U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
View Poll Results: What city is more urban?
San Francisco 124 79.49%
Los Angeles 32 20.51%
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:32 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,564,066 times
Reputation: 848

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by orzo View Post
Pollster, is that you?

SF has the one of the most consistant urban fabrics of any city in the country. Almost anywhere you go in the city, with very few exceptions, it feels like you are in a big city - streets are packed, it's very vibrant. And SF has significantly more people than Boston or Miami, by the way.

Then, when you cross the most trafficked bridge in the country (the Bay Bridge) or take a subway under the bay, you end up in Oakland/Berkeley, cities that are more urban than most parts of LA (or many other places in the country)

You're density maps show just how urban and dense the bay area is - think about how dense that U-shape around the bay has to be (~50 miles on both sides) to pack that many people in. You basically have over 100 miles of uninterrupted packed in density, as this satellite photo shows. There are almost 7 MILLION people in that u-shape around the bay. Seems pretty dense and urban to me:



http://www.satprints.com/images/products/detail/SFO_Bay_area_California_satellite_poster_map_print _photo.jpg (broken link)
LA's Urban population is 14.9 Million SF's Urban population is 3.3 million which is less than LA city proper. SF is very Urban no doubt but the point here is that LA's Urban area is just larger geographically than SF. And with that area, yes, LA STILL has many low density areas as well. But LA is just so much bigger that SF can't really compete becuase of it's geographic limitations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:41 PM
 
637 posts, read 781,767 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
LA's Urban population is 14.9 Million SF's Urban population is 3.3 million which is less than LA city proper. SF is very Urban no doubt but the point here is that LA's Urban area is just larger geographically than SF. And with that area, yes, LA STILL has many low density areas as well. But LA is just so much bigger that SF can't really compete becuase of it's geographic limitations.
Yes, here's a visual to remind the SF boosters what you mean




SF simply can't compete. SF should at least have a larger population than San Jose first before it can even be spoken in the same sentence as LA. Hell, even San Diego has a larger population. LOL

I don't understand all the LA hate on this site.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:49 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,928 posts, read 23,500,935 times
Reputation: 11524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
Yes, here's a visual to remind the SF boosters what you mean




SF simply can't compete. SF should at least have a larger population than San Jose first before it can even be spoken in the same sentence as LA. Hell, even San Diego has a larger population. LOL

I don't understand all the LA hate on this site.
I like the internet because people who are this slow also get representation. It is very egalitarian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:50 PM
 
Location: So California
8,509 posts, read 8,839,793 times
Reputation: 4612
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I like the internet because people who are this slow also get representation. It is very egalitarian.

Thats very true. He's just having a hard time because of his massive miscalculation made on this thread.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:56 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,564,066 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Thats very true. He's just having a hard time because of his massive miscalculation made on this thread.....
What's the miscalculation? I'm not trying to put down San Francisco but the size of it's most dense Urban areas are just not as big, or in otherwords don't cover as large an area that LA's urban areas do. There is simply MORE dense urban development in LA than SF. Sure if San Francisco was much larger in area things would be different but as they are, LA has more "urbanity" than San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:59 PM
 
Location: So California
8,509 posts, read 8,839,793 times
Reputation: 4612
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
What's the miscalculation? I'm not trying to put down San Francisco but the size of it's most dense Urban areas are just not as big, or in otherwords don't cover as large an area that LA's urban areas do. There is simply MORE dense urban development in LA than SF. Sure if San Francisco was much larger in area things would be different but as they are, LA has more "urbanity" than San Francisco.
Unless you are the same person, I wasnt speaking of you, but the OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 01:02 PM
 
637 posts, read 781,767 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
What's the miscalculation? I'm not trying to put down San Francisco but the size of it's most dense Urban areas are just not as big, or in otherwords don't cover as large an area that LA's urban areas do. There is simply MORE dense urban development in LA than SF. Sure if San Francisco was much larger in area things would be different but as they are, LA has more "urbanity" than San Francisco.
Exactly. Hell, even take the 46 square miles of Central LA and compare it to the city of SF, and its nearly the same density.

However, even outside the central 46 square miles of LA, the density of LA is still extremely high while SF's drops off considerably. In the visuals I posted, this can be seen.

The only reason why SF is leading this poll is because people don't respect LA, but I think LA sufficiently puts SF in its place.

4 million > 800,000
12 million MSA > 4.3 milion MSA
17 million CSA > 7.5 million CSA

LA > SF in almost every conceivable way
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 01:09 PM
 
Location: So California
8,509 posts, read 8,839,793 times
Reputation: 4612
Actually we love them both. No state packs a one, two punch like California. Heck one two three with San Diego! Thanks for boosting them!

S A N F R A N C I S C O




L O S A N G E L E S

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 01:14 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,564,066 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Actually we love them both. No state packs a one, two punch like California. Heck one two three with San Diego! Thanks for boosting them!

S A N F R A N C I S C O




L O S A N G E L E S
I couldn't agree more. There seems to be a misconception that once you cross the Mississippi river heading west you all of a sudden enter the world of endless sprawling suburbs. That couldn't be further from the truth. LA, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose all give California an Urban feel that you can't find anywhere else in the country. Even the Northeast Megalopolis doesn't hold it's urban density as consistantly as California's Metros do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2012, 01:35 PM
 
637 posts, read 781,767 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Actually we love them both. No state packs a one, two punch like California. Heck one two three with San Diego! Thanks for boosting them!

S A N F R A N C I S C O




L O S A N G E L E S
"We", says the guy living in Fort Worth, TX.

And this thread is comparing LA and SF. It's pretty clear that Californians love LA, the rest of the country for some reason likes SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top