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.
The poster hasn't been a regular on the forum and is unaware of past forum arguments. Doubt it means much to him. I think people are generally referring to density or walkability not city limits.
Wall to wall people would be more dense, not less dense.
He just gave his definition.
There are just a lot of people there, period. The idea that SF is a city w/o sprawl is laughable. SF was the original city, before all these burbs that aren't burbs according to some of their apologists.
There are just a lot of people there, period. The idea that SF is a city w/o sprawl is laughable. SF was the original city, before all these burbs that aren't burbs according to some of their apologists.
Still don't get what the bolded has to do with a sprawl discussion. How about their density? Actually Oakland and Berkeley grew at about the same time as San Francisco, maybe slightly later but they were rather separate from each other due to the bay separation. Regardless of whether they're suburbs or not, their densities among other inner Bay suburbs are relatively high, at least for US standards.
Endless development is what the SF area is, IMO, and I haven't even been there since 1987.
It's denser in just about any postwar development outside of California, so somewhat less sprawly. But the bigger reason it feels not that sprawly to me is that if you away from the bay (only 5 miles in many places), you're quickly in preserved land, so it doesn't feel endless in that direction. Boston feels a lot more sprawly to me.
Still don't get what the bolded has to do with a sprawl discussion. How about their density? Actually Oakland and Berkeley grew at about the same time as San Francisco, maybe slightly later but they were rather separate from each other due to the bay separation. Regardless of whether they're suburbs or not, their densities among other inner Bay suburbs are relatively high, at least for US standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
It's denser in just about any postwar development outside of California, so somewhat less sprawly. But the bigger reason it feels not that sprawly to me is that if you away from the bay (only 5 miles in many places), you're quickly in preserved land, so it doesn't feel endless in that direction. Boston feels a lot more sprawly to me.
Taking these both together. I can't be on here long; I have to finish cleaning up my house for a big dinner tomorrow w/the extended fam, including a guy who is allergic to cats! Gotta vacuum up all the cat hair.
SF was/is the big Kahuna. I don't remember the technical term, but let's say "alpha city". That's where people went "the summer of love", not to Oakland or Berkley or Mountain View or wherever. Now some did say they wanted to go to Berkley to college, but that's about it. People have been migrating to CA for forever, too. We just discussed this on the Denver forum recently: http://www.city-data.com/forum/denve...y-natives.html It was a long time before people even said "SF-O". (San Francisco-Oakland) In the 70s, I knew a lot of people who went out to SF. That's where they said they were going, not these other places. Now for the most part, they landed in suburbs, e.g. Concord, Walnut Creek, etc. I get it, each of these burbs has its own personality, just like every city I have ever lived in. (Well, that's just two big ones, three if you count Wilmington, Delaware which is basically a suburb of Philadelphia itself.) But yeah, it's no different than Pittsburgh or Denver in that regard.
But for G*d's sake, it's the 11th largest MSA, 5th largest CSA (Wikipedia). There are just a lot of people there, whether it's dense or not. Denver, by contrast, is #19 MSA and #16 CSA.
The city where I lived which had little sprawl is Champaign-Urbana, IL. Cheyenne, Wyo also has little sprawl.
It's the 11th largest MSA, 5th largest CSA (Wikipedia). There are just a lot of people there, whether it's dense or not. Denver, by contrast, is #19 MSA and #16 CSA.
The city where I lived which had little sprawl is Champaign-Urbana, IL. Cheyenne, Wyo also has little sprawl.
My point was the San Francisco are is denser I didn't mention population, you don't really respond to my second post. If you're just going by population size, the larger cities would be more sprawled.
Quote:
SF was/is the big Kahuna. I don't remember the technical term, but let's say "alpha city". That's where people went "the summer of love", not to Oakland or Berkley or Mountain View or wherever. Now some did say they wanted to go to Berkley to college, but that's about it.
Oakland was more separate pre-Bay Bridge (before 1930s), which is the time I think you meant by original.
My point was the San Francisco are is denser I didn't mention population, you don't really respond to my second post. If you're just going by population size, the larger cities would be more sprawled.
Oakland was more separate pre-Bay Bridge (before 1930s), which is the time I think you meant by original.
Well, my memory doesn't go back *that* far. I mean, it doesn't go back to pre-birth, no. But even in the 70s, people talked about "San Francisco". Oakland was considered somewhat declasse then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Some cities are easier to be "in nature in 30 minutes" than others. San Francisco, yes. Portland, not as sure.
You can be in nature in Central Park in NYC. That's not the point. That area is yes, densely populated. It's not rural or wildland by any extreme stretch of reality.
You can be in nature in Central Park in NYC. That's not the point. That area is yes, densely populated. It's not rural or wildland by any extreme stretch of reality.
Eh, I wouldn't call Central Park truly natural. 30 minutes from San Francisco puts you in the Marin Headlands which seemed like wildland to me:
Large US cities without sprawl is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?
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.
