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.
Ok, if I'm not demented, I recall most of this thread where people tried to claim SF wasn't a big city because it had "bungalows" somewhere. Now the argument is that Philly is even larger because it has 30 sq mi of low density single family housing? Can't have it both ways there, LoL.
I was only contrasting to show an area that does low-density very well. I'm not a fan of just shouting out stats and numbers without context. Remember, Philly is MUCH larger than San Francisco. Northwest Philly is only 30 Square miles of 150-most of which is hyper dense aka attached housing in a city built for over 2 Million. SF is not all attached housing so don't know how you think it is more structurally dense than Philly. The streets are also much wider than they are in Philly.
I'm not talking about Berkeley to Oakland, but SF to Oakland or Berkeley. For any Chicago people watching on, going to Oakland or Berkeley is like somebody going from DT Chicago to Evanston, except you have a large body of water in between and industrial development and an island.
This whole constant comparisons to NYC are absurd, Brooklyn alone is 3x larger population than SF. Oakland is more like Hudson County but even more suburban and farther away than it is to Brooklyn, so why not make that comparison. It certainly makes far more sense than comparing it to Brooklyn. Nor is Oakland a part of SF, Brooklyn is quintessential NYC. There are not 400k subway riders a day going across there. The entire BART system only has 370k riders a day.
Ok...and BART has 421,800 riders a day according to 2Q2013 APTA numbers. Most riders come through TB Tube, but it takes a resident to know that. People don't commute in on BART from Colma or SFO, LoL. SEPTA only has 336,600 riders a day according to the same report. And using track miles to draw conclusions as to why BART is less of a system than SEPTA due to fewer riders/mile is stupid because everyone has pointed out the Bay Area has a bay in it, and mountains - development isn't "centered" like it is in Philly.
You're the only one I've *ever* heard say there is no comparison between Oakland and Brooklyn. Like is obvious, Oakland = 400K people and Brooklyn = 2.2 or so million people. Yes. Size wise they are incomparable. It's the damn relationship you fool, and that's all we're comparing. You have blinders.
Ok...and BART has 421,800 riders a day according to 2Q2013 APTA numbers. Most riders come through TB Tube, but it takes a resident to know that. People don't commute in on BART from Colma or SFO, LoL. SEPTA only has 336,600 riders a day according to the same report. And using track miles to draw conclusions as to why BART is less of a system than SEPTA due to fewer riders/mile is stupid because everyone has pointed out the Bay Area has a bay in it, and mountains - development isn't "centered" like it is in Philly.
You're the only one I've *ever* heard say there is no comparison between Oakland and Brooklyn. Like is obvious, Oakland = 400K people and Brooklyn = 2.2 or so million people. Yes. Size wise they are incomparable. It's the damn relationship you fool, and that's all we're comparing. You have blinders.
Why do I care about what SEPTA has, you are positioning Oakland against Brooklyn now, not Philly. Probably b/c I am actually familiar with the two. They are nothing alike. I'm sure your friends in SF like to think they are in a west coast NYC though.
Brooklyn has 2.565 million people, not 2.2 That's a big difference, when your difference is almost the entire population of all of Oakland.
I don't have blinders on, if you were intellectually honest you would see the relationships aren't the same, and Hudson County is far closer than comparing it to Brooklyn.
Also thanks for clarifying that most people take the tb tube, you are basically confirming that bart is worthless for SF residents gettin around the city.
So yea, basically the three feel pretty similar in size. I think it'll be highly dependent on how you go about each city and what neighborhoods you end up going through (and even time of year).
Also, in Philly, you really have to be wary as a resident where you choose to live. In SF, I would say the same thing being the snobby resident I am, but compared to Philly anyone with $$ can live anywhere and the choice then becomes about what scene you want. Even the Tenderloin is no longer completely off limits - the ENTIRE city is safe and walkable and tourist attractions and resident nightlife and shopping areas are all over the entire city, so people are essentially living comfortably in and visiting the ENTIRE city of SF, not avoiding most of it, unlike in Philly where visitors and affluent/mobile residents are confined to certain parts. So most of Philly goes unseen whereas most of SF is highly visible to both visitors and residents.
That is so far from reality. Outside of the northwestern 1/3 of the city there aren't really any tourist attractions, not much nightlife, and several dangerous neighborhoods.
Yes, I loathe garages in the front of the house--how tacky. But what alternative is there? People like cars and we can't really do back alley garages like in LA cause there isn't enough space.
park on the street? Philly does some back alley garages, I don't see how they're necessary though.
Structural density is worthless if we're bragging about unlivable slums(I know you already addressed that btw)
I asked in a previous thread for anyone to name areas at least 10 miles outside of downtown Philadelphia that were dense(10,000+persons per square mile) AND were upscale and desirable.
I didn't get any real responses.
There are TONS of areas that qualify in the Oakland-Berkeley area, 10+ miles from Downtown SF, dense and still trendy, cultured, sophisticated and very desirable.
Cleveland Heights Neighborhood of Oakland, 13 miles from Downtown San Francisco...
Downtown Berkeley, 13.5 miles from Downtown San Francisco
Lakeshore Neighborhood of Oakland, 13.5 miles from Downtown San Francisco
Even if we go downscale it doesnt seem nearly as desolate and totally absent of activity.
Fruitvale Neighborhood of Oakland, 16.4 miles from Downtown San Francisco
1) I really don't care about places being upscale. Maybe if I was part of the 1% I would, but upscale usually refers to places I avoid.
2) Flaunting healthy areas in the face of desolate slums is quite shameful, its like bragging about running a race to someone with a broken leg. I'm fully aware of the situation in Philly.
So yea, basically the three feel pretty similar in size. I think it'll be highly dependent on how you go about each city and what neighborhoods you end up going through (and even time of year).
I actually think it's more similar how similar all 3 of them are size and density-wise. I think San Francisco feels the smallest of three, mainly from geography. It looks like the city ends at the water, to the immediate south was parkland, Marin County across the water is mostly parkland, too and East Bay is not that visible. I really like that "island" feel.
In another forum, a Finnish poster commented that Philadelphia look "suburb-ish" to him outside of Center City. He expected cities to be mostly blocks of apartment buildings. He's used to houses, mainly detached and semi-detached, in their suburbs, but not row houses. Non-high rise views of NYC looked more to him for a city, though in the Finnish views he posted, the buildings tend to be spaced out more.
That's interesting. Yes, Philly is not an apartment building city for the most part and is maybe unique for a major city in that respect. I do prefer the rowhome neighborhoods here and the intimate environment it creates.
Also thanks for clarifying that most people take the tb tube, you are basically confirming that bart is worthless for SF residents gettin around the city.
I don't think anyone has ever made the argument it IS useful. Everyone knows it's a commuter rail service, not an intracity subway for city residents, which is why SF separately has Muni Metro. Duh
I'm very familiar with Brooklyn - there about twice a year. I have photothreads on another (ahem more mature) forum on Brooklyn. I have access to good views there
Also, you're somehow more familiar with Oakland than myself, an actual Bay Area resident who's in Oakland every couple weeks? LoL I can see Oakland from my apartment in SF.
Hudson County may be a better comparison, but nobody's making it (and I'm not personally familiar with Hudson County). Demographically and purposefully Oakland = Brooklyn. Lower cost refuge, hipster haven, its own strong identity and "anti-The City" mentality, connection to The City by bridge and tunnel, large black population relative to the metro, a truly secondary downtown with a lot of government services, but a downtown on the rise, the comparisons are endless.
My whole point is that Oakland is every bit as intrinsically connected to SF as Brooklyn is to Manhattan.
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.
