Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-28-2011, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Louisiana to Houston to Denver to NOVA
16,505 posts, read 26,092,111 times
Reputation: 13275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Having lived in both NYC and SF I will disagree on many of the similarities, as stated with that notion Cinci and Covington KY would also be NYC and Brooklyn in that argument not to mention the tone and tact made has history but thanks for the feedback. Not to mention Queens, BX, Jersey City etc but whatever

If having a few blocks of density makes a place a NYC (which has miles upon miles of it) we all need to evaluate perspective and while there is a grain of truth to many things the positioning and dismissal of aspects with SIGNIFICANTLY larger grains of truth create the reponses to the nonsense; there is much history in this respect
Its subjective and it varies from person to person.

 
Old 09-28-2011, 11:45 PM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,581 posts, read 21,733,355 times
Reputation: 14047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neworleansisprettygood View Post
I have to back the guy Steven here. When terms like "straw man" start getting thrown around on an internet forum, the thread hasn't reached logical levels, it's just devolved into nitpicky silliness. SF, in its own way, is a lot like Manhattan in that it's a very dense central area at the center of an area with a large population. And I don't think the Oakland-Brooklyn comparison is ridiculous, either. He's right. In terms of how they function and are viewed within their metros, there are a lot of similarities. I didn't see him say anything like "Oakland has a large population of natives descended from Italian immigrants". All I see from those attacking him are very specific and trivial complaints about an argument that is inherently harmless and actually contains quite a bit of truth.
It's a debate and each side is making claims and using evidence to discuss them. There's no name calling and it's not getting ugly, so what's the problem? This forum is for exactly this type of back and forth.

As I said before, the density levels (in parts of SF) are comparable, but that's where the similarities end. It was said that SF's Financial District and Tenderloin feel like Manhattan. In my experience, they don't. Not at all. They're both dense urban areas, but they look and feel nothing alike. That was my argument. I think Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago feel much more similar (but still unique in their own rights) to Manhattan than SF. Still, at the end of the day, both San Francisco and Manhattan are very unique by themselves so what's the point of even trying to draw that comparison?

Oakland may very well have a few similarities to Brooklyn, no one ever said it didn't. However, Oakland is in many ways, MUCH more similar (from a functional standpoint) to Newark in relation to New York City than it is to Brooklyn. The primary difference between Oakland and Brooklyn? Brooklyn is FAR closer and better connected to Manhattan than Oakland is to SF. Beyond that you could get into the fact that Newark and Oakland are both separate municipalities from the principal city in the metro whereas Brooklyn is just an urban borough across a small segment of the harbor/river. Newark is 10 miles (by car) from Manhattan and Oakland is 12 from San Francisco by car. Oakland has a major airport that serves San Francisco as a secondary airport. Newark has a major airport that serves New York as a secondary airport. All I'm doing is making the case that if you feel the need to compare Oakland to something in the New York area, Newark is far more comparable than Brooklyn.

Again, I agree with the bold up there (no one has denied that), but that's where it all ends. If denying the similarities is so ridiculous, kindly point a few of them out (aside from density numbers which, again, no one is arguing against) instead of just telling us that they are similar.
 
Old 09-29-2011, 01:08 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,201,282 times
Reputation: 2538
When I say that the tenderloin and financial district "feel" like parts of Manhattan, that doesn't mean i think they feel "exactly the same". It means there are some similarities. Namely, high density, and tons of mid and highrise office and apartment buildings packed together (including tons of pre WWII buildings), combined with heavy pedestrian traffic and lots of public transit. Downtown SF is unique and feels like downtown SF much more than anything, obviously...but it undoubtedly has characteristics that are reminiscent of NYC, and to a much larger extent than the vast majority of US cities. The only other cities that manage to have sizable areas that are in ways reminiscent of NYC would be Philly, Boston, Chicago, and LA, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
Oakland is 12 from San Francisco by car
No, it is not. Does the Bay look 12 miles wide to you? Oakland is technically zero miles from SF by car. They border each other, and you cross between city limits on the Bay Bridge (the western 2/3 of the bridge is in SF, the eastern third is in Oakland). If you feel like the bridge doesn't count, than from land-to-land, Oakland is about 3 miles from downtown SF at the narrowest point, and by car, it's more like 5 miles (the length of the Bay Bridge). From Treasure Island, Oakland is only 1 mile away from SF at its closest, or 2-3 miles by car...any way you slice it, it's much less than 12 miles. Downtown Oakland and DT SF for example are only about 6 miles apart. Go 12 miles east of SF and you'll be all the way in the Oakland Hills, about at the eastern city limits.

Also, Brooklyn may be more connected to Manhattan than Oakland is to SF, but the Oak-SF connection is quite strong as well. The Bay Bridge carries around 300,000 vehicles a day (constantly 2nd busiest or tied for 1st busiest in the US, with the George Washington Bridge in NYC), then you also have BART, ACtransit, and Ferries.
 
