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.
Cleanliness: BOSTON BOSTON BOSTON
Charm: BOSTON BOSTON BOSTON (it's rare that an American DT area has charm, but Boston has by far the most charm of any American DT)
History: BOSTON BOSTON BOSTON
Architecture: very close, but slight edge to Boston
However, this is where it ends for Boston for me. Overall, I think in some ways Boston can feel slightly larger IF viewed from above or from afar - this is because of sporadic dense development in pockets over a large area and flat topography. But nobody who has spent time on the ground in both cities would truthfully claim that Boston is a larger downtown.
Cohesiveness: Extremely close, but I'd say San Francisco. The reason? As opposed to Boston, which has a much inferior bus system but much superior subway system, 90% of what one needs to get to in and around DT SF is within 2 blocks of the Market St trunk (where literally every bus route, streetcars, cabs, 5 HRT lines, and 5-6 LRT lines converge). Also, I appreciate Boston's parks right in its downtown area, but for such a small downtown, the parks really "separate" areas and make downtown overall less walkable and more spread apart. One can walk from the Ferry Building to Civic Center in DT SF (or hop on one of 10+ rail lines, 2 streetcar lines, or countless bus lines), and pass without any break 74 million SF of office space, 4.5 million SF of world class retail, nearly all of the city's hotels, the city's hottest nightlife districts, several tourist traps, and arguably the most intense pedestrian activity in NA outside of Manhattan.
The one knock on cohesiveness of SF, though, is the ballpark. For visitors, tourists, and most in the city, it's pretty difficult to get to. The Central Subway should help, though.
For vibrancy and pedestrian activity, Boston has nothing on SF. Boston has quiet, old cobblestone streets and quiet 1/2 lane one-ways throughout much of its downtown area, and they often dead end. There is often a lack of a grid. For this reason, Boston feels more "old" European, quaint, charming, and quiet. Boston's financial district is not as large or dense (in terms of office/employment density) as San Francisco's, so AM/PM rush hours and lunch hours can actually be less hectic. Boston's shopping is separated a mile away in the Back Bay, which is a lot more spread out than Union Square, less international, and less reputable domestically and internationally. It doesn't attract as many shoppers or tourists. Cambridge has a very odd urban mix, with some office areas feeling downright suburban, college campuses with lots of space in between, and little town centers. It's not thick on pedestrian activity. The rest of Boston's DT area is either quiet residential (and often rich/stuffy with no mix of uses) or is very old/historical, with some tourists, but otherwise quiet.
San Francisco is on a whole different level. Many people honestly claim it has more pedestrian activity than Chicago, a much larger city. San Francisco may just be 2nd in the US, or even NA, for pedestrian activity over that large of an area. This stems from being a real gateway market in the 21st century (Boston is considered a gateway market, though it's more of a has been for immigration whereas SF is still one of the main entry/resident points for new immigrants). This also stems from extreme density that Boston doesn't have as extensively over such a large area. Finally, this also stems from being the center of a larger area overall. Boston may be the center of all of New England, but SF has millions more people closer to DT SF and with better access to DT SF than Boston has.
In terms of new development, if SF weren't in the historical boom it currently is in, I'd easily give this to Boston. Boston is finally adding what SF has enjoyed now for half a decade (a Millennium Tower of ~60 floors of high end residential in beautiful Handel designed tower). Boston easily has half a dozen 20-30 story residential towers in various points of construction in the city, and more Medical/Life Sciences construction than any other city in America. Route 28 has moved back into the city.
However, SF has way more going on right now. 1,070 ft office tower, among many others, going up. While Boston is mainly building 20-30 stories with other proposals and 1 lone 55+ story tower, SF has the following under construction right now:
and the list goes on with SF's Mission Bay easily competing with Seaport/Innovation District for new construction of all types of uses, including Life Sciences/Medical/Biotech. Just as Route 28 has moved from suburbs to city in Boston, Silicon Valley is making a big move into SF City proper as well, and UCSF (#4 research hospital in US) continues to spur lots of Life Sciences/Medical use construction.
