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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
We're only comparing the city of San Francisco (not the rest of the Bay Area) to the borough of Manhattan (not the rest of the city).
Criteria: (Remember only things that are INSIDE of the following)
- Educational facilities (K-12 & Higher Ed)
- Skyline image
- Diversity (ethnically & racially)
- Public Transportation
- Weather
- Waterfront
- Attractions
- Economy (overall)
- Housing stock
- Restaurants
- Shopping
- Parks
- Anything else you can think of
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Criteria: (Remember only things that are INSIDE of the following)
- Educational facilities (K-12 & Higher Ed): Manhattan
- Skyline image: Manhattan by skyline, San Francisco by backdrop and waterfront.
- Diversity (ethnically & racially): San Francisco racially, ethnically too probably, Manhattan is diverse but not as much as Queens.
- Public Transportation: Manhattan easily.
- Weather: San Francisco, but if you like 4 seasons- Manhattan
- Waterfront: San Francisco
- Attractions: Tie
- Economy (overall): Manhattan
- Housing stock: San Francisco (more of my style) Unless someone can show me some massive homes with tile roofing in Manhattan.
- Restaurants: San Francisco, I prefer it more, but Manhattan is by far the most upscale in the USA.
- Shopping: I seriously don't know. I hate shopping...
- Parks: Park capital of America = Manhattan
- Anything else you can think of: None
I don't know which one I like more, been to both and I evenly like them both. Perhaps after seeing a few other convincing responses in this thread I will know which one I like more. I really like them both, they're both great examples of what cities are at their best. I'm not going to vote until I figure out which one I like more.
- Diversity (ethnically & racially) Apparently Manhattan is so great is defies the laws of basic mathematics! If you add up the demographic make-up, it totals to 118.8%! What a place! Manhattan: White:48.4%
Hispanic: 25.1%
Some other race: 16.9% Black: 13.8%
Asian: 11.3%
Two or More: 2.4%
San Francisco: White: 45.1%
Asian: 31.3%
Hispanic: 14%
Black: 7.3%
Other Race: 2.3% - Public Transportation Manhattan...
- Weather San Francisco
- Waterfront Manhattan
- Attractions Manhattan
- Economy (overall) Manhattan
- Housing stock Manhattan by far
- Restaurants Manhattan
- Shopping Haha
- Parks See: Shopping
- Anything else you can think of Overall Architecture: Manhattan; "Wow" Factor: Manhattan by far
I'll take Manhattan every day of the week even though San Francisco is a beautiful city.
i hope somebody sheds light on life in san fransisco. it seems like a really interesting place. what are the ppl like? what is it like seeing palm trees daily? does it get cold enough for coats there?
what is the cost of living? is the job market decent? what do you do for fun? do you use the mass transit available or do you drive?
Haha, talk about two places I've lived near (used to live in Staten Island but went to school in Brooklyn for Manhattan, used to live in Berkeley for SF)
Just for the record, adding a poll to this is pointless. There will be over 9000 votes for Manhattan for every SF vote there is. There aren't very many cities that SF will lose out to on CD (at most, it would either lose to Chicago or tie it, in addition to losing outright to NYC), but anywhere in NYC just can't be beat here, especially Manhattan.
Manhattan just has that extreme "WOW" factor that SF doesn't. It doesn't mean SF doesn't have any of it, but at least its built environment isn't really up to the level of Manhattan. In order for that to happen, SF would need at least 3.5 million people to live within the city limits (Manhattan has 66,000 ppsm, SF has a paltry 17,000 for now) for that to happen. Unless there's a great HUGE rush of immigration from Asia (we're talking about people coming by the millions PER YEAR), that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes.
The problem with SF is that most of the SF natives THEMSELVES don't envision themselves as a big city. It's something that, at least for the past 30-40 years, they've not wanted. It's really home to the rabid NIMBY activists that don't want the view of the bay to be blocked by buildings (as if that was the real problem). It's only recently that the city started building more and more skyscrapers, especially in SoMa, but I don't know how many projects are going to be completed due to the lack of funding there is.
