Which city is more urban? Boston or San Francisco

[District of Columbia]

Originally Posted by 75 South

I responded to a Bay area vs Boston vs Philly thread it the outcome wasn't nearly as close. So I was impressed that when it's city for city that the two often compared cities are neck and neck. These photos are really cool.

Because you responded to a different question. That thread asks which is more important and this one asks which is more urban.

Does that sound like the same question to you?

[75 South]

I'm very educated, perhaps a little more above your pay grade. If you want to be obstinate, I'm perfectly fine with that. If you pay close attention to any thread on CD. One thing is for certain, when comparing cities, regardless of the original thread, some how it comes down to the same factors:

historical relevance
global importance
urbanity
density
cultural attractions
diversity
economic growth
GDP
street level pulse

* A response is not necessary. Your thoughts are not appreciated in my life. Find someone else to arbitrarily attack. I'm not the one and will not waste my resources, time nor intellect with people of your type. All the best to you going forward in your life. Consider this a one-time encounter.

Originally Posted by District of Columbia

Because you responded to a different question. That thread asks which is more important and this one asks which is more urban.

Does that sound like the same question to you?

[District of Columbia]

Sure sure all I see is a guy who went asking why the results are different in 2 threads with similar cities, both threads asking different questions.

None of the things you listed are even close to asking what this thread is about. Just saying, if you're as intelligent as you say then you need to step up your game a notch or two (maybe read the poll question?).

[citylover94]

Originally Posted by erin3465

I feel like the poll is just wrong here. I mean, just look at google streetview and explore these two cities.

There is no question that San Francisco is the more urban city. It's more dense, more vibrant, and just has more of a "city" feel to it. I think the east coast bias of this board is showing here.

I appreciate Boston for its history, its brick buildings, and its urban fabric. But I think San Francisco, despite having far less brick buildings, has a stronger urban fabric. Even in its fringes it still has rowhouses. Everywhere you go in SF you feel like you are in "the city". Besides NYC I cant think of any other city in this country, including Boston, where this is true.

Boston may not have rowhouses outside of the center but rowhouses are not very common in New England and are very rare outside of Boston. Outside of the central neighborhoods most of the buildings are triple deckers.
The densities in the outer neighborhoods of Boston are overall rather similar to SF and there are very urban areas that are close to downtown excluded from the city.
However I would agree that using the actual city limits to judge them on SF narrowly beats Boston.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by 75 South

I'm very educated, perhaps a little more above your pay grade. If you want to be obstinate, I'm perfectly fine with that. If you pay close attention to any thread on CD. One thing is for certain, when comparing cities, regardless of the original thread, some how it comes down to the same factors:

historical relevance
global importance
urbanity
density
cultural attractions
diversity
economic growth
GDP
street level pulse

* A response is not necessary. Your thoughts are not appreciated in my life. Find someone else to arbitrarily attack. I'm not the one and will not waste my resources, time nor intellect with people of your type. All the best to you going forward in your life. Consider this a one-time encounter.

Wowzas!

Also, SF.

[iAMtheVVALRUS]

I think it would definitely be Boston. I mean look at this!!!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...14596748_n.jpg

The only place comparable to downtown Boston would seem to be the lower, downtown part of manhattan. Otherwise all other cities in the country have wider and strighter streets than Boston. Even in cities like Chicago and New York, you can see incredibly far in two or four directions at one time. This seems to be true for San Francisco too.

Now granted the picture above is (I believe) a photo of the old West End (RIP). Still, you can find the narrow and winding streets in neighborhoods like....

The North End...
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/...x390-68661.jpg

Chinatown...
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/...e%20garden.jpg

The Financial District...
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1...vzzyo1_500.jpg

Charlestown...
http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...ergen-roth.jpg

And Beacon Hill...
http://static.travelmuse.com/docs/ar...-hill-full.jpg

On the other hand, I think one could argue that, though downtown Boston is denser, SF's density is more continuous and its urban area is larger. Boston's urban outskirts aren't necessarily smaller, I don't think, but they seem to be a bit more woodsy and suburban than SF's rows of low, tight, boxes.

