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.
Really? I'm not sure anyone besides you and the random Philly troll who keeps on popping up would suggest Boston is a soulless city.
Boston has one of the richest histories of any city in the country, with some of the most prominent events in this country's history taking place in/around the city. This includes things such as the landing at Plymouth Rock, the Salem Witch Trials, Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, the Shot Heard Round the world, among many, many others. The city and Eastern Massachusetts as a whole is littered with tons of historical landmarks and it's hard to go anywhere in the central area of the city without feeling the old world vibe.
Nationally, Boston is certainly known for its history, but globally it's known for its role in academia. The influence of the universities can be felt in every neighborhood in the city, from the streets to the economy. Boston itself has a solid international population, but the number of international students in the area is also very large. This collection of young minds from across the country & globe is part of what makes Boston a special place.
The area also has various prominent cultures who have strong influences in the region. This ranges from the traditional cultures which most think of when it comes to Boston, like Irish & Italian, to lesser-associated cultures like Portuguese/Lusophone, Chinese, and West Indian.
If you want to call Boston "quiet" or "boring", I might not agree with you but would understand since it's not known as a big party city...but to say it doesn't have a soul? That's just wrong.
I agree, weird to say a city with as much history and culture as Boston has no soul. Seeing as I've never been to Boston I'm basing much of this on the people I've met from there, which for the most part have all been "characters" in a good way with the accents and personalities. They're far more interesting, again in a good way, than your average San Franciscan. The people are a good indicator to how interesting, soulful, how much character, etc...a city has imo.
Even if we assume that were true without going into the particulars (I assure you that this notion that Boston/SF are predominately white-collar and Philly predominately blue-collar is entirely based on perception--it's far more nuanced than that), it is completely irrelevant to built environment and population density. Those are the two primary factors influencing the extent of a city's urbanity.
I think wealth is often correlated with a greater built environment, but not always population density. The classic example is Mumbai vs New York. I think I made this point earlier - a wealthier city will have more stuff in general, more offices, more condos, more hotels + tourists, more shopping, more amenities, etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
Not necessarily. I think SF still has a lot of culture, character, and soul. Extremely innovative and trend starting city. It's liberal atmosphere is known around the world.
Just being a city is poor does not mean it has more soul. Generally, it also means it's much more run down, dilapidated, and dangerous.
Now...Boston...yeah, I can see it having little to no soul.
I think SF is losing culture, character, and soul. And I also think Boston does have soul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly
50 sq. miles of San Francisco will have you in locations getting your feet wet. The city limits extend mid way over both bridges
The site doesn't count water in the area, however, it counts only land and those posters were calculating incorrectly, thinking that 25 sq mi is a 5 mile radius. A 5 mile radius from the zip code chosen from SF would include Port of Oakland and the old naval base at Alameda. It would also bias towards SF's industrial waterfront, and land/population would be lowered because there is that much water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt
Maybe a better measurement would be "buildings( residences)/square mile"; with attached housing, Philly would "win" this contest..
Would Philly win because it's buildings are smaller? Would it "beat" New York because New York has 5 story brownstones instead of 2-3 story rowhouses, and because while one block in New York might have 4 30-50 story buildings, one block in Philly might have 20 2-3 story attached rowhouses?
I don't get it. Horrible measurement. Also, Philly has less of a lot of things than either Boston or SF. Philly has less office space, less retail, and fewer hotel rooms. Not to mention, it's not as dense, so I don't know how you can jump to the conclusion that Philly would have more buildings/sq mi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
Same is true for all 3 cities.
Barely true for Philly compared to Boston or SF. And the zip code chosen for Boston was Back Bay and a bit more central. SF has an ocean on one side and a very wide bay on 2. It will always be "dinged" for being an island. Can't have it both ways - can't say Philly is larger/more contiguous (and same for Boston once you include surrounding cities) and SF is smaller/feels smaller because it's landlocked, and then try to say all 3 cities are dinged because they are surrounded by water. Doesn't work that way.
You guys are right. I should not have said Boston has no soul. It does have a lot of history no doubt. I just think out of these three it has the least character.
Would Philly win because it's buildings are smaller? Would it "beat" New York because New York has 5 story brownstones instead of 2-3 story rowhouses, and because while one block in New York might have 4 30-50 story buildings, one block in Philly might have 20 2-3 story attached rowhouses?
I don't get it. Horrible measurement. Also, Philly has less of a lot of things than either Boston or SF. Philly has less office space, less retail, and fewer hotel rooms. Not to mention, it's not as dense, so I don't know how you can jump to the conclusion that Philly would have more buildings/sq mi.
I think you can make an argument from the perspective of street-level urbanism. This completely discounts the extent of office space, hotel rooms, retail, condos, etc. since these measures also aren't particularly meaningful if they're in a self-contained high-rise with little street interaction.
Perceptions of urbanism are strongly tied to what someone experiences on the street. To this end, Philadelphia and Boston both have tighter streets -- on average -- than San Francisco, which creates more pedestrian intimacy with the built environment. Philly's rowhouses absolutely contribute to more of a "walled-off" feel for a far greater area of the city than either SF or Boston. There are definitely more "dead zones" in Philly closer to its downtown compared to Boston/SF, but as these areas fill-in and the urban fabric is restored, Philly's "native" urban form is giving it an edge.
There definitely is a difference in perception here, based on road width alone.
I think it comes down to the fact that SF and Boston have more intense nodes of urbanity, but the built form of Philly's sprawling rowhouse neighborhoods lend to a more widespread urban feel overall.
I think you can make an argument from the perspective of street-level urbanism. This completely discounts the extent of office space, hotel rooms, retail, condos, etc. since these measures also aren't particularly meaningful if they're in a self-contained high-rise with little street interaction.
