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.
Re-read my post and see the link I gave to that neighbourhood.
Vancouver unsheltered homeless population was 539 persons. Mostly concentrated in that neighbourhood. The count done within the boundaries of Vancouver city's population of 631,000.
Metro areas of course will change these numbers, but the point is Vancouver's homeless population is very concentrated and between two tourists spots, Gastown and Chinatown, so easily seen by all.
It says 516 people but it also says 60% sleep in rough places (unsheltered), 23% stay in temporary and crisis accomodation while in Vancouver there are 539 unsheltered homeless and concentred in one particular place which makes this issue worse.
Metro SJ: 7 million! That was just Santa Clara county.
Uh...that's the entire Bay Area dude, not San Jose. The San Jose metro is Santa Clara County and adjacent areas of San Mateo and far southern Alameda Counties. San Jose, while the third largest city in California and largest in the Bay Area, like it or not, still exist in San Francisco's shadow.
Lol of course you have to leverage S.F to beat out Vancouver. Why didn't you just create the thread as Greater Vancouver vs Bay Area then?
San Jose is alright but it isn't dense enough to hang with Vancouver. The 1 million in the city you quote Is over 180 sq miles the 700K people in the city of Vancouver are in 44 sq miles.... Think about that.. Vancouver is 2.5X as dense and that matters. It matters when you are walking in the core and it matters in terms of availability of things to do and proximity.
city population is also arbitrary but the density of an urban core is not. Vancouver doesn't just stop on the borders 44 sq miles and there are other cities contiguous with it but the city of Vancouver is a good measuring stick of a compact yet dense and urban core. S.F is the part of the Bay Area that is more equivalent to the urban density of Vancouver, not San Jose.. Heck even S.F is technically a 'smaller city' than San Jose. SF is 884K in 48 sq miles... Again, a snapshot of a compact yet dense urban core. When people visit San Francisco from around the world - what makes its mark is that 884K in 48 sq miles - not Oakland!
Which of the following are more city like - well... Let's see here
SF 884K in 48 sq miles
Van 700K in 44 sq miles
And lookiehere - the outlier by far San Jose with 1 million in 180 Sq Miles.... Have you ever done those tests where you look at a pattern to see which one is the most 'unlike' - kinda reminds me of that eh? The only thing I would say to try and be more fair to SJ is perhaps if you cut out a lot of the fat in San Jose's suburban sprawl it may be more compact and dense. If you capture the urban core of SJ to 44-48 sq miles and equivalent area to S.F and Van, I doubt it would be as populated or dense as either S.F or Vancouver city proper's because the nature of a city like SJ is more sprawl vs the likes of S.F and Van. You are pitting your city against one of the most dense and urban on the continent btw.
You fail to understand that Coyote Valley, which is in SJ, is all farmland. So the actual urban area of SJ is about 90 sq. miles, meaning it's much more dense than you would believe. The rest of non development area is bay
Little Saigon is nothing compared to Richmond BC. Major Chinese malls, hundreds of authentic restaurants, and a population that is now majority Chinese.
You fail to understand that Coyote Valley, which is in SJ, is all farmland. So the actual urban area of SJ is about 90 sq. miles, meaning it's much more dense than you would believe. The rest of non development area is bay
Well i'll take your word for it that the urban area is 90 Sq miles but that is still quite a bit less dense than either Vancouver or S.F and quite frankly, it shows.
The point about the Coyote Valley demonstrates very nicely what I've been saying in these forums - low density farmlands don't make a city feel like a city - they may be in a metro statistic, they may be part of the makeup of a MSA or CSA but they are not at all urban.
Well i'll take your word for it that the urban area is 90 Sq miles but that is still quite a bit less dense than either Vancouver or S.F and quite frankly, it shows.
The point about the Coyote Valley demonstrates very nicely what I've been saying in these forums - low density farmlands don't make a city feel like a city - they may be in a metro statistic, they may be part of the makeup of a MSA or CSA but they are not at all urban.
Most of the urban part of city is fairly dense. Coyote Valley is a beautiful open space with wilderness and farmlands. There's a cute cluster of homes and a neighborhood in the middle of rural valley.
Most of the urban part of city is fairly dense. Coyote Valley is a beautiful open space with wilderness and farmlands. There's a cute cluster of homes and a neighborhood in the middle of rural valley.
I'm not saying Coyote Valley isn't beautiful. Actually San Jose isn't an ugly city and the surrounding environs are actually quite nice. I just find it odd that a city limits would include so much low to possibly no density infill as part of its city limits.
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.
