How big is San Francisco? (San Jose, Oakland: apartment, houses, neighborhoods)

[jaycich]

I'm a little confused and curious as to how far out SF goes. Not the bay area or Oakland, I understand that. I mean San Fran itself. When people say going in town, I think of the downtown area. It's a big downtown, maybe like two of downtown L.A. it's not even the size of a big district.

I look at this board and search San Francisco population. I get two numbers over 800,000. I know that many can't live in the downtown area. I'm asking how far out San Francisco go, the city itself, where the address reads San Francisco?

[bmw335xi]

If I'm not mistaken the actual city is roughly 7 miles by 7 miles

[CirclingLogan]

Um, google? Wikipedia? Your question can be answered easily by a map.

[nowhereman427]

San Francisco is 49 square miles.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by jaycich

I'm a little confused and curious as to how far out SF goes. Not the bay area or Oakland, I understand that. I mean San Fran itself. When people say going in town, I think of the downtown area. It's a big downtown, maybe like two of downtown L.A. it's not even the size of a big district.

I look at this board and search San Francisco population. I get two numbers over 800,000. I know that many can't live in the downtown area. I'm asking how far out San Francisco go, the city itself, where the address reads San Francisco?

You could easily Google this yourself. But yes, the city of SF (which is a consolidated city/county), is only about 49 square miles and has around 865,000-ish people within its city limits. When people use the term "The City", they're typically referring to the entire city, not just the downtown area.

San Jose is by far the biggest city in the Bay Area, covering about 175 square miles and has over a million people. There are also other cities in the Bay Area that cover more land area than SF. Oakland does too. Even Fremont (4th largest Bay Area city by population) covers around twice as much land area as SF does.

[jaycich]

I remember it looking very suburban outside downtown. Houses built on hills that you can see from the street. Strip malls with parking lots. Same thing with Oakland there are a couple areas you can get out and stroll, shop or bar hop, but most of it car orientated.

I'm just trying to make sense of these threads. Which city is more walkable? Are people just talking about trendy areas, where bars and train stops are literally walking distance?

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by jaycich

I remember it looking very suburban outside downtown. Houses built on hills that you can see from the street. Strip malls with parking lots. Same thing with Oakland there are a couple areas you can get out and stroll, shop or bar hop, but most of it car orientated.

I'm just trying to make sense of these threads. Which city is more walkable? Are people just talking about trendy areas, where bars and train stops are literally walking distance?

I've never considered any part of SF to have a suburban feel to it. I'm assuming you were in a different city maybe? Many people who aren't from the Bay Area use the term "San Francisco" when referring to other places in the region. People who are locals typically recognize SF as a separate entity. Anywhere else is "Bay Area". "Strip malls with parking lots" is the last thing I think of when I think of San Francisco.

[PixelatedTherapy]

The main city is 46 sq. miles. It's 49 if you add Treasure Island, Alcatraz Island, etc.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by jaycich

I remember it looking very suburban outside downtown. Houses built on hills that you can see from the street. Strip malls with parking lots. Same thing with Oakland there are a couple areas you can get out and stroll, shop or bar hop, but most of it car orientated.

I'm just trying to make sense of these threads. Which city is more walkable? Are people just talking about trendy areas, where bars and train stops are literally walking distance?

The last thing anyone would call SF is "suburban". Most European visitors say it's very European, meaning--no side yards, houses jammed up against each other, interspersed with apartment buildings.

By "walkable", people are referring to neighborhoods, where grocery, pharmacy, transit and other basic needs are within walking distance. That describes nearly all of SF, unlike some other cities. Berkeley and Oakland also have quite a few walkable neighborhoods; Oakland has many more than just "a couple".

Also, OP, I can't imagine what you're referring to, when you say SF has a big downtown, twice the size of downtown LA. SF has a very compact downtown. It sounds like you're relatively new to the area, or have only visited a few times, and aren't familiar with all the neighborhood divisions, in SF and Oakland, both. SF and parts of Oakland are fun cities to explore.

[jaycich]

Well I've been to east bay more than few times for work and I have family near Santa Rosa. I've rode the BART in town from Concord.