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.
This is not a bother to me becauseI never made the claim that SF has 200sq contiguous sq miles of 10,000+ppsm such as you are saying is the case with Philadelphia.
No evidence Ive seen thusfar really substantiates this claim if we literally adehere to the criteria that it is 200 contiguous square miles, but like I said, that doesnt take away from the huge urban mass that is Philadelphia.
Nineties Flava actually put together a list of places that I didnt check and ironically San Jose has a TON of neighborhoods with 10,000+ppsm and there quite a few along the Peninsula, but connected? They are not.
So we appear to have 3 large clusters of 10,000+ppsm.
1 San Francisco itself and adjacent Daly City.
2 Oakland and the Urban East Bay
3 San Jose
Im actually more surprised with the East Bay and SJ than I am with SF:
I could try to combine the areas of SF and Oakland but it will be nothing close to 200 sq miles.
Like I said earlier, apart from New York, I think it would be difficult for any US City, but who knows?
Actually found this link from the Census with State density census tracts mapped and a gradient for above 10K.
Now based on the maps view SF in CA (Can also view LA) at 800% resolution and Philly in PA at 400% as it mostly normalizes the scale based on state size differences.
Interesting in that much of we discussed the Philly concentrated 10K blob is a larger and more concentrated, the Bay has more areas likely but spread in the region. As a side note I looked at Jersey (didnt really add much to the Philly but what was interesting is that North Jersey (exclusive of NYC itself) has as much concentration of 10K+ areas as does Philly or the Bay
Dont know how to use these or a direct scale comparison but interesting maps none-the less
Also if you look at NYC, it is clearly more massive, LA at the 10K more concentrated blob than SF but didnt appear significantly larger than either Philly or SF in on the metric. Also Boston on 10K (200% resolution) seemed smaller on the 10K than either Bay or Philly and Chicago marginally if at larger on this metric when compared to Philly/Bay or LA
In terms of big city feel from a city perspective:
1. New York - obvious
2. San Francisco - Chicago (tied) - San Francisco is denser, but Chicago is far more expansive
4. Philadelphia - big, expansive and dense
5. Boston - big and dense
6. Washington DC - same as ^^
7. Los Angeles - Huge, but doesn't display a "big city" feel like some of the smaller east coast cities.
8. Miami - Pretty dense
9. Dallas - Expansive, but not very dense
10. Houston - Same as Dallas
Big city feel from a Metro perspective
1. New York - Huge metro, huge area, enormous population, NYC alone gets the job done
2. Los Angeles - Huge never-ending dense sprawl, mind-boggingly big with urban patches all over the place
3. Bay Area - Very dense with Oakland and San Jose part of the urban footprint
4. Chicago - Not as dense as ^^, but it is a massive low-density sprawl with a very impressive, large urban core.
5. Philadelphia - Same as Chicago, just smaller
6. Boston - Smaller core than Philly, but impressive once you add the immediate cities around it...however, the urban footprint is not larger than Philly, but close
7. Washington DC - Smaller urban core than Philly, but impressive once you add the suburbs and VA around it
8. Miami - Large and dense metro if you think about it. Miami's dense sprawl northward is very impressive.
9. Dallas - Multiple cities give it a sort of "big metropolis" vibe about it.
10. Houston - Under Dallas because Houston is a single primate city, unlike the Dallas metro.
Good solid list and explanation. I would just about completely agree....
