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.
The difference is those aren't suburban. They're still lined with rowhousing and corner commercial.
The problem is that your opinion is nothing but homerism.
Plenty of older cities are much more urban than SF.
Street level vibrancy is not what makes a place urban or not.
No they are suburban, absolutely - they are abnormal but there a few areas that absolutely exist and are NOT rowhomes but singles with driveways, yards, etc.
No they are suburban, absolutely - they are abnormal but there a few areas that absolutely exist and are NOT rowhomes but singles with driveways, yards, etc.
Actually, I thought you were saying something else here. So you're referring to the Far Northeast and Chesnut Hill/Roxborough? If so then I agree, though Roxborough feels more to me like a mountain town or something, and Chestnut Hill is moreso a different kind of urban than it is suburban.
SF has aslightly more intense downtown area in terms of population and activity but turns into a more suburban/neighborhood feel with lack of commercial areas quicker than Philly...
A very large portion of SF is laid out like this, this is the sunset, that is a BIG chunk of SF.
Furthermore, you can see the contrast in intensity the NE quadrant with the majority the rest of the city that becomes significantly residential with a lack of commercial interweaving in comparison.
Philly expands a more urban look for consistently farther w/o breaks despite a small amount of less density at the core.
I certainly see why an initial impression would give one that SF is the more urban of the two though, most tourists would get that impression, esp if one stays around the NE quadrant.
and I really dont find much of SF to be surbaurban at all - if you look hard enough you can cherry pick an image for just about anywhere but I would not consider SF to be suburban. Philly actually has two areas extreme NE and NW that have a street car suburb feel - but these are also way further out than anything inside the city limits distance wise relative to SF
Exactly - even the large residential swaths in Grapico's map are not suburban by any stretch. They are primarily rowhouses with corner stores sprinkled in.
SF is anything but your typical Western city where it gets suburban-feeling quickly once you leave the core - the urban fabric is very strong. I would also argue that SF's larger non-Downtown nodes, like Mission, Marina, Fillmore, Haight, Castro, etc. have a more urban, bustling feel than Philly's non-downtown nodes.
Also, Grapico's map doesn't mean much in this argument without seeing the equivalent for Philly.
Exactly - even the large residential swaths in Grapico's map are not suburban by any stretch. They are primarily rowhouses with corner stores sprinkled in.
SF is anything but your typical Western city where it gets suburban-feeling quickly once you leave the core - the urban fabric is very strong. I would also argue that SF's larger non-Downtown nodes, like Mission, Marina, Fillmore, Haight, Castro, etc. have a more urban, bustling feel than Philly's non-downtown nodes.
Also, Grapico's map doesn't mean much in this argument without seeing the equivalent for Philly.
There isn't a map for Philly that's created by the same source (that I can find), but the following shows how dense Philly is all the way to the borders (140 sq. miles):
I imagine that a somewhat similar density pours over the border at least a little. Note the mileage at the bottom (Broad St. from north to south is at least 10 miles vs. SF's 5 miles from North Beach to Bernal Heights).
much of that is in the geographical center of the city, you aren't going to find stuff like that in Philly's core that I know of.
I figured people would argue against the map that Berkeley did though...
You guys must have different definitions of suburban, but these areas *are* historically suburban, they are just small lot old suburbs that used to go to DT on a street car.
For instance Sunnyside as one example.
"The neighborhood was developed in 1898 as land lots for single-family houses and sold through the Sunnyside Land Development Company. This company installed a street car line to access the new neighborhood from downtown San Francisco. This allowed expansion and created "suburbs" of the day. Houses were built as individual custom homes and developers also purchased multiple lots and usually built with 3–10 houses of similar look and size. The neighborhood was 75% built out by 1940 when WW2 began. The balance of the land was built out from about 1946-1980s"
If SF touts itself as an East Coast city only on the west coast, then it needs to be on those standards, and realize much of the city looks like East coast and older midwest suburban street car areas. They wouldn't be considered "urban" anywhere except the west coast. That being said, SF is still very urban for U.S. overall standards.
