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.
Boston isn't "pretty" urban. It's very urban. And even though I think SF may be slightly more urban...they're extremely close.
Boston's densest neighborhood is denser than San Francisco's densest neighborhood. Several of Boston's inner neighborhoods are over 30,000 people per square mile. Neighborhoods like Allston-Brighton are about fifteen to twenty minutes outside of downtown. Allston is over 16,000 ppsm and Brighton is over 17,000 ppsm.
Some SF neighborhoods:
the Tenderloin - 71,205 people/sq. mi
Chinatown - 61,029 people/sq. mi
Telegraph Hill - 38,055 people/sq. mi
North Beach - 32,629 people/sq. mi
Hayes Valley - 31,476 people/sq. mi
the Mission - 25,329 people/sq. mi
Inner Richmond - 24,185 people/sq. mi
The Tenderloin and Chinatown also have census tracts with densities of around 100,000 people.
San Fran is more urban. The geography of the two cities dictate their densities. If you need or want to be near Boston you have an extensive ring of communities arcing about 250 degrees around the city. For San Fran you are either north of San Bruno Mountain (in the city) or south of it (out of the city). In other words Boston has been able to spread out much more while still keeping an intimacy to the city.
the Tenderloin - 71,205 people/sq. mi
Chinatown - 61,029 people/sq. mi
Telegraph Hill - 38,055 people/sq. mi
North Beach - 32,629 people/sq. mi
Hayes Valley - 31,476 people/sq. mi
the Mission - 25,329 people/sq. mi
Inner Richmond - 24,185 people/sq. mi
The Tenderloin and Chinatown also have census tracts with densities of around 100,000 people.
I see. I was basing my stats off zipcodes. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'll just post what I found:
San Francisco's Densest Zip:
94108: 54,776
Boston's Densest Zip:
02113: 63,461
I've heard that a small neighborhood next to the Back Bay Fens has a density of over 100,000 ppsm, but I don't have any official statistics that would support it. The neighborhood is enclosed by the BBF, Hungtington Ave/Avenue of the Arts, Mass Ave, and Boylston Street.
Either way, I think we can agree that Boston and San Francisco are extremely dense/urban. However, I would agree that on the whole San Francisco is more dense than Boston, even in most inner neighborhoods.
I see. I was basing my stats off zipcodes. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'll just post what I found:
San Francisco's Densest Zip:
94108: 54,776
Boston's Densest Zip:
02113: 63,461
There's also the fact that that 02113 in Boston is 0.1 square miles, and has 6,614 residents, whereas 94108 in SF is 0.3 square miles and has 14,270 residents...
Quote:
I've heard that a small neighborhood next to the Back Bay Fens has a density of over 100,000 ppsm, but I don't have any official statistics that would support it. The neighborhood is enclosed by the BBF, Hungtington Ave/Avenue of the Arts, Mass Ave, and Boylston Street.
Either way, I think we can agree that Boston and San Francisco are extremely dense/urban. However, I would agree that on the whole San Francisco is more dense than Boston, even in most inner neighborhoods.
i can definitely agree with this. Both Boston and SF are very dense, maybe even more or less identical when it comes to their densest areas, but with SF having the edge overall
I have got to go with SF on this one. Not by miles, but by a little bit.
The city is denser than Boston overall (even if Boston's borders are reworked to include Cambridge, Sommerville and exclude to Hyde Park) and has a larger downtown. Plus, its virbancy seems to expand out a little further into its residential hubs.
That being said, Boston is more urban than pretty much everyother city in the county, save NYC, SF, Chi, and possibly Philly.
This has come to be a pretty close poll, Boston is just 10 behind San Francisco.
Boston's Vibrancy extends out until Allston to the west and Maverick to the East and I think it expands more than just to the Castro to the South and Nob Hill to the North for San Francisco.
I believe Boston is more dense In certain places but the places in SF are alot bigger, except for SF China town, that must be one of my favorite neighborhoods in the US.
I have got to go with SF on this one. Not by miles, but by a little bit.
The city is denser than Boston overall (even if Boston's borders are reworked to include Cambridge, Sommerville and exclude to Hyde Park) and has a larger downtown. Plus, its virbancy seems to expand out a little further into its residential hubs.
That being said, Boston is more urban than pretty much everyother city in the county, save NYC, SF, Chi, and possibly Philly.
yeah, the demise of philly proper is this so-called "northeast". it's like staten island. glorified suburb that killed the overal density rankings.
shame
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.
