SF: more like LA or Manhattan? (Phoenix, live, best, state)
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.
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.
yeah am aware it started in SF but looks to be part of the culture many places
I need to find the chart on cities when Uberx starts and the increase is dramatic. I think uber is a great service, use it at home in Philly and when I travel and used in SF last week. I especially like it when there are not readily available, its actually a great service and app. Have only used lyft twice and here is much smaller in terms of cars, even with their promos currently there are not lyft drives yet to make it timely in Philly thus far so dont have s much experience with lyft
uberx right now here is a little cheaper than cabs generally
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,122,959 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
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
Look, I don't know what your agenda is.
I'm not trying to participate in some kind of contest of where it's "impossible to park". I know it's possible to park in the Financial district for people with great patience and deep pockets. I work in the FiDi every day. I know there are cars there. What I'm saying is, the average six-figure-earning person working in the Financial District of SF, who doesn't work for Salesforce, or a handful of other companies that have garages cannot afford to park a car. Or, it's simply not worth the hassle.
I live on a cable car line. Driving my car into the FiDi, Union Square area, North Beach or Soma is a major hassle compared to hopping on a cable car, biking, or just walking. I never choose my car. Nobody in my building commutes downtown with a car, to my knowledge. Like I said, 10 spaces for 80+ apartments. My building is an anomaly in that it has parking. There are eight other buildings on my block (20-80 apartments each) that don't have the same parking options available.
The northeast quadrant of SF is very much car-free for residents. Other parts are more car dependent. I'm not boasting or trying to misinform. I am telling you my observation as someone who actually lives here in Russian Hill.
yeah am aware it started in SF but looks to be part of the culture many places
I need to find the chart on cities when Uberx starts and the increase is dramatic. I think uber is a great service, use it at home in Philly and when I travel and used in SF last week. I especially like it when there are not readily available, its actually a great service and app. Have only used lyft twice and here is much smaller in terms of cars, even with their promos currently there are not lyft drives yet to make it timely in Philly thus far so dont have s much experience with lyft
uberx right now here is a little cheaper than cabs generally
To paint a clearer picture, there are 5 apps currently available that are popular:
Uber - SF based, born in SF for a reason, extremely popular
Lyft - SF based, born in SF for a reason, extremely popular (probably about equal with Uber here)
Sidecar - SF based, born in SF for a reason, fairly popular, something different (still only in select cities)
Flywheel - SF based, born in SF for a reason, very popular (cab hail service) - Desoto Cab rebranded and repainted in Flywheel colors to be Flywheel cab
Curb - NYC based, born in NYC for same reason as stuff in SF, also in SF but more people use Flywheel
SF also has Chariott and a new bus service that is a coffee shop in a bus, literally. $6 for one way
This is on top of 1,825 taxi medallions for SF city limits (as opposed to 2,300 for LA). As a comparison, Philadelphia has 1,600 taxis.
When it comes to using apps to get around a city, I doubt there are many as plugged in as SF. It's also a city where you might actually know someone who works for Uber or one of the other companies, so that only reinforces the culture. Uber is anchoring a big new office development next to the new Warriors Arena, so again, I wouldn't be surprised if these companies are far more engrained in the city than elsewhere.
I'm not trying to participate in some kind of contest of where it's "impossible to park". I know it's possible to park in the Financial district for people with great patience and deep pockets. I work in the FiDi every day. I know there are cars there. What I'm saying is, the average six-figure-earning person working in the Financial District of SF, who doesn't work for Salesforce, or a handful of other companies that have garages cannot afford to park a car. Or, it's simply not worth the hassle.
I live on a cable car line. Driving my car into the FiDi, Union Square area, North Beach or Soma is a major hassle compared to hopping on a cable car, biking, or just walking. I never choose my car. Nobody in my building commutes downtown with a car, to my knowledge. Like I said, 10 spaces for 80+ apartments. My building is an anomaly in that it has parking. There are eight other buildings on my block (20-80 apartments each) that don't have the same parking options available.
The northeast quadrant of SF is very much car-free for residents. Other parts are more car dependent. I'm not boasting or trying to misinform. I am telling you my observation as someone who actually lives here in Russian Hill.
I don't doubt any of this - here's my question... Do you think SF has 22 square miles of neighborhoods with this?
