3rd Best Downtown in the U.S. Philadelphia vs. San Francisco (live, state)
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.
Transamerica is an awesome building. Like sav858 said, not many structures after the early 60's were very visually pleasing or timeless in design, but the pyramid adds character to the whole skyline which would otherwise be a tabletop of dense boxes. Too bad it couldn't be built as originally proposed, which would've been 1,150', but the planning commission rejected those plans due interference with views of the bay from Nob Hill. At the very least, it's got the unique factor going for it, especially considering it has a park at its base with 50 mature redwood trees imported from the Santa Cruz mountains.
True, it was hated when originally designed by William Pereira (residents called it "Pereira's Prick", lol), but it is now loved. It's also crazy the think about this, considering supertalls are a dime a dozen in today's world, but Transamerica was the 8th tallest building in the world when completed just 44 years ago. It's only 853'.
The Transamerica Pyramid is one of my favorite skyscrapers, I know its subjective but I haven't heard too many people call it ugly.
Again its subjective but that's quite a bold statement, I don't really how Philly's City Hall is any more of a masterpiece than SF's honestly. Philly has one of the best looking in the nation but so does SF.
Yeah I think Transamerica has aged really well especially for the era in which it was built. It still looks pretty fresh and a good departure for todays glass boxes.
Agree on SF city hall, the Greek architecture is prettier.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,482 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Skyline: Center City has the more varied skyline, but I can't really say I'm much in for one or the other. The Transamerica Pyramid is ugly to me, but it's distinct enough to be kind of endearing. Like the face of a bulldog.
Cohesiveness: I would describe Center City as more cohesive than downtown SF in terms of the general area seeming to be more mixed use overall with less segmentation and generally flowing from one area to another
Museums: Center City pretty strongly for this one. Part of this is because some of SF's major museums simply aren't anywhere near downtown while virtually all of Philadelphia's are.
Restaurants: About tie--keep in mind though, this is talking about downtown. SF's number of quality restaurants outside of downtown is definitely higher and more notable. Downtown-wise, it feels like a wash overall.
Shopping: SF downtown has the larger variety of large name brands and luxury brands and is more of a shopping destination, chinatown and tenderloin do pretty well in the odd and varied stuff, personally prefer Center City but realize that it's probably because I know people making things in Philadelphia which means I know more about odds and ends there?
Green Space: Center City and its squares are nicer. Its major park, Fairmount, is right nearby. Again, this is one of those categories that goes overwhelmingly in favor of SF if you talk about the city as a whole.
Growth and Development: SF seems to have a huge amount of construction downtown, don't remember as much going construction in Center City
Transportation: Center City, easily. Transit in SF isn't really that great, not to say Philadelphia's is amazing, but I think the difference is pretty immediate when you start trying to get around especially on weekends. BART is really one single subway line when in SF and is pretty terrible as a subway system during weekends when it becomes especially infrequent; meanwhile, SEPTA's two subway lines actually increase service hours to 24 hours by providing overnight weekend service while the non-SEPTA Patco Speedline is 24.7. Muni Metro misses out and quite a few places and becomes crushingly slow pretty often. For SF, Uber/Lyft have been great with this being my first uber'd trip in SF helping immensely. The only thing SF has in favor over Philadelphia when it comes transit is that they are actually expanding the system and seems to recognize that expansion is necessary. Haven't heard much about expanding service lines or frequencies in Philadelphia.
Vibrancy: Peaks higher in SF, but pretty similar when evened out over the greater downtown area. Nightlife is better in Philadelphia. SF goes to sleep early except for the large transient population who seem pretty good about taking shifts to cover any time of day or night.
Also, interesting similarities between the two:
- Market Street as the main defining street cutting through the middle of downtown
- Working waterfront that was (in SF's case) or is (in Philadelphia's case) cut off from the heart of the city because of an expressway/freeway. Philadelphia's still studying making a cap for the I-95 after all these decades of talk
- Mixed-mode main trunk for transit on Market Street downtown with a level for rapid transit and a level for the light rail/trolley system going under Market Street
- Pretty good
Would overall say these two are probably the most comparable downtowns in the US.
Ding, ding, ding
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
San Francisco City Hall is gorgeous and has the largest dome outside of Western Europe. The interior is just stunning too.
Yes, it's a very beautiful building (esp. the destroyed 1906 version). But so are many other capitol/civic buildings in the United States, of which San Francisco City Hall resembles. Philadelphia City Hall, besides being a more beautiful building to not just me but many others, is more unique in that regard.
I realize it was hated when it was first built but the 60's and 70's wasn't exactly a great period for architecture so it's not like people had much taste back then anyways. Either way that doesn't really negate how it looks and people feel about it today.
