Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Mother`s Day to all Moms!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Philly-San Francisco A Reasonable Comparison?
Yes 65 49.24%
No 67 50.76%
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2012, 07:22 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,153 posts, read 39,418,669 times
Reputation: 21252

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
It demonstrates that major retail would rather be in suburbia than in the heart of the city.

But then, apart from a very small number of cities, its rare for downtowns to be the center of retail anymore, Philadelphia is hardly alone in that aspect, sadly.
I don't see how it doesn't work both ways for SF as well, especially given how the Bay Area is decentralized in comparison to Philly's metro.

And yes, pretty much all major cities were hit pretty hard.

Anyhow, the question was if this was a reasonable comparison overall. I think it's a pretty decent one, and the both offer pretty similar levels of urbanity and amenities with only a few other US cities in anywhere near a comparable level. They both offer a good diversity of nature (SF more in topography, Philly more in seasonal extremes); SF has grander natural offerings while Philly offers more historical and urban offerings; there is Atlantic City versus Reno for your certain vices. It seems like a pretty worthwhile comparison, and I think it'll become closer as Philly continues its recovery.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-30-2012 at 08:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2012, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Shaw.
2,226 posts, read 3,857,622 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
Density that is surpassed by only NYC.
Just wondering, when you say this, are you talking population density of the city proper (New York = #1; Patterson, NJ = #2; San Francisco = #3) or are you talking about perceived/weighted population density (New York = #1, San Francisco = #2). If you're talking about either the former or are simply being dramatic, ignore my next thought. If you're talking about weighted population density, it's a really good measure, but I think Density Gradient (weighted density divided by standard density) is a more accurate measure of just how concentrated city populations are (See here for more information, if you don't know it already: University of California Transportation Center).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,342 posts, read 3,991,491 times
Reputation: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm123 View Post
Just wondering
San Francisco 17,179.2/sq mi
Boston 12,752/sq mi
Phily 11,457/sq mi
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 06:23 PM
 
1,449 posts, read 2,189,022 times
Reputation: 1494
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
San Francisco 17,179.2/sq mi
Boston 12,752/sq mi
Phily 11,457/sq mi
Philadelphia 1,526,006
San Francisco 805,235
Boston 617,594
Your point is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: The Left Toast
1,303 posts, read 1,898,048 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
So you are saying that Phily is tit for tat as wealthy as San Francisco when you compare metros? I wont even bother comparing CSAs because that would be a blowout for San Francisco but heres something you should see MSAd houses valued over $1 million.

NYC 231,051
Boston 47,347
San Jose 67,521
San Francisco 132,783

Phily 22,039

American FactFinder - Results

Phily is not in San Francisco's league when it comes to desirable housing, its not in NYC's league, or Boston's league, and not even in San Jose's league.

SO...That means..,what exactly? I love San Fran and it does in some ways remind me of Philly. When I first moved to LA people would tell me "You have to get up to the Bay Area", San Francisco is something like Philly. The people are more cultured than here in LA plus some of the housing resembles Philly's and it has subways and trolleys and of course the the bridges that you can take across the bay, great food, fashion, arts, etc. And when I finally took a trip up there I thought "They all were right."

Funny thing though about ALL or MOST of Cali is...., it's uber expensive as it is expansive. I can remember the exact street but I think it's 16th st. I had taken the BART Train there and took a trackless trolley up about a mile to where there were some cool little bars and pubs. I liked the atmosphere on the street because two doors up from the bar that was playing the Phillies & Yankees games, there were little store from churches, three doors from there would be a little grocery store and then on the next street a little underground danky club, etc. Also there were people selling home cooked food right off the grill . LOL! Yep I thought "This reminds me of 5th & Erie Avenue." Many of the homes and apartments looked "Exactly Alike". My thoughts on that is, in lieu to what you're saying "If those spots cost a million dollars or even half a million, someones getting jipped."


Just because two high school teachers or other professionals would like to have a middle class lifestyle and decent schools for their children "HAVE TO" pay 700K & up to live in a decent area doesn't really make them anymore wealthier or educated than their Philadelphia peers. They may make just a few grand less but the cost of living is quite better. You can get just a little better of a housing situation in Philadelphia than in San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,927 posts, read 14,218,011 times
Reputation: 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
San Francisco 17,179.2/sq mi
Boston 12,752/sq mi
Phily 11,457/sq mi
Keep in mind that the northeast and northwest sections of Philadelphia are a combination of forest,parkland and suburbia.

The urban core of Philadelphia places like Center City have density populations of 30,000 ppsq.mi.. South,North and West Philly 20,000 ppsqmi..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,700 posts, read 14,701,215 times
Reputation: 3668
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
Philadelphia 1,526,006
San Francisco 805,235
Boston 617,594
Your point is?
Philadelphia is up to 1,536,471 now.. it gained 10k people in one year. Which Cities Are Growing Faster Than Their Suburbs? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Shaw.
2,226 posts, read 3,857,622 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
San Francisco 17,179.2/sq mi
Boston 12,752/sq mi
Phily 11,457/sq mi
OK, so that would be density of the city proper. That's an ok measure, but check out my links for a different take on it. I personally like the density gradient because it has the strongest association with things that we traditionally associate with a dense city, i.e. walking and use of public transportation. But both cities are obviously dense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 02:24 AM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,342 posts, read 3,991,491 times
Reputation: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
Philadelphia 1,526,006
135 miles
Quote:
San Francisco 805,235
46 miles
Quote:
Boston 617,594
50 miles
Quote:
Your point is?
San Francisco is the second city to NYC in density. My point? Proven.

What's your point? LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 02:25 AM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,342 posts, read 3,991,491 times
Reputation: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm123 View Post
OK, so that would be density of the city proper. That's an ok measure, but check out my links for a different take on it. I personally like the density gradient because it has the strongest association with things that we traditionally associate with a dense city, i.e. walking and use of public transportation. But both cities are obviously dense.
k.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top