SF probably has 5 contiguous square miles of that, another 20 contiguous square miles that is a blend of that and the densest, most car-free area that LA has, and then a final 25 square miles that is probably akin to the densest, most car free zone LA has. SF has nothing in it that is remotely similar to at least 325 square miles of LA's 342. In my opinion, SF is more like a smaller, less dense New York/Manhattan (pick your poison) than the core 45-50 sq mi of the densest part of LA.
SF has an actual Manhattan-like component, that LA does not have at all.
Then I'd say in LA, nowhere is there an equivalent in terms of urban setup as Pacific Heights, Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, Haight, Western Addition, Mission, Castro, Bernal Heights, etc etc - this is that ~20 square miles between that Manhattan setup and the most urban setup LA has to offer.
Then maybe the rest of SF - Sunset, Richmond, Visitacion Valley, Bayview, Hunter's Point, Lake Merced, etc - the remaining 25 sq mi, is akin in urban setup to the Mid-City/Koreatown/DTLA corridor. That corridor in LA is more dense, certainly, but in terms of walkability/rideshare and the level of urbanity, I'd say they are probably on par. The main and biggest difference being that these areas of SF are SF's outskirts/hinterlands, up and over hills and forgotten, shrouded in fog, and that area of LA is the most central, densest, and most "core" part of LA.
This is where I almost want to say SF functions more like a miniaturized NYC as a whole - innermost core is very much like Manhattan - lots of people seem to agree. Then you get to places like Pacific Heights and the Mission and the Haight, which could easily suffice for an SF version of inner parts of Brooklyn/Queens. Then you get to the Richmond and Sunset, perhaps the most diverse parts of SF, the furthest out, etc, and they could easily suffice for outer parts of Brooklyn/Queens. I'd say parts south of SF like Hunters Point/Bayview/Visitacion Valley could be a Bronx equivalent. And demographically there is no Staten Island, though SF does have Treasure Island, connected to the rest of the city by bridge or ferry.
I can't think of a miniature functioning Manhattan in LA. Nor can I equate any other parts of LA to any other parts of NYC because people in LA don't typically get around by use of transit and the urban feel is totally different. Density aside, SF is a more traditional, urban city. LA was kind of one at one point and then decided wholeheartedly to go car. While LA was building highways, SF was literally tearing them down.
Another key difference - the rich in LA almost always prefer to live in an estate on an estate sized single-family lot. The rich in SF are very content living in co-ops, TICs, bougey walk-ups, and single family homes or townhomes on tiny lots. Aside from a teeny tiny area further out in SF called Saint Francis Wood, there are no estates in SF. Very few "driveways". And Saint Francis Wood would be pretty mediocre in LA.
It's funny how some of the SF natives have conceded that SF sways more towards LA and Manhattan, and the transplants from Southern states are the ones arguing against it.
Then maybe the rest of SF - Sunset, Richmond, Visitacion Valley, Bayview, Hunter's Point, Lake Merced, etc - the remaining 25 sq mi, is akin in urban setup to the Mid-City/Koreatown/DTLA corridor. That corridor in LA is more dense, certainly, but in terms of walkability/rideshare and the level of urbanity, I'd say they are probably on par.
I'm going to have to disagree here--there's noticeably more bustle in those areas of Los Angeles. To me WeHo has more energy than the Richmond District, for example. Both are 7-8 miles from downtown, but WeHo has a day and nighttime population double its residential density. It feels more city-like as a result IMO.
What LA lacks is the peak vibrancy and structural density Northeast San Francisco has.
From a superficial perspective, I would say Manhattan, but honestly, it comes off to be as Los Angeles-type buildings that are squashed together. Ignoring the Victorian areas in the central-Eastern part of the cities, and the towering (usually 4 stories) apartments between Castro/Mission down to the Marina/North beach areas, most of S.F. looks like mid-20th century plain-style, West-Coast suburban mini-houses, squashed together. Keep in mind, half of S.F. looks like what I personally refer to as Daly City housing:
I find these houses to be very iconic, others initially find it tacky, (and I have a soft-spot for their type) but you'll find nothing like this in Manhattan, or anywhere on the East Coast. The "style" I've seen in L.A. plenty of times, very 50's suburban, but unlike Los Angeles it's squashed together in a high-density layout. It might have the density of Manhattan (not really) but it resembles L.A. suburbs, aesthetically speaking. And I don't find that to be an issue.
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.