You just said "Unique does not equal aesthetically pleasing" so I'm not sure what your point is with that regarding how beautiful Philly's or SF's City Hall is or isn't. They all may be true but none of it somehow equates to Philly's City Hall being anymore of an "architectural masterpiece" than SF's City Hall.
I agree with your sentiments about Brutalist architecture and the 60s/70s--so how does the Transamerica Pyramid, built in 1972 and considered a Brutalist piece itself escape your ire? It may not be loathed anymore, but I don't think it's held up in the same esteem as other 70s skyline defining buildings like the Renaissance Center or the Willis (Sears) Tower.
And my point is, San Francisco City Hall, while beautiful, isn't particularly unique. In architecture and art in general, there's something to be said for uniqueness. In fact, it's probably the only reason the Transamerica Pyramid has gained acceptance--it's ugly, but distinctive and unique, just like the example of a bulldog's face that OyCrumbler gave. Something that is fundamentally ugly, but unique, can gain quite the following.
Philadelphia City Hall is already a more elaborate, more prominent, older and taller building with a completely different style than San Francisco City Hall. The icing on the cake is that it isn't really duplicated anywhere else in the world (Quebec City has a similar building, but it's nowhere near as tall nor does it have such a magnificent statue atop it). This is a National Historic Landmark, while San Francisco City Hall is not, and consistently ranks higher in architectural rankings. If you don't think something can be "more of a masterpiece" than something else, that's a personal philosophical viewpoint that, while respectable, I don't agree with. And I suspect I'm not the only one.
Last edited by qworldorder; 04-13-2016 at 12:38 PM..
I agree with your sentiments about Brutalist architecture and the 60s/70s--so how does the Transamerica Pyramid, built in 1972 and considered a Brutalist piece itself escape your ire? It may not be loathed anymore, but I don't think it's held up in the same esteem as other 70s skyline defining buildings like the Renaissance Center or the Willis (Sears) Tower.
And my point is, San Francisco City Hall, while beautiful, isn't particularly unique. In architecture and art in general, there's something to be said for uniqueness. In fact, it's probably the only reason the Transamerica Pyramid has gained acceptance--it's ugly, but distinctive and unique, just like the example of a bulldog's face that OyCrumbler gave. Philadelphia City Hall is already a more elaborate, more prominent, older and taller building with a completely different style than San Francisco City Hall. The icing on the cake is that it isn't really duplicated anywhere else in the world (Quebec City has a similar building, but it's nowhere near as tall nor does it have such a magnificent statue atop it). This is a National Historic Landmark, while San Francisco City Hall is not, and consistently ranks higher in architectural rankings. If you don't think something can be "more of a masterpiece" than something else, that's a personal philosophical viewpoint that, while respectable, I don't agree with. And I suspect I'm not the only one.
The Transamerica Pyramid isn't really pure brutalist style architecture. I disagree, it seems to have gotten more respect over the years. I wouldn't say the Renaissance Center is looked at in some higher esteem either, it's actual site design is terrible too. The Willis Tower is famous for being the tallest building in the world for several decades.
Again, uniqueness doesn't really mean its a better looking building and those are your words too so I don't really see what it matters when we're talking about how beautiful a building is, though maybe that is not what you were really arguing but rather just saying its more of an architectural masterpiece rather than better looking. Being more elaborate, ornate, older, and taller doesn't make a building more beautiful either. Being a National Historic Landmark doesn't make it a better looking building either as most of the factors that relate to that designation don't have to with architecture/beauty. It also ranked right next to the Bellagio in Vegas on that list you posted so lets not forget the subjectivity of the subject. I do think buildings can be more of a masterpiece and while you can argue that Philly's City Hall is more of one based on your criteria I still don't think that makes it a definitive better looking building at all.
City Hall in Philly is potentially the best example of Second Empire architecture in the US. Potentially the State building next to the white house in DC
Another great architectural gem in Philly is the PSFS building - some architects consider the first true modern skyscraper in the world
I like the City Hall in SF though to me it is a style less unique and seen all over the country
Trans America is iconic to me, and has aged well IMHO
I also feel PT is better in Philly and far more concentrated based on my experience in both, far more offerings and connections
Both have underground trolleys, subways, buses. To me the regional rail connectivity is really a big difference. especially as its all underground also in the core
I believe its taller does it also have larger diameter? Impressive none the less
the two cities may have the two tallest city halls, not sure
San Franciscos city hall (307') is def not one of the tallest. In fact it's almost 250' shorter than Phillys (548'). Considering LA's city hall is 453', it's not even the tallest in California.
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.
