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.
That doesn't invalidate population density as an argument. It just makes it more clear that no city in the US is similar to Manhattan. Though I'd say, yes Boston and Philadelphia have some similarities to New York City. Works less if you focus on just Manhattan.
if we compared with NYC, then we have to expand to a land mass that is at least somewhat comparable to NYC in order to compare the mathematical density.
NYC has a land area of 305 sq mi. I am sick of people comparing much smaller cities like San Francisco, which has less than 50 sq mi with it, and say its density is close (plus, it is not even close, more like 65%). Using that logic, I can say West Hollywood, 2 sq mi in size, is denser than San Francisco.
No, not really. You picked like the densest old-school retail block in SF. Those types of blocks exist in LA too. They even exist even in Detroit or Cleveland. Does that mean Cleveland is the same as Manhattan?
You basically couldn't have picked a less representative block for SF. It would be like picking the Broadway corridor in downtown LA as representative of LA.
Around a year ago, I totaled the Census tracts for Central Los Angeles (as defined by the L.A. Times) and came up with a total of 68,150 transit commuters and a transit share of 15.54%. SF has 153,201 transit commuters and a 42.71% transit share. Manhattan has 510,698 transit commuters and a 59.85% transit share (20.1% of Manhattan commuters walk compared to 10.6% of SF commuters).
So which one is SF more similar to from that perspective?
Around a year ago, I totaled the Census tracts for Central Los Angeles (as defined by the L.A. Times) and came up with a total of 68,150 transit commuters and a transit share of 15.54%. SF has 153,201 transit commuters and a 42.71% transit share. Manhattan has 510,698 transit commuters and a 59.85% transit share (20.1% of Manhattan commuters walk compared to 10.6% of SF commuters).
So which one is SF more similar to from that perspective?
you work under the assumption that commute pattern determines city characteristics.
Following your own logic, Bangkok is more similar to Manhattan than San Francisco.
Well, that happens to be one of the least urban parts of the City but even those are technically rowhouses (they are connected), not single family homes.
More representative views of typical SF residential are:
Still bitter about SF being declared more urban than Toronto in the other thread?
You did choose two particularly low-density views (by SF standards) yet even the housing there is connected rowhouse-style and is far more high-density than your typical American residential urban neighborhood.
Well, that happens to be one of the least urban parts of the City but even those are technically rowhouses (they are connected), not single family homes.
More representative views of typical SF residential are:
Well, that happens to be one of the least urban parts of the City but even those are technically rowhouses (they are connected), not single family homes.
More representative views of typical SF residential are:
Umm, just to give you some perspective... average home height in New York county is ~15 stories (average height of new homes in Manhattan is 19 floors per Department of Buildings). Those pictures you keep posting look like cute little houses with driveways, they might as well be single family homes on this scale.
Still bitter about SF being declared more urban than Toronto in the other thread?
You did choose two particularly low-density views (by SF standards) yet even the housing there is connected rowhouse-style and is far more high-density than your typical American residential urban neighborhood.
These two account for a significant percentage of SF, don't they? They are massive.
I am bitter about SF being more urban than Toronto? I mistake me for a Toronto booster. I never consider Toronto that urban (80% of it is suburban to me), but don't consider San Fran much better than that either. They are both dominated by low density lowrise houses I despise.
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.
