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.
my vote goes to jersey city/hoboken. It feels much more urban than sf .
Sf has more amenities, this is true but that does not really mean much. San Jose probably has more amenities than hoboken(int'l airport, sports venues, etc) but that certainly does not make it more urbane.
my vote goes to jersey city/hoboken. It feels much more urban than sf .
Sf has more amenities, this is true but that does not really mean much. San Jose probably has more amenities than hoboken(int'l airport, sports venues, etc) but that certainly does not make it more urbane.
NorCalDude, always hating on NorCal. San Francisco is definitely more urban than Jersey City/Hoboken, amenities aside. Ive been to both (walked around in Hoboken, drove through Jersey City), and SF is definitley more urban overall. Just do some random google streetview drops in SF and then in Jersey City/Hoboken, it should be obvious.
NorCalDude, always hating on NorCal. San Francisco is definitely more urban than Jersey City/Hoboken, amenities aside. Ive been to both (walked around in Hoboken, drove through Jersey City), and SF is definitley more urban overall. Just do some random google streetview drops in SF and then in Jersey City/Hoboken, it should be obvious.
That is probably the absolute worst advice concerning urbanity anyone could follow.
Just do some random google streetview drops in SF and then in Jersey City/Hoboken, it should be obvious.
You do realize the structural density is higher in Jersey City/Hoboken, right?
So if structural density is a proxy for urbanity, than a random comparison of the two would show that Jersey City/Hoboken is more urban.
Not saying this is the correct way of doing things, but there is no debate that this part of NJ has a higher structural density than SF. It's basically an extension of NYC.
By Bgray (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nennerb/ - broken link)
By kosowskj (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackkosowsky/ - broken link)
By Tony Shi, NY-NJ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonyshi/ - broken link)
By =VTshep1= (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53185007@N00/ - broken link)
By LetMeSee (http://www.flickr.com/photos/49294679@N02/ - broken link)
By Architecture Image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/realestatephoto/ - broken link)
SF is next..
Great pics BPerone (for SF too) that first JC picture really gives a great perspective on the connectivity to NYC, for all intents and purposes it basically functions very similar to another borough and that image captures the pure girth of the dense expanse in this area.
The only NE city that has a bigger city feel than SF is NYC. I know Philly is technically a larger population, but it doesnt have as much of a big city feel, and has a less consistant urban fabric. Boston and DC arent quite there.
You can't really compare DC to many cities because it is a District cut out of a state. You have Rosslyn, Crystal City, Pentagon City, Clarendon, Ballston, Court House, Alexandria, Silver Spring, and Bethesda. San Fransico can't compete with all these Urban CBD's that all surround DC and most used to belong to DC. But like I said before, its not really a good comparision because DC is just a different animal. Not to mention....DC metro has over 3 times the riders of Bart. Metro daily ridership is at 1,044,000 daily riders in Q2 of 2010.
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.