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 really think there needs to be a clear distinction between "feels larger" and "big city feel". Philly certainly does feel larger, but when I'm in downtown SF and adjacent neighborhoods, it has more of a "big city feel" than Philly.
I agree there is a difference, but overall I find them highly comparable (I really think is subjective and personally am hard pressed to argue to much one way or another on their cores, but to me anyone suggesting a landslide or clear delineation from my perspective is irrational or lacking in experience of both) on the "Big City Feel", I know both fairly well, Boston is similar to these two as well to me. Certain blocks in each will give that feeling more in one than the other. None make me feel like NYC, they are are pretty similar to me on the "Big City Feel" scale - none are mamoth like NYC. Especially into the adjacent neighborhoods to me for philly is see no real difference between them, if anything to me it is not the adjacent neighborhoods that seperate SF it would the extreme core where i think a case can be made for SF but that is counted in blocks and subsides rather quickly, to me at least
More like many agree and many disagree. Stop ignoring the statistics, and stop trying to downplay things. Many of the people who think that SF feels bigger than Philly are probably just tired of defending themselves, and constantly repeating the same arguments to the "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" Philly booster squad. I know I'm tired of it at least...but i guess i'll repeat my well-informed (seriously) opinion again:
SF generally feels a little bit bigger than Philly (felt most strongly in Downtown). That's based on experience in both places, and the statistics do a good job helping to explain why that is, as does simply looking at ones surroundings in both cities. SF is denser, more cohesive overall, and has more hustle and bustle overall, period. It has more highrises, too. It's also part of a more populated metro, with a contiguous urbanized core area that when cropped down to Philly city proper's geographic size, nearly matches it for population and population density.
Don't take that all as a slight against Philly though, because it too feels like a big, bustling city (it is one! One of the biggest/densest in the nation), and it certainly isn't very far behind SF in that regard.
And LA was mentioned....Downtown SF and Center City Philadelphia feel a bit larger to me than DT LA, and definitely more busy overall (and they are). DT LA is not bad though, and feels big itself. In total however, LA feels bigger than both SF and Philly to me (as it should, having such a population advantage).
I really think there needs to be a clear distinction between "feels larger" and "big city feel". Philly certainly does feel larger, but when I'm in downtown SF and adjacent neighborhoods, it has more of a "big city feel" than Philly.
That's pretty much what "feels larger" means to me (big city feel). We already know that Philly actually is larger than SF (city proper), but the big city feel in SF is overall larger, therefore SF city proper "feels" like it would be the more populated of the two, even though it really isn't... though that's then somewhat debatable, because SF's metro actually is larger AND denser than Philly's is. I think the fixation on central city limits has skewed many Americans views on the true size of many cities in this country, as metros are often ignored and/or misunderstood.
Did I say it was? And you asked me where I went so I said downtown LA/Malibu...
Someone had said earlier that the LA METRO area feels endless, giving it a big city feel. And I responded saying that a lot of that sprawl just gives it a suburban, not big city, feel.
You're right. I was hanging out with a friend in Atherton one day and was like, "Dude, the SF Bay Area feels so small..."
Edit: The snark-free version of this post translates to "I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect a small suburban town outside of a large city to have a big city feel." I lived on the Peninsula, and I certainly wouldn't say Los Gatos has a big city feel, even though SF does. I wouldn't take a small beach town and attribute its feel to that of the city, or even the rest of the Metro area, the way I wouldn't make any judgements about SF or the Bay by Snob Gatos.
I get what ur saying but when you drive back to LA from Malibu or from Pacific Palisades where I lived, the city of LA just about smacks you in the face and you are instantly transported from wild nature to a mass of urban sprawl as far as the eye can see.
LOL
Yea I do remember that. I guess that's why LA is kinda hard to rank in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorielicious
You're right. I was hanging out with a friend in Atherton one day and was like, "Dude, the SF Bay Area feels so small..."
Edit: The snark-free version of this post translates to "I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect a small suburban town outside of a large city to have a big city feel." I lived on the Peninsula, and I certainly wouldn't say Los Gatos has a big city feel, even though SF does. I wouldn't take a small beach town and attribute its feel to that of the city, or even the rest of the Metro area, the way I wouldn't make any judgements about SF or the Bay by Snob Gatos.