1. NY- Because it is the big City, it just feels huge
2. LA- Big Metro with nice density over a large area
3. Chicago- feels huge but LA's metro outpaces it
4. Philadelphia- density from the center radiating out makes it leader of this group
5. Boston- smaller scale to Philly
6. DC- Huge but not as strong in the core as philly
7. SF- very active core and lots sustained density but natural elements hinder the spread on the Metro level.
8. Houston- Largest core in the sunbelt. Maintaines density longest
9. ATL- Second largest Core / density radiating from center and maintained instead of breaking up.
10. DFW - Checkerboad density interrupts feel in my opinion. DFW does NOT have the uniform connections of the Bay
opps forgot Miami. Miami would fit in somewhere around 8 or 9
1. NY- Because it is the big City, it just feels huge
2. LA- Big Metro with nice density over a large area
3. Chicago- feels huge but LA's metro outpaces it
4. Philadelphia- density from the center radiating out makes it leader of this group
5. Boston- smaller scale to Philly
6. DC- Huge but not as strong in the core as philly
7. SF- very active core and lots sustained density but natural elements hinder the spread on the Metro level.
8. Houston- Largest core in the sunbelt. Maintaines density longest
9. ATL- Second largest Core / density radiating from center and maintained instead of breaking up.
10. DFW - Checkerboad density interrupts feel in my opinion. DFW does NOT have the uniform connections of the Bay
opps forgot Miami. Miami would fit in somewhere around 8 or 9
I also think Detroit on developed footprint somehow needs to be in the mix, an argument could be made actually from some perspectives well into the top 10
I think the people who comment on LA as having a smaller city feel to cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and San Francisco either never been here or never explored much of the city, Downtown LA west to Santan Monica is all urban and dense, Downtown to East LA is all urban and dense, most of south LA including Inglewood is dense and urban, if one grasps at the large area this covers and this is mostly just the city of LA might I add not including the outer suburbs, its a massive area that few cities for the exception of Chicago and New York can match or surpass period.
I also think Detroit on developed footprint somehow needs to be in the mix, an argument could be made actually from some perspectives well into the top 10
I keep forgetting cities.
Detroit I would place after after my current 7 but before my current 8 (more closer to the 8 than the 7).
Detroit still has wonderful burbs despite the ws of the central city. It only recently got passed by cities like Houston in Urban area, but the longer duratio at which it was bigger allows it to feel bigger.
I think the people who comment on LA as having a smaller city feel to cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and San Francisco either never been here or never explored much of the city, Downtown LA west to Santan Monica is all urban and dense, Downtown to East LA is all urban and dense, most of south LA including Inglewood is dense and urban, if one grasps at the large area this covers and this is mostly just the city of LA might I add not including the outer suburbs, its a massive area that few cities for the exception of Chicago and New York can match or surpass period.
LA is very dense on metro scale, but the urban core (downtown&immediate surroundings) is what they're talking about I think in terms of "feel". The core of those eastern big cities has a much more hustle and bustle feel compared to Los Angeles. Downtown LA is improving drastically, but still lacks the vibrancy&foot traffic compared to some of those cities. The good thing is that it sure is changing at the moment. It's one of the most booming/happening part of LA right now.
On a metro level, I agree the city of Los Angeles is all but built out. It will continue to grow from here on out in a vertical fashion.
I didn't want to get into the LA thing earlier because LA seemed hella large to me.
I think it felt larger over a larger area than Chicago while Chicago felt more bustling in the core. I would still give the advantage to LA cause it seemed to be as big as Chicago but over a wider area.
This is exactly it. Chicago with a large core that extends somewhat around the Loop, and heads north closer to the lake areas, that gets smaller and smaller outside of that core, and LA with urbanization seemingly randomly all over the place. In Chicago, you can hop on the Red, Brown or Purple lines headed North or South and hit most of the city's more urban places. In LA, there's no corridor where the population is. There are clusters of packed areas as well as largely residential areas all over the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vop
I think the people who comment on LA as having a smaller city feel to cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and San Francisco either never been here or never explored much of the city, Downtown LA west to Santan Monica is all urban and dense, Downtown to East LA is all urban and dense, most of south LA including Inglewood is dense and urban, if one grasps at the large area this covers and this is mostly just the city of LA might I add not including the outer suburbs, its a massive area that few cities for the exception of Chicago and New York can match or surpass period.
People who say stuff like that are the kind of people who have heard about LA, tend to group everything south of Bakersfield as Los Angeles, then go visit their grandma in Toluca Lake one day and remark, "That didn't feel very urban at all." When someone says something ridiculous like LA is row after row of houses, you have to know right then and there the person has absolutely zero idea what they're talking about.
This thread has really taken off recently. So let me chime in my opinion on biggest city proper feel and big metro feel:
Big city proper feel:
1. NYC (of course. No comparison. It makes all the big cities in the nation feel small time).
2. Close between Chicago and SF proper.
3. Close between LA, Philly, DC, and Boston proper.
4. Close between ATL, Houston, and Dallas FT. Worth proper.
Big Metro feel:
1. NYC metro
2. LA metro (If LA had a larger dense core then it would compete real close behind NYC metro).
3. Chicago metro (kind of similar to DC metro and SF metro).
4. DC metro (With so many business districts and office buildings DC metro feels pretty big).
5. SF metro (Overall Chicago, DC, and SF metros are very close. I could see for someone who is not very familiar with SF metro it could give off a bigger feel than it really is. That is because how the development encompasses the bay, and the transportation grid rides along the bay).
6. Houston Metro (Not really sure why, but it feels slightly bigger than ATL and Dallas Ft. Worth.
7. Atlanta Metro (Even though DFW is bigger, ATL feels slightly bigger).
8. Dallas/Ft. Worth. (Not really sure why others have ranked DFW so high).
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.
