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.
I'm highly familiar with Montreal and Boston, the former feels bigger no doubt. If you've ever driven in downtown Montreal and disagree with me, consider the direction you came in from.
North (15) and West(20/40): city's vast expanse in full display. Feels big. (see first video)
South(15): a grand entrance worthy of an alpha city. Very complex (albeit falling apart) highway interchange indicative of a very massive city. (see second video)
East(40/20): City appears out of nowhere, rural-urban transition is unimpressive.
I agree
Density-wise it's San Fran>Montreal>Philly and it feels it even moreso on ground level
Size-wise its Philly>San Fran>Montreal but there is sort of an unofficial "where I feel safe to go border that eliminates much of Philly compared to San Fran and Montreal.
I think altogether these are very comparable cities but the size disadvantage is keeping the votes from Montreal.
This is the most accurate post in the thread IMO. Having spent a good amount of time in all three, I think the density argument is very close between Montreal and SF. Check out the link below for more information on Montreal:
Another thing I'll add is that I think Montreal is the most vibrant of the three when it comes to late-night. I think only NYC is ahead of Montreal in that category.
It depends on what you mean by "big city feeling". San Francisco might be big city in the downtown area but the majority of the city doesn't seem all that city to me. I'd say as far as continuous urban feel it's Philadelphia then Montreal with SF way behind the two. As far as nightlife, it's either SF or Montreal then Philadelphia. As far as stature, it's Montreal or SF then Philadelphia.
It depends on what you mean by "big city feeling". San Francisco might be big city in the downtown area but the majority of the city doesn't seem all that city to me. I'd say as far as continuous urban feel it's Philadelphia then Montreal with SF way behind the two. As far as nightlife, it's either SF or Montreal then Philadelphia. As far as stature, it's Montreal or SF then Philadelphia.
Never been to Montreal but have been to both Philly and SF, I will say this, Philly has more classic urban building styles and narrower streets however I judge a citie's feel by street level activity, and for that SF is head and shoulders above Philly.
Never been to Montreal but have been to both Philly and SF, I will say this, Philly has more classic urban building styles and narrower streets however I judge a citie's feel by street level activity, and for that SF is head and shoulders above Philly.
That's not the way to judge a city's feel.
Live in any neighborhood in Philadelphia for a year and tell me SF has more street level activity. People act like it's non-existent in Philadelphia just because it's not accessible to people who aren't from a certain background in the supposedly "dead" parts of the city.
San Francisco might be big city in the downtown area but the majority of the city doesn't seem all that city to me.
This doesn't really make sense at all. SF has plenty of non-downtown neighborhoods that are incredibly vibrant (Mission, Lower Haight, Upper Haight, Castro, Marina, SOMA, Fillmore, etc.).
This doesn't really make sense at all. SF has plenty of non-downtown neighborhoods that are incredibly vibrant (Mission, Lower Haight, Upper Haight, Castro, Marina, SOMA, Fillmore, etc.).
Plenty of SF looks suburban with bungalows or even the part with the painted-ladies up and down the hills.
I'd appreciate it if people who can't handle the truth would stop insulting those who hold viewpoints different from their own when they in fact don't actually know any better.
Live in any neighborhood in Philadelphia for a year and tell me SF has more street level activity. People act like it's non-existent in Philadelphia just because it's not accessible to people who aren't from a certain background in the supposedly "dead" parts of the city.
That's your opinion, that's the way I judge cities, so how would you judge a citie's grandiose feel? Skyscrapers? Density?
Plenty of SF looks suburban with bungalows or even the part with the painted-ladies up and down the hills.
I'd appreciate it if people who can't handle the truth would stop insulting those who hold viewpoints different from their own when they in fact don't actually know any better.
LOL, no sorry buddy SF blows away Philly with street level vibrancy, go to Mexico city there's little shacks of houses in that city but would you really say it doesn't feel like a big city because of it?
That's your opinion, that's the way I judge cities, so how would you judge a citie's grandiose feel? Skyscrapers? Density?
Yes, just as you have your opinion.
I'd judge it by many things, without putting an emphasis on any one thing. I think the biggest thing that displays how "big" and urban a city is, is the neighborhoods outside of the downtown area. It's obvious what feels like a city and what doesn't. Even Philadelphia unfortunately has plenty of breaks in its urban footprint, but it doesn't feel the least bit suburban until you get to the Northeast, with the exception of some of the smaller streets in West/Northwest/Southwest Philly. If you take the main streets all the way through the city though, it is a continuous city feel. Anybody who has taken the Market St El before can attest to this.
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.