I gave the edge to San Francisco. It's a city on the move, like Boston, but it's already a level ahead of Boston in most categories when it comes to Downtown metrics.
When all is said and done, SF already exceeds and will continue to exceed Boston in following categories:
Urbanity/Vibrancy
Pedestrian Activity
Skyline
Waterfront
Shopping
International Draw
Office Density
Residential Density
Hotel Density
Amenities
Cohesiveness
Transit Options (sorry Boston, in DT SF you can't compete with HRT trunk, LRT trunk, streetcars, a FAR FAR FAR superior bus system, easier access to cabs, and a much better grid with wider sidewalks)
And by far, nightlife. That's my biggest knock on Boston overall, but especially downtown. Both cities have last calls that are too early, however.
However, this is where it ends for Boston for me. Overall, I think in some ways Boston can feel slightly larger IF viewed from above or from afar - this is because of sporadic dense development in pockets over a large area and flat topography. But nobody who has spent time on the ground in both cities would truthfully claim that Boston is a larger downtown.
Cohesiveness: Extremely close, but I'd say San Francisco. The reason? As opposed to Boston, which has a much inferior bus system but much superior subway system, 90% of what one needs to get to in and around DT SF is within 2 blocks of the Market St trunk (where literally every bus route, streetcars, cabs, 5 HRT lines, and 5-6 LRT lines converge). Also, I appreciate Boston's parks right in its downtown area, but for such a small downtown, the parks really "separate" areas and make downtown overall less walkable and more spread apart. One can walk from the Ferry Building to Civic Center in DT SF (or hop on one of 10+ rail lines, 2 streetcar lines, or countless bus lines), and pass without any break 74 million SF of office space, 4.5 million SF of world class retail, nearly all of the city's hotels, the city's hottest nightlife districts, several tourist traps, and arguably the most intense pedestrian activity in NA outside of Manhattan.
.
Unlike greater DT SF, DT Boston is big enough to have a large park in the middle of Greater DT and lots of major urbanity all around it. As you said greater DT SF is all along one street, while greater DT Boston extends into the surrounding cities of Cambridge and Sommerville. Boston has a vastly superior rail system and a combination of electric buses, articulated buses and a dedicated underground bus transit way directly connected to underground subway, hardly less than the SF bus system.
ArchBoston has an incomplete list of 60 large commercial projects approved and under construction in central Boston/Cambridge/Sommerville
including at least 5 buildings between 500 and 700 feet.
While I would say the two cities are comparable in many ways I would not say SF is bigger or more vibrant, in fact as someone who spends a fair amount of time in both cities, I find greater DT Boston larger and more interesting. I am not an expert on nightlife for all age groups, but I do know there is plenty to do in both cities.
I definitely don't agree with SF having superior transit options. It has more options in theory, but everyone of those options except BART is extremely slow. 30 Minutes from downtown to the Marina District is insane. Boston is the hub of actual rapid transit.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,140,361 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonsta
I definitely don't agree with SF having superior transit options. It has more options in theory, but everyone of those options except BART is extremely slow. 30 Minutes from downtown to the Marina District is insane. Boston is the hub of actual rapid transit.
That BART train likely still hasn't made it to the Marina, bro.
Unlike greater DT SF, DT Boston is big enough to have a large park in the middle of Greater DT and lots of major urbanity all around it. As you said greater DT SF is all along one street, while greater DT Boston extends into the surrounding cities of Cambridge and Sommerville. Boston has a vastly superior rail system and a combination of electric buses, articulated buses and a dedicated underground bus transit way directly connected to underground subway, hardly less than the SF bus system.
ArchBoston has an incomplete list of 60 large commercial projects approved and under construction in central Boston/Cambridge/Sommerville
including at least 5 buildings between 500 and 700 feet.
