Dallas vs. San Diego vs. Boston? (San Antonio, Howe: live, versus, safe)

[zatires]

Originally Posted by aceplace

I think that people who have been to SF would conclude you're either blind or just being perverse.

Nope.

If anybody actually lived in an urban city, such as most of Europe, Montreal, Toronto, many cities in Asia etc they would laugh at the urbanizm of San Francisco.

I have lived many many years of my life in true urban cities in Europe and I can tell the difference of urban and non-urban by experience. Living experience that is (unlike you).

PS: You were saying Dallas was the urban of all, and was like SF in urban sense, now you are saying SF is more urban?

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by zatires

Nope.

If anybody actually lived in an urban city, such as most of Europe, Montreal, Toronto, many cities in Asia etc they would laugh at the urbanizm of San Francisco.

SF is crowded with Europeans, and none of them laugh at the city. They think it's wonderful, and a true "urban gem".

Maybe I should post a message in the SF forum about your bizzare claim. The locals might want a word with you.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by aceplace

SF is crowded with Europeans, and none of them laugh at the city. They think it's wonderful, and a true "urban gem".

Maybe I should post a message in the SF forum about your bizzare claim. The locals might want a word with you.

Yes it is an "urban gem" in the USA that is!

When most of the US cities have nothing in the true urban sense, SF looks pretty decent. It actually does really look like an urban gem compared to hundreds and hundreds of cities in the US (compared to Dallas as well).

But comparing it to the true urban cities of Europe is well.......... worthless.

Only if you lived in a true urban city in Europe, Canada or Asia, you would know. But as you did not, well how can you argue about something you have never experienced?
Right?

[rdfw]

Stop, zatires! You're making me agree with aceplace... define what you are meaning by "urban" that disqualifies SF before you go any farther.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by rdfw

Stop, zatires! You're making me agree with aceplace... define what you are meaning by "urban" that disqualifies SF before you go any farther.

The biggest reasons;

Lack of affordable housing.
Urbanite only within the immediate city boundries, just a little outside districts where housing may get a little bit affordable, the urban aspect goes down as well.
Geographical location makes it nonfriendly for pedestrians. The hills that is, makes it a bit harder for the pedestrians to walk to any place they want.
Lack of retail/commercial/residential mix.
In most parts it is mostly residential, then certain blocks with commercial etc. Lacking the true urban feel of being able to get out of your apartment/flat going downstairs and do window shopping on your own street or within a block etc.
Lacking full size supermarkets, immediate resident needs/services suppliers etc that are in close range of all residents, this is due to zoning, cost of doing business etc, but still a downside.

Yes SF is good in urban sense, has a very good public transport system, denser than most cities, but still not NYC, Montreal, Toronto (for North America) etc. Definitely it is an urban gem within the USA, but not for the world.

[Ambassador]

I don't think its fair to compare US cities to those in Europe, or Japan, or Brazil.

Those countries and their respective cities have always prized urbanization, walkable cities, neighborhood programs, and independent businesses over franchises. They are decades ahead of us in that department.

In college my minor was in Urban Planning, one class away from a major in that subject , and of all the cities we studied as models of good urban planning only four were in the US: New York, Chicago, Washington D.C. , and San Fransisco(yes, zatires) honorable mentions from our professors also went out to Seattle, Boston, and Portland(Oregon).

Every other city was either in Europe(primarily) or Japan/China, or Brazil. France alone had 8 major cities we studied and did comprehensive research on. Our guest speakers were all from Europe. Most people in my classes were going on internships to Europe and two went to Japan.

SF is urban, yes. Maybe not to the degree of a European city but that does not disqualify it. Like I said before, the Euroepans are decades ahead of us in the urban planning department. In the US we just recently began to see the positives of living in an urban environment over a sparsely populated, auto dependent one. Never the less it will take decades before we see any real improvement here at home. In the mean time I suggest we either conform to the suburban reality of our country..or move to the few cities mentioned above here in the US which offer that style of living many of us now treasure.

This goes back to the statement that our mistakes are paid for by our children. The poor city planning of people from as far back as the 30s are now causing all these arguments among us here in the year 2008. If we had instead focused on planning our cities in the mold of the European ones, or even the Canadian ones today we would see a much greener, walkable, even a more dynamic U.S. At the very least we wouldn't be surrounded by McMansions or frustrated housewives or out of control gas prices due to ever increasing commute times or a chain restaurant on every corner.

[rdfw]

Originally Posted by zatires

The biggest reasons;
Lack of affordable housing.

That's not a disqualifier for 'urbanality', though.

Originally Posted by zatires

Urbanite only within the immediate city boundries, just a little outside districts where housing may get a little bit affordable, the urban aspect goes down as well.

