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.
are you sure on uber - just actually saw that LA was tops and NYC 2
Not surprising, Uber is super popular here. Problem being it is not as cheap/easy to own a car in LA as some people make it out to be but LA still is obviously not a car-free paradise. This is the best of both worlds and seemingly much better/cost effective than Zip Car (which is also popular in certain neighborhoods such as mine.)
I see your points, and do agree Sf as the city is less PT/walkable - on the whole for SF and especially the broader bay area I see more overall in common with LA compared to Manhattan I find very little of SF that reminds me of Manhattan (I honestly find very little of anywhere in the US that compares well to manhattan with small core of SF being one that does have similarities (to me is too small an area that is overall similar) but that is me.
I found commuter share data county to county by means here
It is 2006 data but cont believe it is dramatically different today (maybe a few share points here or there)
For SF residents who are employed and don't work at home (33K in total that WFH)
% that drive alone 44.8%
% Drive alone from SF to another county (52.7% of employed residents) 55.7%
% Drive alone SF to SF (so live and work in SF and drive alone) 33.3% so still one in three but a low number but still very sizable for live and work in SF
For one, we know you can't stand that SF is in the same league of cities such as Philly, your beloved, or Boston, DC, etc, being that SF is in "Cali". That aside, looking at the data you presented from 2006:
322,010 people commuted from SF to SF. Of that 102,647 drove alone (31.9%), 84,064 took the bus (26.1%), and 32,123 took a subway, streetcar, railroad, or ferryboat (10.0%).
I'll just stop there. These numbers are basically saying that most people who ride MUNI aren't taking it to work/commute (which is weird, considering SF is one of the few cities in this country where you can get on a bus packed full of Ivy graduates in suits/business casual going to work in a financial district...so even rich young snobs who may have weekend BMWs take the bus to work).
To paint a picture of car ownership in SF, I live in a walkup with 20 units and maybe 8-10 parking spaces below. The garage is full all day, every day, and the only time it partially empties out is on weekends. And this is a 90s building in a wealthy part of town where a higher percentage of people work downtown and a lower percentage down in the Peninsula.
I know you want to keep diverting away from SF to "Bay Area" and compare that to LA - nobody would argue with you there. But this is SF vs LA, not Bay Area vs LA. That would be like comparing greater Philly to LA. On a smaller scale and architecture/flora and fauna aside, there are probably a good many similarities one can find. But Philadelphia itself could never be compared to LA. Philadelphia and SF can obviously be compared, and have, but if Philly can't be compared to LA but can to SF, why is that you think SF is more similar to LA? The reasoning makes no sense. I keep going to these deductions.
We've exhausted many a thread between SF/NYC, SF/Boston, SF/Philly/Montreal, SF/DC/Philly/Boston, SF/Chicago, etc etc. Now all of a sudden people are trying to argue that SF is more like LA??
For one, we know you can't stand that SF is in the same league of cities such as Philly, your beloved, or Boston, DC, etc, being that SF is in "Cali". That aside, looking at the data you presented from 2006:
We don't. But the thread topic is Philly, Boston or DC; then the choice would be obvious.
Quote:
But Philadelphia itself could never be compared to LA. Philadelphia and SF can obviously be compared, and have, but if Philly can't be compared to LA but can to SF, why is that you think SF is more similar to LA? The reasoning makes no sense. I keep going to these deductions.
We've exhausted many a thread between SF/NYC, SF/Boston, SF/Philly/Montreal, SF/DC/Philly/Boston, SF/Chicago, etc etc. Now all of a sudden people are trying to argue that SF is more like LA??
Yes because the point of comparison of San Francisco isn't Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago or even New York City. It's just Manhattan. I haven't decided on the answer, but between two rather dissimilar choices, I don't see why LA is a huge stretch but Manhattan isn't.