SF...
http://www.city-data.com/forum/24774759-post484.html

vs

Boston...
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6091/6...c533c31e_z.jpg

[tmac9wr]

^^ The first picture there is actually of the West End, which is now extinct unfortunately. All those beautiful streets were knocked down to make way for "urban renewal", which was basically just a bunch of towers in the park. They're trying to fill it in now, but damn we lost a fantastic neighborhood in the West End. Boston has one of the most beautiful, historic streetscapes in the country...but it would be so much better if we could have kept neighborhoods like the West End and Scollay Square.

Before:
http://www.thewestendmuseum.org/images/urban_web.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...50s_Boston.png


After: http://thewestendmuseum.org/wordpres...renewal_01.jpg

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

^^ The first picture there is actually of the West End, which is now extinct unfortunately. All those beautiful streets were knocked down to make way for "urban renewal", which was basically just a bunch of towers in the park. They're trying to fill it in now, but damn we lost a fantastic neighborhood in the West End. Boston has one of the most beautiful, historic streetscapes in the country...but it would be so much better if we could have kept neighborhoods like the West End and Scollay Square.

Before:
http://www.thewestendmuseum.org/images/urban_web.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...50s_Boston.png


After: http://thewestendmuseum.org/wordpres...renewal_01.jpg

It started when they built an elevated freeway right through the heart of the city. What other cities have been this stupid. Fortunately a lot did survive but wayyyyy too much was destroyed.

[iAMtheVVALRUS]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

^^ The first picture there is actually of the West End, which is now extinct unfortunately. All those beautiful streets were knocked down to make way for "urban renewal", which was basically just a bunch of towers in the park. They're trying to fill it in now, but damn we lost a fantastic neighborhood in the West End. Boston has one of the most beautiful, historic streetscapes in the country...but it would be so much better if we could have kept neighborhoods like the West End and Scollay Square.

Before:
http://www.thewestendmuseum.org/images/urban_web.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...50s_Boston.png


After: http://thewestendmuseum.org/wordpres...renewal_01.jpg

Those before and after pictures just ruined my day. Such a shame that all that was torn down.

What I've always wondered however, is why Boston didn't have more neighborhoods like this. I understand that it was a ghetto, so thats why, back then, people didn't want to emulate it. But you would think today since Boston's housing prices are so high, and the central, historic, dense parts of the cities have the highest demand, that the city would be building in a way that looks like this. And since the West End was a low-class neighborhood, it couldn't have been too costly to build. So why is it that the city isn't being developped in a similar way? Is it more cost efficient to be building the seaport out with the large buildings that are there now, rather than recreate a west end style neighborhood with narrow streets and small buildings (with a modern twist of course), and if so, then why?

I also wonder why SF's sprawl looks more urban than Boston's sprawl. I still maintain that the most urban part of Boston looks more urban than that of SF, but zoomed out, SF's suburbs look a lot closer to the west end/other dense neighborhoods than those of Boston, if that makes sense...

SF: San Francisco Cityscape Panorama | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Boston: http://metroscenes.com/boston/images...nes.com_21.jpg

[nephi215]

Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS

I think it would definitely be Boston. I mean look at this!!!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...14596748_n.jpg

The only place comparable to downtown Boston would seem to be the lower, downtown part of manhattan. Otherwise all other cities in the country have wider and strighter streets than Boston. Even in cities like Chicago and New York, you can see incredibly far in two or four directions at one time. This seems to be true for San Francisco too.

Now granted the picture above is (I believe) a photo of the old West End (RIP). Still, you can find the narrow and winding streets in neighborhoods like....

The North End...
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/...x390-68661.jpg

Chinatown...
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/...e%20garden.jpg

The Financial District...
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1...vzzyo1_500.jpg

Charlestown...
http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...ergen-roth.jpg

And Beacon Hill...
http://static.travelmuse.com/docs/ar...-hill-full.jpg

On the other hand, I think one could argue that, though downtown Boston is denser, SF's density is more continuous and its urban area is larger. Boston's urban outskirts aren't necessarily smaller, I don't think, but they seem to be a bit more woodsy and suburban than SF's rows of low, tight, boxes.

SF...
http://www.city-data.com/forum/24774759-post484.html

vs

Boston...
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6091/6...c533c31e_z.jpg

I would say that it is pretty close between San Francisco and Boston when it comes to being more urban. They are certainly two of the most urban cities in the US. I think Philadelphia has even narrower and more narrow streets than Boston but the streets have a grid layout unlike Boston's winding streets.