More urban: San Francisco or Los Angeles? (property, sidewalks, sidewalk)

[dweebo2220]

Originally Posted by john_starks

like long island with palm trees

Which part of Long Island?



(My own photo)

[Amercity]

It depends by the metro and, city levels. The city of San francisco is far more dense then la but the Los Angeles area is denser then sf.

[beastieboy]

Originally Posted by dweebo2220

Which part of Long Island?



(My own photo)

that pic looks like south beach w/ miami in the backdrop

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by beastieboy

that pic looks like south beach w/ miami in the backdrop

No way does Miami have that type of housing density.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by john_starks

i've been to both cities

SF has the classic city limit urban. but Sausilito, Berkely are minimally urban. LA is just silly

like long island with palm trees

Another fail post.

[memph]

Maybe you could say that the cores of East Bay, mostly Oakland (like this Oakland, CA, United States - Google Maps), are pretty similar to the cores of the LA area, not just Central LA but Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, etc. Density-wise, Central LA is similar to San Francisco, and maybe a bit bigger, although the built form is quite different. Contra Costa and the rest of East Bay are seem to have areas equivalent to much of the rest of the LA area, but are of course smaller. The outer parts of SF like Sunset and Bayview, while often attached housing with little to not front setbacks have excessively wide side streets, I'm not sure if LA has any side streets that are so wide. I'm not sure LA's main roads are wider curb to curb either, even though they feel wider.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

Why select one when you can have both?

Because it's 2 cities that wanna see each other sing into the Pacific..

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by dweebo2220

Which part of Long Island?

Queens/Nassau are actually not a bad comparison. Some parts of Brooklyn as well.

[Carlite]

Monterey Park and Flushing, Queens are comparable as hubs of Chinese-American commerce away from the city center. Flushing is a lot denser, however.

I don't think LA's urbanism has to be justified by comparisons to other cities. Downtown LA, Echo Park/Silver Lake (at least parts), Koreatown, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Fairfax, Santa Monica, Venice, Boyle Heights, and Pasadena are places that are urban on their own terms.

[cisco kid]

neither are very urban, but SF is obviously more urban than LA.

the most urban part of SF is the downtown area. but once you go outside of the downtown the walkability goes down drastically and the urban form starts to look more like LA. though the housing form in the large residential districts is mainly attached SFH. but they may as well be stand-alone suburbs. though technically within city limits, I would describe these residential districts as streetcar suburbs because many people there commute by streetcar to go to work downtown. but other than that it would be difficult to live there without an automobile.

most people in SF work downtown but you certainly don't want to live there if you can help it. the downtown is inhabited mostly by the poor and the down and out. there's tons of cheap residential hotels everywhere of which is occupied mainly by shady-looking types many of whom appear to be meth addicts. the downtown has lots of rundown scary-looking neighborhoods so its one of the least desirable places to live in the city.