Old 09-29-2011, 01:17 AM
 
Location: New Orleans
2,311 posts, read 4,923,362 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Having lived in both NYC and SF I will disagree on many of the similarities, as stated with that notion Cinci and Covington KY would also be NYC and Brooklyn in that argument not to mention the tone and tact made has history but thanks for the feedback. Not to mention Queens, BX, Jersey City etc but whatever

If having a few blocks of density makes a place a NYC (which has miles upon miles of it) we all need to evaluate perspective and while there is a grain of truth to many things the positioning and dismissal of aspects with SIGNIFICANTLY larger grains of truth create the reponses to the nonsense; there is much history in this respect
The Cincinatti and Covington comparison is ridiculous, but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

You like cities in the Northeast. It's okay. And it's not feedback, I couldn't care less what you have to say, every post I've read by you up to this point has been both aggressive and inane, which is quite a feat.
 
Old 09-29-2011, 02:13 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
617 posts, read 1,417,447 times
Reputation: 353
Without a doubt San Fran
 
Old 09-29-2011, 04:35 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL SouthWest Suburbs
3,522 posts, read 6,067,431 times
Reputation: 6130
Indianapolis,IN
Phoenix, AZ
Atlanta, GA
Jacksonville, FLA
Orlando, FLA
Tampa, FLA
 
Old 09-29-2011, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,581 posts, read 21,733,355 times
Reputation: 14047
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
When I say that the tenderloin and financial district "feel" like parts of Manhattan, that doesn't mean i think they feel "exactly the same". It means there are some similarities. Namely, high density, and tons of mid and highrise office and apartment buildings packed together (including tons of pre WWII buildings), combined with heavy pedestrian traffic and lots of public transit.
And I never disagreed with this. But to me, that doesn't mean it "feels" the similar (I never thought you meant "exactly" the same). It means it just has a long-standing dense urban downtown area like dozens of other cities across the planet do. Basically, as I said before, the similarities end at high-density and transit as well as the age of some of the buildings. Paris has high density downtown, a lot of transit, and pre WWII buildings. Same with Tokyo. Do they feel the same? I just think that's a weak argument for "similar feeling." Of course they have those things in common, but so do dozens of other cities. Why just the New York and SF comparison?

Quote:
...Characteristics that are reminiscent of NYC, and to a much larger extent than the vast majority of US cities. The only other cities that manage to have sizable areas that are in ways reminiscent of NYC would be Philly, Boston, Chicago, and LA, IMO.
This is another area where I don't entirely disagree with you. There aren't a lot of major US cities that have developed this way. However, like I mentioned before that why pick NYC? When I mentioned before that of any downtown area in the US, SF's is most similar to Philadelphia, you shot that notion down hard (even though the similarities like size, density, layout, etc. are way too difficult to ignore). I do agree that all of those cities do have the density/transit/aged architecture in common, but when I suggested that SF was even more similar to a specific one (Philly) than the others, you turned your nose up at the implication with nothing aside from your opinion to support the argument.

Quote:
No, it is not. Does the Bay look 12 miles wide to you? Oakland is technically zero miles from SF by car.
As I said, by car, it's around 12 miles (calculated from the Civic Center area to DT Oakland on google maps and... It's 10.5 by car if you leave from the Ferry Building and head to DT Oakland). If you want to talk "as the crow flies" of course it's not 12 miles from SF to Oakland. However, "as the crow flies" is completely irrelevant to anyone who actually has to travel between the two. I have NO idea where you are getting zero miles to SF by car. I've driven this plenty of times... it actually does register on the odometer. Would you mind sharing the secret route that allows you to drive from San Francisco to Oakland in zero miles? It would make my life easier when I'm out there next week.

Quote:
Also, Brooklyn may be more connected to Manhattan than Oakland is to SF, but the Oak-SF connection is quite strong as well. The Bay Bridge carries around 300,000 vehicles a day (constantly 2nd busiest or tied for 1st busiest in the US, with the George Washington Bridge in NYC), then you also have BART, ACtransit, and Ferries.
What are you arguing here?

I never said Oak and SF weren't connected? All I said was that the relationship is very different from Brooklyn and New York. I said it was much more comparable to Newark's relationship with New York. And Newark is very connected (you compared the GW bridge to the Bay Bridge before, well, the GW is one of the bridges/tunnels that would connect part of Manhattan to Newark). In fact, It's about 10 miles driving from Manhattan's Financial District to DT Newark. It's about 10.5 from the Ferry Building in SF to DT Oakland. You also have Amtrak, buses, PATH, NJ Transit, etc. Both cities have major secondary airports in for their region, both cities are home to professional sports teams, both cities are major ports. Again, not saying Oakland isn't connected to SF. I'm just saying it's not connected the same way Brooklyn is and it doesn't function like Brooklyn does. It's MUCH more similar to the relationship between Newark and NYC.

Last edited by lrfox; 09-29-2011 at 08:44 AM..
 
Old 09-29-2011, 09:29 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,201,282 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
A

As I said, by car, it's around 12 miles (calculated from the Civic Center area to DT Oakland on google maps and... It's 10.5 by car if you leave from the Ferry Building and head to DT Oakland). If you want to talk "as the crow flies" of course it's not 12 miles from SF to Oakland. However, "as the crow flies" is completely irrelevant to anyone who actually has to travel between the two.
Yup. And if you read my post, you would see that i said that BY CAR, Oakland and SF are about 5 miles apart (the length of the Bay Bridge)...unless you start your journey in SF from Treasure island, in which case they're 2-3 miles apart. That is not 12 miles.