What do you think about European cities in this regard? Many of them go straight into pastureland outside the city boundaries with just villages in between.

Originally Posted by zatires

Geographical location makes it nonfriendly for pedestrians. The hills that is, makes it a bit harder for the pedestrians to walk to any place they want.

And yet so many people there get by without a car anyway. The roads/sidewalks are heavily trafficked by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Originally Posted by zatires

Lack of retail/commercial/residential mix.
In most parts it is mostly residential, then certain blocks with commercial etc. Lacking the true urban feel of being able to get out of your apartment/flat going downstairs and do window shopping on your own street or within a block etc.

There is so little space there, it's all crammed together tightly, you can't escape the mix of retail/commercial/residential. I don't understand why you're saying that.

Originally Posted by zatires

Lacking full size supermarkets, immediate resident needs/services suppliers etc that are in close range of all residents, this is due to zoning, cost of doing business etc, but still a downside.

It's not bad in this sense. There might be more zoning than you'd find in Mumbai, but things are not far from residential areas (unless you're talking about outer sunset).

Anyway, this is off-topic, and I know about SF, but little to nothing about SD or Boston.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by Ambassador

I don't think its fair to compare US cities to those in Europe, or Japan, or Brazil.

Those countries and their respective cities have always prized urbanization, walkable cities, neighborhood programs, and independent businesses over franchises. They are decades ahead of us in that department.

In college my minor was in Urban Planning, one class away from a major in that subject , and of all the cities we studied as models of good urban planning only four were in the US: New York, Chicago, Washington D.C. , and San Fransisco(yes, zatires) honorable mentions from our professors also went out to Seattle, Boston, and Portland(Oregon).

Every other city was either in Europe(primarily) or Japan/China, or Brazil. France alone had 8 major cities we studied and did comprehensive research on. Our guest speakers were all from Europe. Most people in my classes were going on internships to Europe and two went to Japan.

SF is urban, yes. Maybe not to the degree of a European city but that does not disqualify it. Like I said before, the Euroepans are decades ahead of us in the urban planning department. In the US we just recently began to see the positives of living in an urban environment over a sparsely populated, auto dependent one. Never the less it will take decades before we see any real improvement here at home. In the mean time I suggest we either conform to the suburban reality of our country..or move to the few cities mentioned above here in the US which offer that style of living many of us now treasure.
.

And that is exactly my point.

SF is urban, i am not denying that. But compared to European cities, SF is a bit behind. European cities, and many Asian cities are decades ahead of SF in terms of urban.

Trying to state SF is as urban as the European/Asian cities etc will not be the truth.
On the other hand saying that SF is an urban gem in the US will be the truth.

I do hope and wish the major cities in the US will be as urban as the European cities. I love that lifestyle, and I do think that it is also a better lifestyle for the environment etc... But pity that in the US we don't have that mentality in majority of the residents.

[MantaRay]

Europeans visit SF and actually really like the city. And actually I think it really not as important to have retail and residential on the same block as to make retail accessible and safe from residential starting points for the pedestrian and to add park space into the mix, all being quickly accessible and safe from residential starting points and really from use to use: home to retail, retail to greenspace, greenspace to home. As long as the focus is pedestrian and the proximity is truly walkable, I think the qualifications for urban are satisfied. And at that point saying SF isn't Euro urban becomes like saying yeah NYC has skyscrapers, but it doesn't have the Sears Tower. It's academic.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

Europeans visit SF and actually really like the city. And actually I think it really not as important to have retail and residential on the same block as to make retail accessible and safe from residential starting points for the pedestrian and to add park space into the mix, all being quickly accessible and safe from residential starting points and really from use to use: home to retail, retail to greenspace, greenspace to home. As long as the focus is pedestrian and the proximity is truly walkable, I think the qualifications for urban are satisfied. And at that point saying SF isn't Euro urban becomes like saying yeah NYC has skyscrapers, but it doesn't have the Sears Tower. It's academic.

Well if we go with this argument, we can also conclude many Americans visit European (truly urban) cities, and actually really like the cities, so Americans prefer European cities to suburbia?

Of course it is not a good argument.

I do know many Americans who visited Europe, loved it, but they don't necessarily want to live in such enviroment or prefer the structure.

And the Sears Tower example is well not even relevant....

If you actually read the post above from a person who studied the urban/city development at school, and have listened to speakers that are experts in the field, he even states Europe is decades ahead of SF etc in terms of urbanisation.

Yes SF is an urban city in the US, but not in the same degree as the already established truly urban cities of the rest of the world.

There are many NFL teams, all are NFL teams, but some of them are much better than the others... See it that way