They are pretty high density though b/c of the suburban small lot California style.
There are also several small lot subdivisions throughout San Francisco such as Silverview Terrace
Also again, Philly keeps going longer, SF is surrounded by water, a golf course, and a mountain range. While statistically dense, edge areas of places like Daly City can often look like this. The subdivisions in the middle of the city break up some of the urban fabric from continuing.
Exactly - even the large residential swaths in Grapico's map are not suburban by any stretch. They are primarily rowhouses with corner stores sprinkled in.
SF is anything but your typical Western city where it gets suburban-feeling quickly once you leave the core - the urban fabric is very strong. I would also argue that SF's larger non-Downtown nodes, like Mission, Marina, Fillmore, Haight, Castro, etc. have a more urban, bustling feel than Philly's non-downtown nodes.
Also, Grapico's map doesn't mean much in this argument without seeing the equivalent for Philly.
No, they are suburban compared to Philadelphia.
Not even remotely. You've clearly never been to Philadelphia.
Grapico can go for it. Philadelphia will smash SF in this regard and everybody knows it. I'm all for proof of it.
Here's a random picture of a far off part of Market St in West Philadelphia: [url]https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=39.960953,-75.232871&cbp=13,279.1,0,0,0&cbll=39.960950,-75.232840&q=56th+and+Market+Philadelphia&ei=B81dUt uuBZa-4AOflIDwAg&ved=0CCoQxB0wAA[/url]
Here's a part of Broad St that's pretty far into North Philly: [url]https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=40.024553,-75.147859&cbp=13,152.0,0,0,0&cbll=40.024555,-75.147860&q=Broad+and+Wyoming+Philadelphia&ei=zs1d Up-sHpPJ4APutoGwBQ&ved=0CCoQxB0wAA[/url]
60th and Chestnut: [url]https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&q=60th+St+%26+Chestnut+St&fb=1&gl=us&hq=60th+and +Chestnut&hnear=0x89c6c17eaf41acb7:0xbdb59e417d470 c47,Upper+Darby,+PA&cid=0,0,8194375619363486937&ei =G85dUvfsDITj4APC54CACA&ved=0CHwQ_BIwCg[/url]
61st and Walnut: [url]https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=39.959162,-75.243383&cbp=13,94.0,0,0,0&cbll=39.959162,-75.243385&q=61st+and+Walnut+Philadelphia&ei=js5dUv vLGsWw4AP05oCgCA&ved=0CCoQxB0wAA[/url]
72nd and Dicks: [url]https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=39.912791,-75.237564&cbp=13,58.6,0,0,0&cbll=39.912789,-75.237568&q=72nd+and+Dicks+Philadelphia&ei=xc5dUoa EH7jH4AP-8oGwBg&ved=0CCoQxB0wAA[/url]
74th and Buist: [url]https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=39.911283,-75.242807&cbp=13,138.5,0,0,0&cbll=39.911305,-75.242833&q=74th+and+Buist+Philadelphia&ei=Gs9dUpu WA9it4AP_7YGoAQ&ved=0CCoQxB0wAA[/url]
You want to go Northeast? South? Southwest? Any direction you like.
Well, Philly is definitely has the worse areas of the two and more urban blight, but that doesn't make it less urban. SF is certainly more posh, but hard to take away philly's urbanity, in many ways it's pretty close to Chicago. chicago is the same way, its more urban, maybe not the best nabes though. But you can't take away it's urbanity.
Well, Philly is definitely has the worse areas of the two and more urban blight, but that doesn't make it less urban. SF is certainly more posh, but hard to take away philly's urbanity, in many ways it's pretty close to Chicago. chicago is the same way, its more urban, maybe not the best nabes though. But you can't take away it's urbanity.
That's my point is that outside of parts of the Northeast and parts of the far Northwest, no part of Philadelphia isn't urban, and the only parts that seem like they aren't were RDA'd, especially Eastwick in far SW Philly.
Plus, that stretches across the border into Delaware County and across the river to an extent.
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.
