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.
I think that makes sense as far as daytime populations. Daly City is much more of a bedroom community whereas Berkeley is a job center.
Actually you're right, and I can't believe I overlooked that lol. I was thinking of the actual population numbers for those two cities and forgetting that's what we were looking at for the bigger cities. My bad!
Yeah, that totally does make sense since Daly City is so heavily working class and most people's jobs would lie outside of there. I remember in my old neighborhood there you could find all kinds of parking til about 5pm. After that you were lucky to find a spot on the sidewalk within a 4 block radius to park. Definitely the daytime population there is very low.
i know we're going by numbers and stats (that's the best way to determine density). but if you've spent any time in Boston, you will notice that its hard to tell the difference between the city's neighborhoods and other towns surrounding the city proper (like Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, etc..). and all that contributes to an urban feel that makes it similar to SF. that's why i said its anyone's call.
stats fans, here's an interesting list of city densities you'll notice quite a few boston metro towns (you gotta love the NYC metro density though )
i know we're going by numbers and stats (that's the best way to determine density). but if you've spent any time in Boston, you will notice that its hard to tell the difference between the city's neighborhoods and other towns surrounding the city proper (like Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, etc..). and all that contributes to an urban feel that makes it similar to SF. that's why i said its anyone's call. stats fans, here's an interesting list of city densities you'll notice quite a few boston metro towns (you gotta love the NYC metro density though ) Read more: Which city is more urban? Boston or San Francisco
Yes but outside of this area witch is not at all big, the density drops off dramatically. Boston's urbanity feels more finite than San Francisco's. Also the dynamism and urban vibrancy in Boston and Cambridge doesn't extend into Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Malden, Revere Somerville, etc. To me those areas are suburban and working class and with the exception of Cambridge and and Brookline, rather run down, dreary, and depressing areas in my opinion. The nicer towns Arlington, Belmont I would not consider urban either. Only Cambridge and Brookline I would consider urban in character. I live in Newton and near its border with Allston, and it also feels set apart from the cities that border it and definitely lacking in urban feel. This area is more town oriented. My point is Boston is vibrant but it is also small kind of like a bigger version of Providence.
i know we're going by numbers and stats (that's the best way to determine density). But if you've spent any time in boston, you will notice that its hard to tell the difference between the city's neighborhoods and other towns surrounding the city proper (like cambridge, somerville, chelsea, etc..). And all that contributes to an urban feel that makes it similar to sf. That's why i said its anyone's call. Stats fans, here's an interesting list of city densities you'll notice quite a few boston metro towns (you gotta love the nyc metro density though ) read more: Which city is more urban? Boston or San Francisco
yes but outside of this area witch is not at all big, the density drops off dramatically. Boston's urbanity feels more finite than san francisco's. Also the dynamism and urban vibrancy in boston and cambridge doesn't extend into chelsea, everett, medford, malden, revere somerville, etc. To me those areas are suburban and working class and with the exception of cambridge and and brookline, rather run down, dreary, and depressing areas in my opinion. The nicer towns arlington, belmont i would not consider urban either. Only cambridge and brookline i would consider urban in character. I live in newton and near its border with allston, and it also feels set apart from the cities that border it and definitely lacking in urban feel. This area is more town oriented. My point is boston is vibrant but it is also small kind of like a bigger version of providence.
Yes but outside of this area witch is not at all big, the density drops off dramatically. Boston's urbanity feels more finite than San Francisco's. Also the dynamism and urban vibrancy in Boston and Cambridge doesn't extend into Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Malden, Revere Somerville, etc. To me those areas are suburban and working class and with the exception of Cambridge and and Brookline, rather run down, dreary, and depressing areas in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say when linking suburban and working class...but here's the densities (ppsm) of those "suburban" towns you just listed.
I understand those places are working class...but what about that makes them less urban? If you combine those 6 suburbs, they create a population of 317,323 in 28.8 sq mi for a density of 11,018 ppsm. That's denser than most major cities in the country. How in the world is that suburban?!
Quote:
The nicer towns Arlington, Belmont I would not consider urban either.