Perceptions of urbanism are strongly tied to what someone experiences on the street. To this end, Philadelphia and Boston both have tighter streets -- on average -- than San Francisco, which creates more pedestrian intimacy with the built environment. Philly's rowhouses absolutely contribute to more of a "walled-off" feel for a far greater area of the city than either SF or Boston.
I think it comes down to the fact that SF and Boston have more intense nodes of urbanity, but the built form of Philly's sprawling rowhouse neighborhoods lend to a more widespread urban feel overall.
Umm, we're not talking downtowns in the sense of Houston, Phoenix, or even LA (much to the chagrin of LA posters). We're talking classically urban downtowns and other urban CBD like areas. Office buildings and hotels, retail, etc all contribute HEAVILY to the vibrancy on the street in all 3 cities. Are you telling me Walnut St's shopping and nearby offices don't put foot traffic on the sidewalks? Are you telling me that visitors staying in CC or UC hotel rooms and going out, by foot, and exploring don't contribute?
No offense, but sometimes you Philly posters are a little off with your thoughts.
And again, WHAT is this obsession with narrow streets? To me the rowhouse neighborhoods of Philly and the classically old cobblestone parts of Boston aren't claustrophobic, bustling, noisy, or all that vibrant. They are intimate, cute, quaint, and places I would love to live if I lived in either city. The fact that the streets are narrow does not do anything for "urbanity" to me. And ironically, even with all those narrow streets, somehow SF is a denser city than either. Hmmm
Umm, we're not talking downtowns in the sense of Houston, Phoenix, or even LA (much to the chagrin of LA posters). We're talking classically urban downtowns and other urban CBD like areas. Office buildings and hotels, retail, etc all contribute HEAVILY to the vibrancy on the street in all 3 cities. Are you telling me Walnut St's shopping and nearby offices don't put foot traffic on the sidewalks? Are you telling me that visitors staying in CC or UC hotel rooms and going out, by foot, and exploring don't contribute?
You misunderstand. I'm saying those features don't inherently make a city urban. If a retail store is contained in an interior shopping mall, that doesn't lend to an urban feel at the street level. Same with a gated condo community. What makes them urban is how they interact with their environment. Same with an office building that has no street level retail and is simply a blank wall. That is why built form/design is so important to the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
And again, WHAT is this obsession with narrow streets? To me the rowhouse neighborhoods of Philly and the classically old cobblestone parts of Boston aren't claustrophobic, bustling, noisy, or all that vibrant. They are intimate, cute, quaint, and places I would love to live if I lived in either city. The fact that the streets are narrow does not do anything for "urbanity" to me.
If that's your perspective, that's fine. But I think many people find street width (and ostensibly the lack of cars) creates an environment that is more based on buildings and people--as opposed to endless asphalt. That's what highways are for--not cities.
You guys are right. I should not have said Boston has no soul. It does have a lot of history no doubt. I just think out of these three it has the least character.
As they've gentrified, Boston and SF have lost a lot of the character they were known for. SF, for example, is embroiled in a "techies vs hippies" culture war right now.
Philadelphia has a lot of character, but it comes at a cost. It's provincial and not that diverse for a city its size. With the exception of the areas in and around Center City as well the Chestnut Hill area, Philadelphia is in bad shape. Over of a fourth of Philadelphians live below the poverty line. The schools are a mess. And there are almost as many homicides in Philadelphia as there are in New York, even though there are five times as many people in New York.
All three are great cities with a lot of to offer. They're urban in their own ways.
But at a certain density, which is ultimately MORE important for street level vibrancy than street width given an urban context, these narrow alleyways and through streets become useless. New York could never have these cutesy little narrow streets that Boston's North End/Beacon Hill have or that much of Philly has. New York has to funnel millions in and out of Manhattan a day, and that actually includes a heck of a lot of cars, despite having the most extensive and heavily used transit in NA and in some respects, the world. Not to say Manhattan doesn't have semi-narrow streets and what have you, but you'd never fit the key aspects of Manhattan in a European style framework. And on that note, Paris and London have wide streets relative to the narrow streets you guys are bragging about being so extensive in your cities on here.
Also, you get to a certain point where narrow 5 ft sidewalks along narrow 8 ft alleys in between buildings cannot support the pedestrian traffic that a certain density in an URBAN environment bring. Unless you start closing off streets and making them pedestrian only. That could work in some cases, but actually often ends up in disaster for businesses along the street.
Going to your point about soulless office buildings with no street level retail. Yes, there are plenty of these in every downtown in America. However, you put a concentration of office buildings together and you have the ultimate density of bodies all concentrated in one spot at a given time. That will fuel a hungry need for places to eat, dine, work out, shop, be entertained, etc. Maybe these places shut down after 8-9 at night when 80-90% of the people are gone, but for much of the day, that means packed sidewalks and businesses raking it in.
Midtown Manhattan, Lower Manhattan, SF's financial district, Boston's financial district, and Center City Philly are all more vibrant 5 days a week 12 hours a day than the densest of residential neighborhoods anywhere. Fact.
As they've gentrified, Boston and SF have lost a lot of the character they were known for. SF, for example, is embroiled in a "techies vs hippies" culture war right now.
Philadelphia has a lot of character, but it comes at a cost. It's provincial and not that diverse for a city its size. With the exception of the areas in and around Center City as well the Chestnut Hill area, Philadelphia is in bad shape. Over of a fourth of Philadelphians live below the poverty line. The schools are a mess. And there are almost as many homicides in Philadelphia as there are in New York, even though there are five times as many people in New York.
All three are great cities with a lot of to offer. They're urban in their own ways.
I think most hippies left a long time ago before techies even arrived on the scene. Seems more like "techies vs old school Mission Latino's or any other middle class group" today lol.
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.