While I would say the two cities are comparable in many ways I would not say SF is bigger or more vibrant, in fact as someone who spends a fair amount of time in both cities, I find greater DT Boston larger and more interesting. I am not an expert on nightlife for all age groups, but I do know there is plenty to do in both cities.
Some inaccurate statements you have posted:
1) Boston has 1 building over 500 ft actually under construction (Millennium Tower). Both cities have numerous that are still proposed, with SF having even more that are proposed. SF actually has 3 currently under construction, including a super tall.
2) San Francisco has more tall buildings. 18 existing buildings higher than 500 ft (vs 16 in Boston). 44 existing buildings over 400 ft (vs 28 in Boston).
3) By area neither is significantly different in size. However, downtown SF area has no "breaks". In the same area that contains FiDi, Union Square, Civic Center, SOMA, Tenderloin, and Chinatown in SF, you have Boston Common and the Public Garden, and stuffy wealthy residential areas such as much of Beacon Hill. SF is truly mixed-use and much greater density in its core areas, and then most importantly, it barely lets up whereas Boston's density and urban development patterns literally dissipate beyond downtown.
4) DT SF follows one street with no breaks, which is why I say it's more cohesive, but if you think DT Boston more seamlessly integrates and flows into surrounding areas than DT SF, I can't believe for a second you actually travel between the two cities. See two pics below. DT SF isn't "on" just one street. It's many blocks wide and miles long, with one central street serving as the backbone.
And a bonus Boston shot with construction that I took last year:
Bonus shot by me of relatively recent shot of TB Tower (2 months ago) in SF (1,070 ft high, Caesar Pelli design):
Couldn't resist the two bonus shots, they were in my temp download folder on Photobucket and I came across them spontaneously.
I think perhaps one big indicator of downtowns is hotel rooms:
Hotel rooms in San Francisco (city/county limits): 33,642 (as of September 2012).
According to PKF Consulting there are 215 Hotels in San Francisco.
Approximately 20,000 of these rooms are within walking distance of the Moscone Center.
A few years old, but Boston (+ Cambridge) isn't likely caught up to SF in this regard, even though I know there are a couple thousand of rooms recently completed since then or UC now.
There are 21,500 hotel rooms in Boston and Cambridge, up from about 16,000 a decade ago. The city has seen a number of new hotels open in the past 10 years, but they’ve been mostly luxury ones, and developers have by and large steered clear of the South Boston waterfront. Right now there are only three hotels with a total of 1,700 rooms within a half-mile of the BCEC. But a typical BCEC event brings in 12,000 to 24,000 attendees; the biggest show to date had about 36,000 people attend.
San Francisco has the 3rd highest occupancy and 3rd highest ADR behind NYC and Oahu (Honolulu), ahead of Miami, then Boston (followed by DC).
In terms of visitors, Boston trails SF as well, both domestically and certainly internationally.
The statistics alone indicate that SF is a much more intensely visited city, on top of its 2nd highest density in America (far more dense than Boston over much greater area), a higher per capita GDP, etc etc.
In terms of office space, Boston + Cambridge (61.6 million SF in Boston, 17.5 million SF of office/lab in Cambridge)> San Francisco (73 million SF). However, office density is a different story. Boston's office space is scattered, with 13.4 million SF in Back Bay, 34.1 million SF in the financial district, and other space scattered between Charlestown, Seaport, etc. San Francisco's financial district alone is 48.9 million SF, with immediately adjacent areas (Jackson Square, SOMA, waterfront) containing millions more.
Boston has high rise office districts accessible by subway/transitway that extend outside the periphery of picture you posted.
Boston has two large convention centers, the Hynes in the back bay and the BCEC. The BCEC is relatively new and was purposely built in the seaport when the area was quite a bit less developed than it is now because there were still large tracts of land for it and its support hotels, etc. There are many buildings going up in that area now including hotels of all sizes.
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.