SF has a lot of potential, it just doesn't have the will from the people that live there to be something else. I really dislike the fact that so many people compare Manhattan to SF because they aren't meant to be the same thing. If SF really cared about being a big city, it would've annexed much of the East Bay and San Mateo County by now. The Bay Area instead, is a balkanized mess, where every municipality is out against each other.
At least in terms of medium sized cities, I can say that SF has the most wow factor That's what a lot of San Franciscans want to think anyways (be a big fish in a small bowl, rather than a smaller fish in a bigger bowl). I don't know how many people HERE think of SF as just a medium sized city in the same breath as Indianapolis, Columbus, and Jacksonville.
Haha, talk about two places I've lived near (used to live in Staten Island but went to school in Brooklyn for Manhattan, used to live in Berkeley for SF)
Just for the record, adding a poll to this is pointless. There will be over 9000 votes for Manhattan for every SF vote there is. There aren't very many cities that SF will lose out to on CD (at most, it would either lose to Chicago or tie it, in addition to losing outright to NYC), but anywhere in NYC just can't be beat here, especially Manhattan.
Manhattan just has that extreme "WOW" factor that SF doesn't. It doesn't mean SF doesn't have any of it, but at least its built environment isn't really up to the level of Manhattan. In order for that to happen, SF would need at least 3.5 million people to live within the city limits (Manhattan has 66,000 ppsm, SF has a paltry 17,000 for now) for that to happen. Unless there's a great HUGE rush of immigration from Asia (we're talking about people coming by the millions PER YEAR), that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes.
The problem with SF is that most of the SF natives THEMSELVES don't envision themselves as a big city. It's something that, at least for the past 30-40 years, they've not wanted. It's really home to the rabid NIMBY activists that don't want the view of the bay to be blocked by buildings (as if that was the real problem). It's only recently that the city started building more and more skyscrapers, especially in SoMa, but I don't know how many projects are going to be completed due to the lack of funding there is.
SF has a lot of potential, it just doesn't have the will from the people that live there to be something else. I really dislike the fact that so many people compare Manhattan to SF because they aren't meant to be the same thing. If SF really cared about being a big city, it would've annexed much of the East Bay and San Mateo County by now. The Bay Area instead, is a balkanized mess, where every municipality is out against each other.
At least in terms of medium sized cities, I can say that SF has the most wow factor That's what a lot of San Franciscans want to think anyways (be a big fish in a small bowl, rather than a smaller fish in a bigger bowl). I don't know how many people HERE think of SF as just a medium sized city in the same breath as Indianapolis, Columbus, and Jacksonville.
Well it would just need to up that density in its core areas, i.e. slice it in half to size of manhattan then up the density, b/c brooklyn/queens do not hold manhattan density either.
Chicago (northside chicago) is actually denser in the 35-45 square mile of most populated section than is SF to put it in perspective since you mentioned Chicago, it can hold 23,000 over 37 sq miles, 860K people... I think if expanded a little more its around 21-22,000 density, 1.2 mil, 48-50 sq miles... somebody has run the #'s before.
Even then, neither are as dense as even brooklyn, and about 1/3 of manhattan density.
I'm actually about to run some more #'s in dense downtown/northside hoods... to put it in manhattan size range.
There is no doubt that dropping triple the population in the same area changes the vibe/energy. That is what Manhattan has that nowhere else in the U.S. has. Brooklyn and Queens are also denser than the next biggest dense urban areas (Chi/Philly/SF)
edit...
just did strip of dense northside hoods, came up with these numbers
manhattan vs dense chicago
manhattan = 22.96 square miles, 1,629,054 population, 70,951 density
dense chicago = 22.7 square miles, 577,095 population, 25,442 density
sure it could be tweaked slightly adding one nabe, dropping another off, but... wouldn't change it that much
can somebody do the densest 22 miles of SF for comparison please??? I'd be really interested.
Is it possible for the Bay Area to adopt a NYC style borough metropolitan government. That would make it literally a west coast manhatten.
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.
That's what a lot of San Franciscans want to think anyways (be a big fish in a small bowl, rather than a smaller fish in a bigger bowl). I don't know how many people HERE think of SF as just a medium sized city in the same breath as Indianapolis, Columbus, and Jacksonville.