I guess they're slgihtly less dense (Arlington is 8,151 ppsm, Belmont 5,147)...but still, they're relatively far outside the city. Do you expect them to have the urbanity of the North End?
Quote:
Only Cambridge and Brookline I would consider urban in character. I live in Newton and near its border with Allston, and it also feels set apart from the cities that border it and definitely lacking in urban feel.
I didn't realize that Allston and Newton bordered each other, unless you're combining Brighton with Allston...but anyway, yea Newton is more suburban (I mean, it is a suburb!). Once you leave Boston to the South or West it gets suburban much quicker than if you travel North. It would be like saying San Francisco is less urban because if you go North to Sausalito or Tiburon, it's more town-oriented versus following the SF Peninsula South.
Just wondering if any of you had thoughts on where you'd rather raise a family, Boston suburbs or SF suburbs/San jose area? I'm considering opportunities in both cities (Boston and either SF or SJ) and while we love being in an urban area, considering cost of housing, schools, safety, green space, we will likely live in a suburb with proximity to the city.
I've lived in the Boston area as a college student, and have been to SF several time to visit family b ut have not stayed for any length of time. They both have a lot of positives to recommend them, but I don't feel I have a good basis to make this huge decision for our family. Your input much appreciated.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say when linking suburban and working class...but here's the densities (ppsm) of those "suburban" towns you just listed.
I understand those places are working class...but what about that makes them less urban? If you combine those 6 suburbs, they create a population of 317,323 in 28.8 sq mi for a density of 11,018 ppsm. That's denser than most major cities in the country. How in the world is that suburban?!
Suburban, meaning small town government run by small minded racist townies. I do not consider everett and chelse cosmopolitan, sorry.....28 q mi is not even the size of Springfield ma . San Fran is 45 sq mile and it is larger in area and denser in population than all those towns combined. This is not counting the suburbs which is what malden, medford, etc are. And with the exception of the drunk small minded townie losers that reside there, everett, medford, malden, revere, no one outside massachusetts has ever heard of or care about these toilets you mention....
I guess they're slgihtly less dense (Arlington is 8,151 ppsm, Belmont 5,147)...but still, they're relatively far outside the city. Do you expect them to have the urbanity of the North End?
Arlington and Belmont are only 7 mi from dowtown boston. That's far?????
Also the north end isn't even 1 sq mi. Why do you keep harping about how impressive it is. I guess when you're from a pastoral and quaint region like new england it's impressive, but not to me. Just like people from maine and vt think portland and burlington are big. pathetic......
I didn't realize that Allston and Newton bordered each other, unless you're combining Brighton with Allston...but anyway, yea Newton is more suburban (I mean, it is a suburb!). Once you leave Boston to the South or West it gets suburban much quicker than if you travel North. It would be like saying San Francisco is less urban because if you go North to Sausalito or Tiburon, it's more town-oriented versus following the SF Peninsula South.
Allston/brighton, if you want to be technical.
You can drive south for almost 50 miles down the peninsula to San Jose and it is continously built up and much more dense then when you leave boston. You can leave dt boston in any direction, that includes to the north and be in the boonies in 20 min. Not so in SF. Drive over the bay bridge and you have a city with not much less pop than Boston. Actually Oakland kind of reminds me of Boston. And San Jose has over a million people. This is not counting the metro areas around all three of these cities so you can leave SF in almost any direction and it can be an hour before you're out in the country.
You can drive south for almost 50 miles down the peninsula to San Jose and it is continously built up and much more dense then when you leave boston. You can leave dt boston in any direction, that includes to the north and be in the boonies in 20 min. Not so in SF. Drive over the bay bridge and you have a city with not much less pop than Boston. Actually Oakland kind of reminds me of Boston. And San Jose has over a million people. This is not counting the metro areas around all three of these cities so you can leave SF in almost any direction and it can be an hour before you're out in the country.
i don't know about that. it took us less than 30 mins to get to muir woods (mill valley?) and that looked pretty country to me. actually, would you consider sausalito urban? it looked rustic like cape cod.
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.
Actually you're right, and I can't believe I overlooked that lol. I was thinking of the actual population numbers for those two cities and forgetting that's what we were looking at for the bigger cities. My bad!
)
