3rd Best Downtown in the U.S. Philadelphia vs. San Francisco (cost, state)

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Its true. The countries homeless migrate to the west coast for mild weather, but that doesnt mean Phillys streets arent philthy.....
Philadelphia


Meanwhile.....

Yes... Meanwhile.... That article is nearly a year old. There's a new Philly city administration in place, who, at the very least, wants to re-institute city-wide street sweeping.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Its true. The countries homeless migrate to the west coast for mild weather, but that doesnt mean Phillys streets arent philthy.....
Philadelphia


Meanwhile.....



San Francisco - wins this, but the only thing I find wrong with this thread is this. San Francisco does in fact challenge for either #2 or 3 in the US. Philadelphia really challenges anywhere from 4-6, so this poll is not fair to those other cities that challenge Philly for position.

to me where SF would be different is in retail, outside of that the DTs are pretty similar IMHO


I still see Chicago as the 2nd best DT in the country and separates itself from the next 3 or so (maybe throw DC in the mix)


for 3-5 I think SF, Boston or Philly could be those in basically any order depending on the individual, the differences between these are not huge regardless


to me on DTs I find them very similar sans retail


Honestly to me where SF would excel would be in the next sets of areas where it has more desirable neighborhoods compared to Philly


If anything (less retail and that assumes Union Sq is DT which to me it is) Philly may in general have a more compressed DT with more things right DT compared to SF


I know this will get negative from the Bay faithful but the two areas where to me SF would excel are the retail and the extending neighborhoods, the actual DT for me is not really that different here. Philly has more centralized arts and nightlife areas whereas SF has more retail

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Its true. The countries homeless migrate to the west coast for mild weather, but that doesnt mean Phillys streets arent philthy.....

Yeah, I don't exactly understand the point some Philly forumers are trying to make (and I prefer Philly in many aspects).

Yes, SF is filthy in parts. But Philly is probably among the dirtiest American cities too. We aren't exactly talking Zurich or Oslo here. And SF is only unusually/disturbingly dirty around the Tenderloin-Mid Market area (and that area is getting better pretty quickly).

I mean, if SF is a 2 out of 10 on the citywide dirt-o-meter, Philly is maybe a 3. Cities tend to be dirty places. A quick ride on Septa, a walk through the Italian Market, or a stroll through the commercial blocks east of City Hall won't exactly cause one to gasp in amazement at the cleanliness.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I don't see SF can get this so handedly or vie for number 2 in a downtown argument based on the OP's criteria.

Yep. Here's a tale of two cities:

- Philadelphia has been named as the nation's first UNESCO World Heritage City, joining the ranks of cities such as Paris, Jerusalem and St Petersburgh: Philadelphia Named First World Heritage City in the United States | Travel + Leisure.

- Human excrement on the streets is SF has become such a common problem that a candidate for mayor has a policy position on it: San Francisco Supervisor, Mayoral Hopeful Address Homeless Poop Problem | NBC Bay Area. Just think about that for a moment.

Now - which of these 2 cities do you think would more likely be ranked among the nation's top 2 - 3 cities?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Yep. Here's a tale of two cities:

- Philadelphia has been named as the nation's first UNESCO World Heritage City, joining the ranks of cities such as Paris, Jerusalem and St Petersburgh: Philadelphia Named First World Heritage City in the United States | Travel + Leisure.

- Human excrement on the streets is SF has become such a common problem that a candidate for mayor has a policy position on it: San Francisco Supervisor, Mayoral Hopeful Address Homeless Poop Problem | NBC Bay Area. Just think about that for a moment.

Now - which of these 2 cities do you think would more likely be ranked among the nation's top 2 - 3 cities?

Dont be absurd, San Francisco is really only surpassed by New York as far as prestige and desirability among US cities.

I dont even know what point you think your making.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Yep. Here's a tale of two cities:

- Philadelphia has been named as the nation's first UNESCO World Heritage City, joining the ranks of cities such as Paris, Jerusalem and St Petersburgh: Philadelphia Named First World Heritage City in the United States | Travel + Leisure.

- Human excrement on the streets is SF has become such a common problem that a candidate for mayor has a policy position on it: San Francisco Supervisor, Mayoral Hopeful Address Homeless Poop Problem | NBC Bay Area. Just think about that for a moment.

Now - which of these 2 cities do you think would more likely be ranked among the nation's top 2 - 3 cities?

Or you can just look at surveys and rankings for what people like more/rank highest and you sure as hell know it's not Philly.

[OyCrumbler]

SF ove Philly foe metro area and city overall for most people I understand. However, Philadelphia has a great downtown and particularly concentrates many of its great attributes downtown such as much of its historic, pretty much all of its primary museums and performing arts centers, historic squares and parks, a good parcel of its main large urban park, and its most vibrant and diverse neighborhoods. Philadelphia does have blight, high crime neighborhoods and generally undesirable areas that SF has much less of, and is also much less diverse overall.

If you're talking about downtown in almost any reasonable scope, Philly is up there and a lot of the attributes that Philadelphia gets dinged for aren't so pervasive downtown. Meanwhile, there are some amazing qualities of SF that aren't actually in downtown by most reasonable measures. Golden Gate Park and its museums, the Presidio and the Golden Gate Bridge, the Pacific Coast and Haight-Ashbury are great features of San Francisco but it would be difficult to consider some of these as part of downtown even in very generous definitions of downtown. And yea, SF (and LA) have a much more visible and aggressive transient population downtown than Philadelphia and most major cities. I think the only major downtown I have seen in recent times that are comparable in this respect is Miami.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Yep. Here's a tale of two cities:

- Philadelphia has been named as the nation's first UNESCO World Heritage City, joining the ranks of cities such as Paris, Jerusalem and St Petersburgh: Philadelphia Named First World Heritage City in the United States | Travel + Leisure.

- Human excrement on the streets is SF has become such a common problem that a candidate for mayor has a policy position on it: San Francisco Supervisor, Mayoral Hopeful Address Homeless Poop Problem | NBC Bay Area. Just think about that for a moment.

Now - which of these 2 cities do you think would more likely be ranked among the nation's top 2 - 3 cities?

San Francisco.

[jjv007]

Comparing just downtowns, it's Philly no question imo. It becomes more debatable as you spread further out though.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Comparing just downtowns, it's Philly no question imo. It becomes more debatable as you spread further out though.

Depending on what your using to define the downtown area of each city, I might actually agree to an extent.