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 the real San Diego....more surface parking lots than any other city in the entire US. Sort of looks like Phoenix if it were on a coast, doesn't it?
According to who/what? Another exaggerrated and ridiculous statement with no merit at all.
Quote:
As you can see, this game of posting ugly pictures of one city and posting beautiful pictures of another city can be played by both sides. I have yet to see one San Diego booster post an actual photo of Denver from this decade. Take away all the fancy photoshopping and photo enhancements and San Diego looks just as ugly as any other city in the US.
I'm not sure why people thought those pics of Denver looked so bad, they were outdated but they looked fine to me. Maybe it's because I like aerial shots but all those cities looked good in those shots.
SD simply has a more scenic setting being on the coast. You don't need any photography enhancements either, most of the photos didn't have any. All of sdurbanites photes are his and not enhanced. Below are all my photos taken with my $120 Sony camera, nothing was enhanced. One of them is even a little crooked so you can definitely tell it was me taking it, haha.
The densities of their urban areas has not been addressed already. In fact that density of 4,003 PP/SQM for San Diego is its city not its urban area and the urban area density does factor out airports and other deadzones so there are no excuses.
San Diego is the denser city, denser metro, denser urban area. San Diego also has denser zipcodes and more people living in densities above 10,000 PPSQM. Denver has 1 zipcode denser than any in San Diego but outside of that it falls behind quick to San Diego.
San Diego
92105- population 72,994/12,537.92 PPSQM
92104- population 47,688/12,515.21 PPSQM
92113- population 47,417/10,347.01 PPSQM
92102- population 47,123/10,203.52 PPSQM
92139- population 36,341/10,127.19 PPSQM
Population living above 10,000 PPSQM- 251,563
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
3 zipcodes above 9,000 and below 10,000 PPSQM.
Denver
80203- population 17,357/16,540.27 PPSQM
80218- population 17,856/11,206.42 PPSQM
Population living above 10,000 PPSQM- 35,213
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
0 zipcodes above 9,000 and below 10,000 PPSQM
I'm not going to say anything about Denver because I have nothing negative to say of it, I like the place but lets try to be more balanced here.
And that same issue exists within in San Diego too and I addressed that as well:
Quote:
You can say the EXACT same thing for San Diego. MCAS Miramar takes up around 36 square miles of mostly unpopulated land and to the east of that there is also a large swath of undeveloped hills. The city limits also include the rural San Pasqual Valley where the SD Wild Animal Park in the far north east corner is that is basically in the foothills of the mountains. Then the weirdest part of the city limits is the area on the US-Mexico border that is part of the City of SD eventhough it's not connected to the rest of the city by land, which includes a lot of undeveloped and and industrial areas. It's connected by a thin strip of city limits in the middle of San Diego Bay. From the Mexico border to the San Pasqual Valley is around 40 miles as the crow flies. That's on top of the fact there is a ton of undeveloped canyons throughout the city, even in it's urban core. Just google a map of San Diego with it's city limits and notice how much undeveloped land there is and how odd it's city borders are.
They both seem pretty on par with each other as far as density overall. If you look at census tracts they are fairly similar. Denver has more continous desnity due to its flat geography; SD's urban fabric is broken up by canyons in many areas. You can't make an argument for either but saying one is much denser and urban overall than the other is an exaggeration.
But Denver isnt green half the year. SD is lush year round with beauty. The mountains you mention are only to the west, to the east is a graveyard of dead plains.
San Diego is not lush. I've seen the suburban areas away from the coast and it's not Denver brown, but it is not green.
As for Denver, it is green or atleast Semi-Green from March-->(late) September. So actually, it's more then half the year. Not to mention the 2-3 months of the leaves turning beautiful colors, so that adds on to Denver's beauty too.
Last edited by Gfitz1010; 07-16-2012 at 05:43 PM..
The densities of their urban areas has not been addressed already. In fact that density of 4,003 PP/SQM for San Diego is its city not its urban area and the urban area density does factor out airports and other deadzones so there are no excuses.
San Diego is the denser city, denser metro, denser urban area. San Diego also has denser zipcodes and more people living in densities above 10,000 PPSQM. Denver has 1 zipcode denser than any in San Diego but outside of that it falls behind quick to San Diego.
San Diego
92105- population 72,994/12,537.92 PPSQM
92104- population 47,688/12,515.21 PPSQM
92113- population 47,417/10,347.01 PPSQM
92102- population 47,123/10,203.52 PPSQM
92139- population 36,341/10,127.19 PPSQM
Population living above 10,000 PPSQM- 251,563
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
3 zipcodes above 9,000 and below 10,000 PPSQM.
Denver
80203- population 17,357/16,540.27 PPSQM
80218- population 17,856/11,206.42 PPSQM
Population living above 10,000 PPSQM- 35,213
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
0 zipcodes above 9,000 and below 10,000 PPSQM
I'm not going to say anything about Denver because I have nothing negative to say of it, I like the place but lets try to be more balanced here.
The city actually does include DIA (largest airport in the USA) and there are no people living around it, so that should be taken into consideration. It's also about 1/3 of the city of Denver.
Like I said, when they factor urban areas they factor out airports, state parks, mountains, water, and other deadzones where no one lives. San Diego urban area has a larger population and its also denser than Denver but it doesn't run away with the density.
THAT'S the real San Diego....more surface parking lots than any other city in the entire US. Sort of looks like Phoenix if it were on a coast, doesn't it?
Now for some real pics of Denver (from THIS decade):
As you can see, this game of posting ugly pictures of one city and posting beautiful pictures of another city can be played by both sides. I have yet to see one San Diego booster post an actual photo of Denver from this decade. Take away all the fancy photoshopping and photo enhancements and San Diego looks just as ugly as any other city in the US. Also, saying San Diego is in another class of city just because it's on a coast is ridiculous. I've been to both cities and I can tell you that the actual city of Denver feels MUCH larger. If going by urban fabric alone, Denver is tiers above San Diego.
Nah, even bad pictures of SD look pretty damn good to me.
Like I said, when they factor urban areas they factor out airports, state parks, mountains, water, and other deadzones where no one lives. San Diego urban area has a larger population and its also denser than Denver but it doesn't run away with the density.
The densities of their urban areas has not been addressed already. In fact that density of 4,003 PP/SQM for San Diego is its city not its urban area and the urban area density does factor out airports and other deadzones so there are no excuses.
WRONG. Denver's urban core density does include the 50+ miles of unpopulated land near the airport because that land was annexed to Denver proper, as in the actual city of Denver, not the metro.
WRONG. Denver's urban core density does include the 50+ miles of unpopulated land because that land was annexed to Denver proper, as in the actual city of Denver, not the metro.
k man look, I don't live in the wasteland that is the midatlantic where history and density is the only thing those places have going for them. I could care less which city is more urban at this point because sav858 said it best, it's exaggerating to put one much above the other. They are comparable. PERIOD.
THERE ARE URBAN AREAS IN BOTH CITIES. THERE IS SCENERY IN BOTH CITIES. THERE ARE THINGS TO DO IN BOTH CITIES. THERE ARE GREAT QUALITIES OF BOTH CITIES. Your pictures of Denver are great, Denver itself is great, no one in Denver has a reason to look down on where they live. Just be grateful.
This defense rests.
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.