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.
some people just can't handle "Stat's" you Boston people have been "Spinning Just Like A Spinning TOP" so now get IT...Got IT...Now Go And Tell Your "Neighborhood"San Francisco is more urban than Boston (but) you are in a neck and neck race with the CITY OF CHICAGO Ill.
Hmmm. I live in Boston, voted for San Francisco, but I think your use of data is selectively self serving and naive. You can use data in such a way to support just about any argument. If we were to compare zip codes, for example, I'm quite sure that there is a zip code in Boston with a higher population density than the highest density zip code in SF. I won't raise the point, though, because it would be misleading. Just as misleading as it is to use the entire city's density without compensating for parkland or water (more than half of Boston's square area is taken by these two features). And the student population is usually not counted, and then there is the urbanity of abutting municipalities to consider, and etc., etc., etc., you get the point. Or maybe you don't.
As I said, I voted for San Francisco, but they are both quite urban, sometimes in differing ways. It is not an easy determination to make if you open your eyes to all the information that is available. I thought about a lot of issues, and in the end, I went with my gut. San Francisco feels more urban to me. I can't define that any better than the Supreme Court can define pornography. I know it when I see it.
So if we're going to ignore the difference in sizes when it comes to cities (since we're ignoring that london has areas the size of san francisco that are massively more dense), does that mean it's now fair to just rank cities based on arbitrary legal physical boundaries? I guess both Boston and SF are now pathetic since they're physically small cities with puny populations compared to other world cities.
Hmmm. I live in Boston, voted for San Francisco, but I think your use of data is selectively self serving and naive. You can use data in such a way to support just about any argument. If we were to compare zip codes, for example, I'm quite sure that there is a zip code in Boston with a higher population density than the highest density zip code in SF. I won't raise the point, though, because it would be misleading. Just as misleading as it is to use the entire city's density without compensating for parkland or water (more than half of Boston's square area is taken by these two features).
I only have love for you BOSTON but what do you think that a supporter of SAN FRANCISCO is going to do...(fall back on naivete) (yes) the only weapon at my disposal "it's the spin cycle" for sure HAVE you heard of the "GOLDEN GATE PARK" "BATTERY PARK"... "THE PRESIDIO" "San Francisco Beaches" and all the water features that san Francisco has yet still it has more DENSITY than BOSTON.
And the student population is usually not counted, and then there is the urbanity of abutting municipalities to consider, and etc., etc., etc., you get the point. Or maybe you don't.
And by the way HARVARD and MIT are not in BOSTON and SAN FRANCISCO has lots of College and University student Tooooo. You are SPINNING right now by bring in SURROUNDING Satellite CITIES and Suburbs.....it's doesn't matter if I understand , just as long as I can exercise my prerogative and voice my opinion.
As I said, I voted for San Francisco, but they are both quite urban, sometimes in differing ways. It is not an easy determination to make if you open your eyes to all the information that is available. I thought about a lot of issues, and in the end, I went with my gut. San Francisco feels more urban to me. I can't define that any better than the Supreme Court can define pornography. I know it when I see it.
You have to make a GUT Decision because it's your Prerogative to which city you THINK IS More URBAN , some folks from BOSTON said that BOSTON was because MORE PEOPLE RODE Bicycles and took Rail to Work. I said SAN FRANCISCO was because it's more DENSE "that's a toss-up in my view!!!.....
And by the way HARVARD and MIT are not in BOSTON and SAN FRANCISCO has lots of College and University student Tooooo. You are SPINNING right now by bring in SURROUNDING Satellite CITIES and Suburbs.....it's doesn't matter if I understand , just as long as I can exercise my prerogative and voice my opinion.
You do realize that Harvard and MIT aren't the only colleges in Boston...right?
San Francisco, because it's smaller, denser, has more hobos and is more expensive. That's basically what urbanity boils down to, in this forum at least.
San Francisco, because it's smaller, denser, has more hobos and is more expensive. That's basically what urbanity boils down to, in this forum at least.
Oh I definitely agree that San Francisco's urban environment is beautiful. However, London is on a level with only a few other cities when it comes to urban beauty (Paris, Rome, NYC).
I think San Francisco is on the same level as Boston when it comes to urban beauty. Both are simiarly sized and have a relatively similar style. San Francisco gets the nod in natural attractiveness, while I think Boston may have an advantage architecturally (though SF is great too).
I wasn't intending to downplay San Francisco's urban environment...I was trying to state that London's is just that good.
I agree London is light years ahead of both of these cities. I think in terms of architecture and urban setting both SF and Boston are two of the best in the country and about dead even in those regards, in completely different ways. Of course, its all subjective but I suspect they would both be near the top in a poll of US urban environments.
Anyways, I just thought this statement--
"There is more beautiful architecture and streetscapes in the Square Mile than there is in the entire Bay Area. And it's not even close. London, Paris and Rome have the best architecture on the planet in my opinion, with NYC not too far behind."--
did not give SF architecture and streetscapes its due. SF has a great mix of historical, Victorian, and modern architecture. It also has some of the most interesting, vibrant and beautiful streetscapes in the country. In the US, it is arguably top 2 or 3 in terms of streetscape, especially. So I wouldnt say Square Mile has more beautiful architecture and streetscapes than the entire bay area, or even just SF for that matter. And I wouldnt say that about Boston either (Keep in mind, too, that there is a reason European tourists absolutely love San Francisco and Boston)
I know you were trying to counter that wacko, but that kind of extreme statement doesnt strengthen your case!
San Francisco, because it's smaller, denser, has more hobos and is more expensive. That's basically what urbanity boils down to, in this forum at least.
One thing I like about both cities is that they both have very urban sections that are super-gritty and sections that are super-upscale within relatively close proximity.
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.
