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.
San Frans beautiful setting is unparalleled (except maybe Seattle) but this doesn't come close. NYC aside, Chicago is THE city for American urban architecture and as the city that gave us the skyscraper, it knows its bread and butter. It's been a century long attempt to defy the flat as a pancake topography, to make mountains of their own. SF looks like a storybook land, but if we're going with skyline alone, Chicago wins.
I suffered through 20 years of Houston and Dallas, working to build my career and somehow find a way to make a move to San Francisco. Next week will mark my first year in The City. I work in its skyline. My window looks out to the Transamerica Pyramid, Coit Tower and the Bay. I watch the fog roll in over the water in the evenings, while Nob Hill runs interference for us and keeps us sunny. A great deal of the "skyline" in my part of town is 3-4 story buildings draped over Nob and Russian Hills, reaching up a few hundred feet.
Then, there's the new part of the skyline, just south of Market. This part of town seems built for the C-D crowd. An 1100 footer and a few 600-800 ft. Towers' sites are being prepped now. I couldn't care less about them, though. Stuff like SOMA's wider streets, glass towers and hustling workers works well in most cities. It's not as good a fit for San Francisco. But, it is nice to have a more contemporary side of downtown, I guess.
That's the thing about this city. You can enter a new continent just by crossing a street. It seems they're finally adding "North America" to that list with these new SOMA developments.
Oh, and I'm sticking with the "America's gem" thing...
Good stuff, good for you for making it to the city.....
As for skyline, it has to be Chicago, its just too big and too tall. However, SF has more density and is more vibrant in my book, I noticed that right off the first time I went to Chicago. Both are fantastic though....
Good stuff, good for you for making it to the city.....
As for skyline, it has to be Chicago, its just too big and too tall. However, SF has more density and is more vibrant in my book, I noticed that right off the first time I went to Chicago. Both are fantastic though....
A few shots of DT SF for good measure....
Vibrancy is definitely debatable between the two, but how does San Fran have more density? Are you referring to building density or population density?
Before you bring it up, I am well aware that San Fran boundaries are denser than chicagos, but Chicago is denser at 46sq miles and 227 sq miles.
Vibrancy is definitely debatable between the two, but how does San Fran have more density? Are you referring to building density or population density?
Before you bring it up, I am well aware that San Fran boundaries are denser than chicagos, but Chicago is denser at 46sq miles and 227 sq miles.
Building and population density. You dont need to look at 46 square miles, because thats the entirety of the city limits. You dont look at 227 sq miles because SF is only 47 sq miles. You look at the core, probably the core 15-20 sq miles, and its easy to see if you visit both. I grew up around SF and have been to DT Chicago about ten times. SF is denser and more crowded all year round at street level. The first time I went to Chicago, I expected SF on steroids, what I found was an amazing skyline and somewhat less lively street life.
Having lived in Chicago, the first time I went to SF I thought the skyline was tiny in comparison to be honest. While a great skyline itself, compared to Chicago it's certainly underwhelming in height, quality, length, and unique buildings. And compared to NYC, Chicago is underwhelming in quantity, width and length. You can see Chicago's skyline pretty well from a good distance, where as NYC fades away into the horizon it is so massive.
slo, I agree on more people on the streets (at least in feel), do you have the numbers in their cores at 15-20 sq mile range of the densest neighborhoods surrounding DT? As I know expanded out to 47 square miles Chicago has more ppsm than SF. I also know SF has denser census tracts at the sub 1 mile radius, as well as more people actually living in it's CBD.
I grew up around SF and have been to DT Chicago about ten times. SF is denser and more crowded all year round at street level. The first time I went to Chicago, I expected SF on steroids, what I found was an amazing skyline and somewhat less lively street life.
Well official stats would tell you that SF core is not denser.
Also, why would you expect "SF on steroids" when you went to Chicago, that is silly.
Last edited by prelude91; 10-01-2012 at 08:54 PM..
Well official stats would tell you that SF core is not denser.
Also, why would you expect "SF on steroids" when you went to Chicago, that is silly.
San Francisco has the densest census tracts out of SF and Chicago.
I expected SF on steroids based on what I knew of the Chicago skyline. On the street, dt Chicago has a lot to offer, but it doesnt have that overwhelming busy ness that SF has. I think the place in the US that is SF on steroids would be Manhattan.
San Francisco has the densest census tracts out of SF and Chicago.
I expected SF on steroids based on what I knew of the Chicago skyline. On the street, dt Chicago has a lot to offer, but it doesnt have that overwhelming busy ness that SF has. I think the place in the US that is SF on steroids would be Manhattan.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I find it hard to be believe that San Fran has a denser core than Chicago. San Fran may be denser when looking at individual census tracts but over a distance of say 15-20 sq miles (which I would consider an acceptable size for the core) my guess is Chicago is slightly denser. Being familiar with both, to me Chicago feels slightly denser overall.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I find it hard to be believe that San Fran has a denser core than Chicago. San Fran may be denser when looking at individual census tracts but over a distance of say 15-20 sq miles (which I would consider an acceptable size for the core) my guess is Chicago is slightly denser. Being familiar with both, to me Chicago feels slightly denser overall.
That is the question I already posed to get statistical proof. I know it isn't in the larger sense, definitely not in the 40-60 square mile range b/c I've ran those numbers before, highly doubtful in 15-20 either... possibly in 5 or below. ...But I know it is high in say, Chinatown and other areas which are only usually like .2 and .4 square miles.
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.
