like Lisbon or Toulouse is more urban than San Francisco.
I would actually say 20-25% if you're talking density and ample retail space. The density drops off at the Marina/Haight-Cole Valley/Bernal-Inner Mission/Dogpatch with other pockets through-out the city. Toronto looks really dense though based off of what I've seen on YouTube videos.
I haven't been to Boston but that doesn't mean I'm not well travelled.
Boston has always been very low on my list, and will continue to be.
Sounds like some reading comprehension issues. I said that Toronto suburb has a larger skyline than Boston and NYC is the only city in NA with a larger population core than Toronto.
There are very few people who are well travelled and less informed than you sir. You are in elite company to say the least.
In Mr. Burns' defense I think it's 1000% better that he admitted he didn't know much about the topic and even offered for people to correct him.
There are a lot of people out there that for whatever reason have issues with admitting that they don't know about a topic and think they know everything.
That's exactly the kind of thing I was expecting. A giant mansion somewhere Uptown. According to the Wikipedia article that is the only and very last single family home left in Manhattan. Very interesting.
That is not really all that noble. He could have easily answered his questions re: GDP using a brief google search. The term intellectually lazy captures it well.
Mr Burns of you think Cambridge to Boston is boundary stretching you have no clue what you're talking about. As I said before areas like Kendall and central square are 2 and 3 subway stops from the heart of downtown. This thread is about urban cores and these areas are every bit core. You have no understanding of Boston at street level if you claim otherwise. The density doesn't expand as far but this thread is about cores and people can absolutely prefer Boston's to Torontos.
Yeah, I voted SF. People choosing Toronto over SF is laughable.
Please don't go to extremes, especially if you have offered limited perspective on the cities that you are commenting about.
I find both cities very urban, walkable, and offer good public transport options. If anything, it's more of a tie between SF and TO, with different forms of urban built forms that are representative of their local characters.
I haven't been to Boston but that doesn't mean I'm not well travelled.
Boston has always been very low on my list, and will continue to be.
.
Sounds more like a "sally" in response to a comment you didn't like, as opposed to a true analysis of Boston as an interesting city to visit.
In terms of U.S. cities, though I am not saying Boston is necessarily number one, which other cities would be so numerous and more interesting to you to the point where Boston would be relegated to bottom-feeder status?
Mr Burns of you think Cambridge to Boston is boundary stretching you have no clue what you're talking about. As I said before areas like Kendall and central square are 2 and 3 subway stops from the heart of downtown. This thread is about urban cores and these areas are every bit core. You have no understanding of Boston at street level if you claim otherwise. The density doesn't expand as far but this thread is about cores and people can absolutely prefer Boston's to Torontos.
I can use this logic to expand Toronto's core all the way up to North York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardsyzzurphands
That is not really all that noble. He could have easily answered his questions re: GDP using a brief google search. The term intellectually lazy captures it well.
Bringing GDP into a discussion on urban cores is intellectually lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Sounds more like a "sally" in response to a comment you didn't like, as opposed to a true analysis of Boston as an interesting city to visit.
In terms of U.S. cities, though I am not saying Boston is necessarily number one, which other cities would be so numerous and more interesting to you to the point where Boston would be relegated to bottom-feeder status?
I am just not seeing this.
NYC
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Chicago
DC
Seattle
Philadelphia
on the American side, and
Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
on the Canadian side
before I go to Boston.
Heck I've been to the ones on the west coast more than once before I've been to Boston.
Air Canada had dirt cheap round trip flights to Boston from Vancouver with layover in Toronto and I considered ditching the Boston leg and getting off at Toronto.
That has nothing to do with transit quality. Previous winners include places like Dallas, Salt Lake City, Sacramento and the like.
NYC's MTA has threatened to leave the APTA, which would basically end them (membership fees are tied to ridership). That would be like 40% of their membership fees. It would be like the U.S. leaving the UN.
As much as I love MTA subway and express bus services when I worked in NYC couple years ago, it's a pretty tough sell to say that MTA offers top notch quality, service, or even basic passenger safety after Tuesday's A train derailment around 125th Street, which resulted in 34+ passenger injuries and fire in the tunnels.
The most embarrassing aspect of all this is that:
1) the fire did not happen on the trains themselves, but rather a result of layers of garbage accumulating on the tracks that caught on fire...
2) passengers on the derailed train did not receive any system-wide communication for more than 30 minutes after the derailment, due to the fact that the older A train models do not have a direct connection with the MTA's central PA system, resulting in a communication blackout.
Personally, I think it's an absolute disgrace that America's top showcase metropolis has a public transit system that has descended to this level where even basic passenger safety is in question. Forget about comparing with metros in Shanghai or Hong Kong or Tokyo, even subway systems in many developing nations with far less wealth can do a better job transporting large numbers of their citizens in a safe, clean, and dignified manner.
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.
