Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 04-20-2012, 08:56 PM
 
637 posts, read 1,016,658 times
Reputation: 256

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Its very brave of you to show us the gory truth of how totally sprawled out the Northeast is. Reckless and Irresponsible.

Los Angeles and San Francisco, America's 2 most densely populated urban areas, take up less physical land than that monstrous mess in the Northeast. In other words, LA and SF are less sprawled out.

I admire your courage to finally embrace the truth.

Thank you dear, sweet Huge Foodie 215.
Except two of those places are megacities and one clearly isn't. Take a guess which one it is.

One of those places is CLEARLY not as urban as the others.

Again, this thread is NOT about the Northeast. It's about LA and SF, and SF does NOT compare to LA.

Quote:
If SF outside of downtown looks like a "small town" to you then so should everywhere else outside of their downtowns in the country not named Manhattan.
You ever been to Chicago? Philadelphia? Yeah, exactly. Hell, LA's urbanity extends further in a way that SF can't even ever dream of catching.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,660 posts, read 67,557,504 times
Reputation: 21249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post

Again, this thread is NOT about the Northeast.
And yet you posted a map of the Northeast?

Odd.

In any event, I really appreciate all the attention you draw to the nations' 1st and 2nd most densely populated urban areas, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Thanks a million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:00 PM
 
239 posts, read 509,546 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Its very brave of you to show us the gory truth of how totally sprawled out the Northeast is. Reckless and Irresponsible.

Los Angeles and San Francisco, America's 2 most densely populated urban areas, take up less physical land than that monstrous mess in the Northeast. In other words, LA and SF are less sprawled out.

I admire your courage to finally embrace the truth.

Thank you dear, sweet Huge Foodie 215.
I agree, once you get outside the cities of the Northeast is as sprawl and anywhere else in the country. So many western and sunbelt cities get hating on CD for having too much sprawl, when in reality the Northeast is just as sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,660 posts, read 67,557,504 times
Reputation: 21249
2010 Urban Area Facts

Its amazing how Los Angeles squeezes 12 Million people into 1,700 square miles, meanwhile Boston and Philadelphia both sprawl over larger areas both closer to 2,000 sq miles than LA.

How sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:07 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,765,463 times
Reputation: 3120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
Except two of those places are megacities and one clearly isn't. Take a guess which one it is.

One of those places is CLEARLY not as urban as the others.

Again, this thread is NOT about the Northeast. It's about LA and SF, and SF does NOT compare to LA.



You ever been to Chicago? Philadelphia? Yeah, exactly. Hell, LA's urbanity extends further in a way that SF can't even ever dream of catching.

This looks likes a small town to you?

San Francisco - Google Maps

San Francisco - Google Maps


And this doesn't?


Chicago - Google Maps

Philadelphia - Google Maps

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Austell, Georgia
2,217 posts, read 3,905,436 times
Reputation: 2258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
I don't think that SF compares well to Manhattan AT ALL. Hell, it barely beats out the Loop in Chicago or Center City, Philadelphia. The Wilshire corridor from Santa Monica to Downtown LA is more impressive IMO because that's nearly 10 miles of uninterrupted urbanity, while outside of DTSF, it feels like a small town.

Yeah, I mean, I feel that Los Angeles gets not enough love on CD while the Bay Area gets way too much love, despite LA being an actual West Coast megacity and the Bay Area being barely more populated than DFW (and in terms of MSA, BARELY more populated than Riverside MSA)
Look pretty dense to me.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:37 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,125,643 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215 View Post
I don't think that SF compares well to Manhattan AT ALL. Hell, it barely beats out the Loop in Chicago or Center City, Philadelphia. The Wilshire corridor from Santa Monica to Downtown LA is more impressive IMO because that's nearly 10 miles of uninterrupted urbanity, while outside of DTSF, it feels like a small town.



Excellent you admit SF beats out the Loop in Chicago and Center City Philly.....duh!! And the Wilshire corridor is even better...



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,422,622 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
2010 Urban Area Facts

Its amazing how Los Angeles squeezes 12 Million people into 1,700 square miles, meanwhile Boston and Philadelphia both sprawl over larger areas both closer to 2,000 sq miles than LA.

How sad.

Even that staggering number sells it a little short, I think. The Riverside/San Bernardino UA is right next door--most everyone considers it part of the L.A. urban footprint. I don't have the boundaries of the two UAs but combined they total 2280 sq miles (14.08 million people). The combined density 6175 p/psm.

Btw, San Francisco and San Jose's UA's (The Bay Area): 809.6 combined sq miles, population 4.94 million, 6,109 p/psm. For comparison sake, Philly's UA is home to 5.5 million people but sprawls over 1981 sq miles. The density is less than half that of The SF Bay Area.

Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 04-20-2012 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 03:38 AM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix
11,039 posts, read 16,871,011 times
Reputation: 12950
Man, did the smackdown train ever roll into this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Btw, San Francisco and San Jose's UA's (The Bay Area): 809.6 combined sq miles, population 4.94 million, 6,109 p/psm. For comparison sake, Philly's UA is home to 5.5 million people but sprawls over 1981 sq miles. The density is less than half that of The SF Bay Area.
And it must be noted that SF/SJ/Oak do not benefit from being 100 miles from the most populous city in America in one direction, and the capital of America in the other, and connected - as we are so often reminded - by basically uninterupted sprawl between the two.

SF is nearly 400 miles from the #2 city in America; most of that distance is farmland or hills; and, after you get past Sacramento (which the Bay Area overshadows in prominence, economy, etc, and is separated from largely by farmland), you don't hit another major MSA till Portland, nearly 600 miles away.

The Bay Area literally stands on its own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Cumberland County, NJ
8,632 posts, read 13,006,897 times
Reputation: 5766
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Even that staggering number sells it a little short, I think. The Riverside/San Bernardino UA is right next door--most everyone considers it part of the L.A. urban footprint. I don't have the boundaries of the two UAs but combined they total 2280 sq miles (14.08 million people). The combined density 6175 p/psm.

Btw, San Francisco and San Jose's UA's (The Bay Area): 809.6 combined sq miles, population 4.94 million, 6,109 p/psm. For comparison sake, Philly's UA is home to 5.5 million people but sprawls over 1981 sq miles. The density is less than half that of The SF Bay Area.
The Philly urban area is sort of pigeonholed in that it should be combined with the Trenton urban area as it has continuous urban density with Trenton, NJ. That would make the density level go up for the Philly urban area. But either way you look at it the LA urban area does have a higher density p/psm than the Philadelphia area in general.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:07 PM.

© 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