You're missing my point. I am not saying that LA does not have a big city feel because I'm judging it based on it's suburbs. I'm saying that endless sprawl does not = big city feel.
More like many agree and many disagree. Stop ignoring the statistics, and stop trying to downplay things. Many of the people who think that SF feels bigger than Philly are probably just tired of defending themselves, and constantly repeating the same arguments to the "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" Philly booster squad. I know I'm tired of it at least...but i guess i'll repeat my well-informed (seriously) opinion again:
SF generally feels a little bit bigger than Philly (felt most strongly in Downtown). That's based on experience in both places, and the statistics do a good job helping to explain why that is, as does simply looking at ones surroundings in both cities. SF is denser, more cohesive overall, and has more hustle and bustle overall, period. It has more highrises, too. It's also part of a more populated metro, with a contiguous urbanized core area that when cropped down to Philly city proper's geographic size, nearly matches it for population and population density.
Don't take that all as a slight against Philly though, because it too feels like a big, bustling city (it is one! One of the biggest/densest in the nation), and it certainly isn't very far behind SF in that regard.
And LA was mentioned....Downtown SF and Center City Philadelphia feel a bit larger to me than DT LA, and definitely more busy overall (and they are). DT LA is not bad though, and feels big itself. In total however, LA feels bigger than both SF and Philly to me (as it should, having such a population advantage).
Again suggest a mirror, seriously but you wont see this now will you
And we can agree to disagree, Philly IS (as overunder says) Larger
One other part to me that is relevant is that by highway Philly likely is the least understood or visually exposing. I think this also plays into why many percieve it far smaller than it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
That's pretty much what "feels larger" means to me (big city feel). We already know that Philly actually is larger than SF (city proper), but the big city feel in SF is overall larger, therefore SF city proper "feels" like it would be the more populated of the two, even though it really isn't... though that's then somewhat debatable, because SF's metro actually is larger AND denser than Philly's is. I think the fixation on central city limits has skewed many Americans views on the true size of many cities in this country, as metros are often ignored and/or misunderstood.
I again will disagree, Philly as a city on the city feel absolutely feels larger, because frankly it is and continuous. Have you ever traversed all the way into North Philly or the Northeast or West Philly, seriously. But again you make your statement as some fact as opposed to a personal perception. Also end of the day Oakland et all will always feel removed and depress the actual cohesive city feel in my book, the bay is too large to feel like one big urban city, are they the same region, absolutely, the same city on feel, not so much to me. With that said SF is and come at you and goes away quickly, does have a high apex of urbanity most definately.
Most highway approaches to philly show virtually zero of the city until you are in the core. 76 is a perfect example winding through Fairmont park until you pop out in Center City missing the miles of continuously developed neighborhoods in West Philly etc.
You here have made your opinion as fact. In reading the responses more have felt Philly to actually feel larger, especially if people from either city are removed, though neither seems to be a clear cut run away.
I also disagree on the metro in so many levels, the Bay is vastly linear and over a huge distance, given that spread you have passed baltimore to the South or are in Manhattan to the north not to mention the CSAs are actually pretty close on population without going oustside the borders, on MSAs or UAs (even with SJ included) Philly is larger. I personally found your response a little funny in that you start with saying stop ignoring the stats and downplaying things, then lalalala, then in the next breath, what did you do lalalalalalalala my percption is right, it must be, right
Philly booster squad, again suggest you get a mirror
I just feel that LA seems like a huge suburb. And Boston/Philly/SF are more characteristic of the typical "big-city".
Everything you have said of LA is true, but I am talking about the 60's and 70's, since the late 70's til now LA has greatly densified to how it once was, its very walkable in most of the city, its full of apartments and houses not just houses, LA has come a long way and its no longer the big suburub you talk about, for the exception of New York City and maybe Chicago there is no other city that can hold a candle to the urban landscape of Los Angeles.
No kidding. Instead of the San Francisco Treat, we get the San Francisco Trick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Understood completely. This is why I admire you folks at times, a noble cause on here to make SF something it is not
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.