For one, we know you can't stand that SF is in the same league of cities such as Philly, your beloved, or Boston, DC, etc, being that SF is in "Cali". That aside, looking at the data you presented from 2006:
322,010 people commuted from SF to SF. Of that 102,647 drove alone (31.9%), 84,064 took the bus (26.1%), and 32,123 took a subway, streetcar, railroad, or ferryboat (10.0%).
I'll just stop there. These numbers are basically saying that most people who ride MUNI aren't taking it to work/commute (which is weird, considering SF is one of the few cities in this country where you can get on a bus packed full of Ivy graduates in suits/business casual going to work in a financial district...so even rich young snobs who may have weekend BMWs take the bus to work).
To paint a picture of car ownership in SF, I live in a walkup with 20 units and maybe 8-10 parking spaces below. The garage is full all day, every day, and the only time it partially empties out is on weekends. And this is a 90s building in a wealthy part of town where a higher percentage of people work downtown and a lower percentage down in the Peninsula.
I know you want to keep diverting away from SF to "Bay Area" and compare that to LA - nobody would argue with you there. But this is SF vs LA, not Bay Area vs LA. That would be like comparing greater Philly to LA. On a smaller scale and architecture/flora and fauna aside, there are probably a good many similarities one can find. But Philadelphia itself could never be compared to LA. Philadelphia and SF can obviously be compared, and have, but if Philly can't be compared to LA but can to SF, why is that you think SF is more similar to LA? The reasoning makes no sense. I keep going to these deductions.
We've exhausted many a thread between SF/NYC, SF/Boston, SF/Philly/Montreal, SF/DC/Philly/Boston, SF/Chicago, etc etc. Now all of a sudden people are trying to argue that SF is more like LA??
actually I quite like SF (liked more before this board honestly) but really like (love) the place
Was just there last week actually and had a great time
I also live in an urban area. Have a car because I have to go to clients (many in North Jersey) on a pretyy regular basis and now mostly WFH otherwise. My nabe most common form of transit is walk to work I get it, but many also drive (not to CC well maybe a handful)
and as a city for SF outside of the NE quadrant I don't see the similarity to Manhattan - I just dont if this were Boston vs LA I would skew to Boston for SF but to Manhattan no I don't see SF as a Manhattan I see SF with a small portion that is Manhattan like else no - would say the same for a Boston, Philly or Chicago etc.
And while I see similarities in SF and Philly and more SF to LA than Philly to LA I actually have gone on record many times that I see many similarities of DT LA and CC Philly in many ways its the outer nabes where I see more difference; while South Philly may have some in common with parts of SF I see little of North philly or S Philly like LA - aspects closer to SF but still aspects of most of SF that would be more similar to LA. If I were to compare Philly on the whole to NYC it would not be Manhattan but BK and Queens with a small portion with similarities to Manhattan (similar to a F or Boston etc.)
I actually quite like SF - I more on this board find the SF mantra a bit over the top.
SF is great for what it is, its not Manhattan and not LA - I just personally find more in common with LA and see where similarities (and differences) can be drawn to either
I also think removing the bay area (far more in aggregate like LA then NYC) from the overall context difficult as well, that said I still find more commonality with LA for SF proper as the part that reminds me of Manhattan is small and the larger portion of SF just does not - for example a few blocks SE (I think the right direction) of Market even in SOMA feels to me nothing like anything really in Manhattan and this is even part of this developed core so-to-speak - nor nothing NW of Broadway (maybe parts of Russian hill hill but again small in area) or West or south of like Hyde (or maybe even Van Ness to have a cleaner demarcation line)
So Bay to Van Ness bounded by Broadway and Market (or say 2-3 blocks S East of Market) makes for a pretty small area relative to SF overall similar to Manhattan. I also see nothing for GGP or the areas around it like Manhattan That said I quite enjoy SF and areas that don't feel like Manhattan to me. but hey that is me
And just because A is similar to B and B is similar to C does not mean that A and C are similar - I get your point but think there is not complete proof in that logic
Also I dont get your point on SF and Philly, I would be hard pressed to find many metrics today where SF would not be likely ranked above Philly, not sure what you mean there. Though would guess I see them as closer relationally then you do.
