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.
You went to a little to far with that comment , but I will say that it is silly to think that San Francisco is not urban.
Given the name on your handle and looking at your last 5 posts especially where you tried to compare Philly's transit ridership to DC's, its safe to assume you're a diehard fan of your city. Thats ok but lets learn to give credit where its due, yes?
To be sure, Philly is a very urban place but to point at LA is the only urban place coming out of the west coast and then say places like Boston and Philly are urban on the east coast and COMPLETELY dismissing SF a urban area much denser than Boston/Philly and a city much denser than Boston/Philly is laughable IMO.
To be sure, Philly is a very urban place but to point at LA is the only urban place coming out of the west coast and then say places like Boston and Philly are urban on the east coast and COMPLETELY dismissing SF a urban area much denser than Boston/Philly and a city much denser than Boston/Philly is laughable IMO.
SF has urban "areas" but its not as urban as Los Angeles.
Come on, Los Angeles is a world city and one of the most important in the country. People love the LA so much, people are willing to live in the DESERT to have access to Los Angeles.
It's an urban city. The densest 46 square miles of LA are as dense as SF and has as many amenities, but outside those 46 square miles, LA is still urban while the SF area drops off noticeably.
LA is more urban than SF. I dont just look at city boundaries which are laughably pointless IMO. For urban comparisons I look at only urban areas and SF Bay is pretty dense and urban. I fail to see how anyone can argue otherwise?
LA is more urban than SF. I dont just look at city boundaries which are laughably pointless IMO. For urban comparisons I look at only urban areas and SF Bay is pretty dense and urban. I fail to see how anyone can argue otherwise?
Ok, LA is more urban than SF.
I wasn't arguing otherwise. Where's the disagreement?
It doesn't mean that SF isn't urban, but LA is just more urban than SF.
Given the name on your handle and looking at your last 5 posts especially where you tried to compare Philly's transit ridership to DC's,
I don't see what that has to do with this thread but I was making a legitimate point at MDallstar's statements. Anyway, that has nothing to do with this thread so I don't understand why you would bring that up in this discussion.
Quote:
its safe to assume you're a diehard fan of your city.
Not really. I just like to use facts and common sense.
Quote:
[b]To be sure, Philly is a very urban place but to point at LA is the only urban place coming out of the west coast and then say places like Boston and Philly are urban on the east coast and COMPLETELY dismissing SF a urban area much denser than Boston/Philly and a city much denser than Boston/Philly is laughable IMO.
I never said that LA was the only urban place on the west coast. What are you talking about?
SF has urban "areas" but its not as urban as Los Angeles.
Come on, Los Angeles is a world city and one of the most important in the country. People love the LA so much, people are willing to live in the DESERT to have access to Los Angeles.
It's an urban city. The densest 46 square miles of LA are as dense as SF and has as many amenities, but outside those 46 square miles, LA is still urban while the SF area drops off noticeably.
Millions of people aren't willing to live in desert suburbs to be near Los Angeles?
LA isn't one of the most important cities in the United States?
Ok then..we learn something everyday.
The most underrated West Coast city being trampled on again. I wouldn't choose LA over NYC, Boston, or Philadelphia, but I would over any city on the West Coast.
If SF isn't even the most urban city on the West Coast, how can it beat out cities like Philadelphia or Boston?
Millions of people aren't willing to live in desert suburbs to be near Los Angeles?
LA isn't one of the most important cities in the United States?
Ok then..we learn something everyday.
The most underrated West Coast city being trampled on again. I wouldn't choose LA over NYC, Boston, or Philadelphia, but I would over any city on the West Coast.
If SF isn't even the most urban city on the West Coast, how can it beat out cities like Philadelphia or Boston?
define "beat out"
define "densest areas" with cohesive sq mile tracts.
LA metro is 3x larger.
LA is one of the most important yes.
what do you mean trampled?
in city aesthetics, sf beats la, it doesn't mean it wins in other measures.
Central LA: 57.87 square miles
Density: 14,458 persons per square mile
If you cut out Griffith Park, Elysian Park, and the Hollywood Hills, it would be 46 square miles with nearly the same population. So really, this area is more than 20,000 ppsm, which is denser than SF.
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.
, but I will say that it is silly to think that San Francisco is not urban.