Civic Center to DT Oakland may be 12 miles apart....but that's not how far the cities themselves are from each other, genius, that's how far their downtowns are from each other, and i already mentioned that in my post as well.

And yes, the cities do border each other, so they really are zero miles apart, technically. I'll tell you how you drive between them in zero miles:

When you are driving on the bridge, first you are in SF. Then...suddenly you're in Oakland. Just like that. Becuase you crossed the border from one into the other. A border that is much, much, much less than 12 miles wide, to say the least (how wide would a city limit line be if we could actually measure it? 12 millimeters maybe? ).
 
Old 09-29-2011, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,581 posts, read 21,733,355 times
Reputation: 14047
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Yup. And if you read my post, you would see that i said that BY CAR, Oakland and SF are about 5 miles apart (the length of the Bay Bridge)...unless you start your journey in SF from Treasure island, in which case they're 2-3 miles apart. That is not 12 miles.
The Bay Bridge is a major freeway. I doubt a single one of the 300,000 commuters that crosses the 5 miles span every day starts their commmute exactly at the very beginning of the bridge and ends it exactly at the very end of the bridge. If they did that, the distance would be (as you say) 5 miles. However, that distance is COMPLETELY irrelevant for anyone who makes a normal commute as it's only a portion of their journey. Your information is technically true (never denied that), but in terms of a practicality and a functional standpoint (you know, like how people commute on a daily basis), it's completely useless.

Quote:
Civic Center to DT Oakland may be 12 miles apart....but that's not how far the cities themselves are from each other, genius, that's how far their downtowns are from each other, and i already mentioned that in my post as well.
No need for the sarcastic name calling. I also provided the distance from the Ferry Building to DT Oakland (10.5 miles). When I provided the distances for Newark to New York, I used the same criteria (downtown to downtown) and it still came up closer than anywhere in DT San Francisco to DT Oakland. Do you know why I did that? I did that because no commutes from right on one border to right to another one. Like I mentioned just before, it's practical to measure from downtown to downtown because everyone commutes from WITHIN a city to WITHIN another one... not edge to edge. So again, your information is TECHNICALLY true (not arguing that), but in PRACTICE, it's useless.

For the hell of it, here's another DT to DT comparison... DT Brooklyn is 2 miles from DT Manhattan by car. that's less than 1/5 the distance from DT SF to DT Oakland.

Quote:
And yes, the cities do border each other, so they really are zero miles apart, technically.
You're right. "technically" they have a border in the water. Who cares? When's the next time you're going to start your commute in the middle of the Bay on the SF side, swim a foot and then finish on the Oakland side? Useless information. The U.S. also "technically" borders Russia so I guess the commuting distance from the U.S. to Russia is zero miles too.


Quote:
I'll tell you how you drive between them in zero miles:
When you are driving on the bridge, first you are in SF. Then...suddenly you're in Oakland.
I really do appreciate this fascinating information, but would you mind telling me how I get to that border on the bridge? Do I just appear there? I know the Bay Area is a tech hub, but have they perfected teleportation? Is there a hotel right on the border on the bridge that I can stay at so I can just head out the door and cross right into Oakland?

Quote:
Just like that. Becuase you crossed the border from one into the other. A border that is much, much, much less than 12 miles wide, to say the least (how wide would a city limit line be if we could actually measure it? 12 millimeters maybe? ).
I haven't been talking about borders this whole time. You have. I've been talking about what REAL people do to commute between two places on a daily basis. The border is absolutely, positively irrelevant to the commute between Oakland and San Francisco. Even more so because it's in the water. No one lives right on the border and as a result, it's a lot more complicated than simply crossing a "12 millimeter" line. You have to get to that line first. And no matter which side you start on, that requires either driving through city streets to get to the freeway, crossing a 5 miles span, and then exiting and getting to wherever your destination happens to be.

It's really fun to play with irrelevant technicalities, but there are 300,000 people crossing the Bay Bridge from Oakland to SF (and vice versa) today that only wish their commute was zero miles or 12mm. But in the real world it isn't.
 
Old 09-29-2011, 10:28 AM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,678,927 times
Reputation: 7974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neworleansisprettygood View Post
The Cincinatti and Covington comparison is ridiculous, but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

You like cities in the Northeast. It's okay. And it's not feedback, I couldn't care less what you have to say, every post I've read by you up to this point has been both aggressive and inane, which is quite a feat.

SF is actually absolutely one of my favorite cities in the US, ahead of a few NE cities IMHO

inane? Aggressive potentially but not inane.

The SF is Manhattan and dismissal of comparisons of cities it actually shares more commonalities with is the inane banter. And also why make the comparison in the first place SF is perfectly fine for what it is and a treasure in itself but Manattan it is not, nor does it need to be

And like you frankly I dont care if you care or not

FWIW I think NOLA is more than pretty good, a treasure for the US IMHO
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top