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 just moved here from Nacogdoches/Houston/Dallas to San Francisco.
I have not experienced an urban environment before and have never lived in a big city until now. San Francisco is just the ultimate city in my opinion, I have been obsessed for many years with this great city. SAN FRANCISCO FOR THE WIN!
I dont know its a win thing between these two. They are most often cited as being similar, but I agree SF overall wins, its a bit more dense and lively. This poll is a bit of an odd one, San Francisco would generally win this poll.
If that is "Greater Downtown" You'd have to consider way larger chunks for other cities that have similar areas...
I think that is pretty fair assessment of greater downtown SF.
A similar sized area in Boston would be about from the Hynes Convention Center station to the tip of the North End, and from the Science Park station to the Fort Point Waterfront (which is basically Boston's less developed SOMA). Though in those quandrants you do have the Charles River taking up some space. SF just feel like it has a larger and more continuous downtown than Boston, which is mostly due to the geography of the harbor.
I think that is pretty fair assessment of greater downtown SF.
A similar sized area in Boston would be about from the Hynes Convention Center station to the tip of the North End, and from the Science Park station to the Fort Point Waterfront (which is basically Boston's less developed SOMA). Though in those quandrants you do have the Charles River taking up some space. SF just feel like it has a larger and more continuous downtown than Boston, which is mostly due to the geography of the harbor.
I think that it would include Fenway, Longwood, and maybe even Mission Hill. It would also include the South End.
I think that it would include Fenway, Longwood, and maybe even Mission Hill. It would also include the South End.
So basically all of the urban parts of Boston except for Allston / Brighton, JP, Roxbury and Dorchester? I think that is a bit of a stretch.... Mission Hill / Longwood feel like a long way away from DTX (what I consider the center of DT Boston).
However I do think that the Kendall / MIT area could be included, I would put that area before Longwood and Fenway.
I think that is pretty fair assessment of greater downtown SF.
A similar sized area in Boston would be about from the Hynes Convention Center station to the tip of the North End, and from the Science Park station to the Fort Point Waterfront (which is basically Boston's less developed SOMA). Though in those quandrants you do have the Charles River taking up some space. SF just feel like it has a larger and more continuous downtown than Boston, which is mostly due to the geography of the harbor.
I mean it is what it is, then what would you say about Chi/NYC/LA? I'm not that familiar with Boston have only been a couple times.
I mean it is what it is, then what would you say about Chi/NYC/LA?
I think those three cities have larger greater downtown areas than the two being discussed in the thread.
Everything south of 126th or 115th in Manhattan seems like the greater downtown area in NYC (and maybe even Harlem-north too). (~8 miles by 2 miles)
Chicago I'd say everything from North Avenue south to I-55 hugging the lakefront and west to the River with a little overflow on the west bank of the Chicago River. (~4.5 miles by 1.5 miles)
Los Angeles the freeway / LA River loop (though the areas to the far southeast near the LA River are questionable), the triangular area to the north between the 110 and LA River, west to MacArthur Park and headed south along Fig and Grand to USC. (~5 miles by 2.5 miles).
IMO San Francisco packs a better punch than the greater downtown Los Angeles area despite being smaller because it is more filled-in. Boston I think is about the same despite being much smaller than DTLA because it too has few holes. Both are much more upscale than the Los Angeles area. The greater downtown Chicago and NYC areas are ahead of these two areas and are both more uspcale.
I guess I am typing this with the assumption that we include all of Back Bay, the North End, the South Boston / Fort Pointe waterfront and much of the South End in the Greater Downtown Boston area and the North Beach / Nob Hill area of San Francisco - actually I'd be tempted to include more of SF looking at what I put for NYC/CHI/LA.
Fair enough, I have no problem with that then. And you are right, you can't look at just square miles, b/c there can be way more stuff in that area, tighter streets, way more street level retail, etc. It's like these expanding ball toys.
alibaba.com
You still have the same nodes (shops/restaurants) of the ball but when compressed there are just as many nodes in a smaller area.
A better question is which one has more homeless people in it lol.
SF no doubt
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.