For one, we know you can't stand that SF is in the same league of cities such as Philly, your beloved, or Boston, DC, etc, being that SF is in "Cali". That aside, looking at the data you presented from 2006:
322,010 people commuted from SF to SF. Of that 102,647 drove alone (31.9%), 84,064 took the bus (26.1%), and 32,123 took a subway, streetcar, railroad, or ferryboat (10.0%).
I'll just stop there. These numbers are basically saying that most people who ride MUNI aren't taking it to work/commute (which is weird, considering SF is one of the few cities in this country where you can get on a bus packed full of Ivy graduates in suits/business casual going to work in a financial district...so even rich young snobs who may have weekend BMWs take the bus to work).
To paint a picture of car ownership in SF, I live in a walkup with 20 units and maybe 8-10 parking spaces below. The garage is full all day, every day, and the only time it partially empties out is on weekends. And this is a 90s building in a wealthy part of town where a higher percentage of people work downtown and a lower percentage down in the Peninsula.
I know you want to keep diverting away from SF to "Bay Area" and compare that to LA - nobody would argue with you there. But this is SF vs LA, not Bay Area vs LA. That would be like comparing greater Philly to LA. On a smaller scale and architecture/flora and fauna aside, there are probably a good many similarities one can find. But Philadelphia itself could never be compared to LA. Philadelphia and SF can obviously be compared, and have, but if Philly can't be compared to LA but can to SF, why is that you think SF is more similar to LA? The reasoning makes no sense. I keep going to these deductions.
We've exhausted many a thread between SF/NYC, SF/Boston, SF/Philly/Montreal, SF/DC/Philly/Boston, SF/Chicago, etc etc. Now all of a sudden people are trying to argue that SF is more like LA??
yep, almost half of voters in fact.
Look, your position is logical. But so is the flip side.
It's funny you rail on kidphilly for not being able to stand the fact that SF is in league with East Coast cities, yet at the exact same time cannot stand the idea of LA and San Francisco being more similar than SF and Manhattan, calling LA posters hysterical when you are the one that clutches your pearls at the thought of being compared to that sprawly beast to the south.
Look, your position is logical. But so is the flip side.
It's funny you rail on kidphilly for not being able to stand the fact that SF is in league with East Coast cities, yet at the exact same time cannot stand the idea of LA and San Francisco being more similar than SF and Manhattan, calling LA posters hysterical when you are the one that clutches your pearls at the thought of being compared to that sprawly beast to the south.
i actually see where there is similarities, just see them less strong
this is not an EC vs WC thing by any means to me. And for the most part SF and Chicago are to me the non EC cities that have many aspects more similar - I just don't see Manhattan as the best comparator, nor really LA for that matter. I see more in common with a Boston or Seattle as a city if that makes sense then either LA or Manhattan - just see more with LA among the two presented but again that is me
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
are you sure on uber - just actually saw that LA was tops and NYC 2
I just meant that Uber is HQed in SF. It was tested and proven here. It's a direct response to the transportation landscape of SF, now scaled for other cities, obviously.
SF will never compete with their numbers, but Uber is a part of our culture and vocabulary here. Percentage-wise, I'm sure SF is the biggest Uber market.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
BTW-I have a car that stays parked in my 1920s building of about 80 apartments in one of the 10 spaces in the basement. I would never attempt to park downtown. Ever.
BTW-I have a car that stays parked in my 1920s building of about 80 apartments in one of the 10 spaces in the basement. I would never attempt to park downtown. Ever.
have parked in DT SF many times, while I prefer walking when am there many times need a car, including Manhattan parking has never been an issue if willing to pay, SF is cheaper than Manhattan there and probably more expensive than DT LA. seems similar to Boston probably a little more expensive than Philly
Its not some impossibility though, if there living and could walk absolutely if close enough or take PT or likely take cabs and uber, not much different than many places. But this mantra that you cant and people dont is just flat out false
LA is absolutely more car culture though, would not even try to argue that
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.
