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.
How is SF number one? I didn't find it THAT unique when I was there for a short time. There are many areas in SF that could be any city, right?
One must look at the City as a 'whole' as it could be said any city anywhere has parts which are more residential (outside of downtown) or look as any other.
That said, the most distinguishable/unique is SF hands-down from my perspective based in re: redwood trees in the City, the Bay, GG, BB, cable cars (and hilly streets), ferry transportation, Eureka and Noe, sailing and even the weather makes it distinguishable. That's quite a list.
SF
CBD isn't particularly distinguishable, but generally, it has a few characteristics that are super unique:
- Topography
- Bay windows: very prevalent across the city, across architectural styles, building uses and sizes.
- Public realm: Very limited tree canopy (street trees) in many neighborhoods. Looks very barren. Most of the public realm is paved (sidewalks, driveways, etc.)
New Orleans (pre-war)
- Architecture styles & decorative/ornamental elements
- Lot size/street frontage + density
Santa Fe
- Architecture
For other cities, I think it comes down to how well you know U.S. urban architecture. You can definitely distinguish between cities, but it requires familiarity with local architectural styles and building materials (specifically row homes).
- Public realm: Very limited tree canopy (street trees) in many neighborhoods. Looks very barren. Most of the public realm is paved (sidewalks, driveways, etc.)
Are you really plucking sidewalks and driveways in SF residential hoods as 'barren', lol - yet failed to mention a redwood park in the middle of the financial district/downtown as a distinguishable factor? It helps immensely to see the (obvious) big picture.
SF's majestic landscape, Bay, redwoods, cable cars and GG Bridge are iconic.
You don't understand what "street-level" means and you don't understand the purpose of this thread. It's not a laundry list of specific sites or points of interest that make a city unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
Are you really plucking sidewalks and driveways in SF residential hoods as 'barren', lol -
Yes, because it is very common and well-documented. The peninsula was very barren upon settlement and the urban neighborhoods have a very limited tree canopy and a lot of pavement. Street trees are generally limited and scrawny, which makes streetscapes feel a bit heavy on pavement & asphalt. It's just reality--not meant to be some attack on San Francisco. How I Became a Tree Hugger: SF’s Urban Canopy Crisis – Street Sheet
This is something that is very noticeable (and common) when walking around SF. Of course, this isn't universal. Some streets are well landscaped with trees. But the barrenness as a whole is very unique.
Quote:
yet failed to mention a redwood park in the middle of the financial district/downtown as a distinguishable factor? It helps immensely to see the (obvious) big picture.
What does a single park have to do with an entire city being distinguishable or unique? 99.9% of neighborhoods at street level do not have redwoods. It's a tiny piece of the city.
Quote:
[SF's majestic landscape, Bay, redwoods, cable cars and GG Bridge are iconic.
I'm focusing on street-level attributes that are distinguishable, not something in the distance (bay, GG bridge) or concentrated icons (cable cars).
If someone dropped me in a random SF neighborhood, I think I could determine it is SF based on the three items I listed:
(1) limited treet canopy and lots of pavement (basically zero ground-level landscaping),
(2) numerous bay windows, and
(3) topography.
These characteristics (especially together) would immediately make me think I'm in SF, assuming I wasn't staring at the Golden Gate Bridge or next to a cable car.
This is something that is very noticeable (and common) when walking around SF. Of course, this isn't universal. Some streets are well landscaped with trees. But the barrenness as a whole is very unique.
What does a single park have to do with an entire city being distinguishable or unique? 99.9% of neighborhoods at street level do not have redwoods. It's a tiny piece of the city.
I mentioned the single park (which includes redwood trees and is well-traveled/highly populated) in the middle of downtown as notable because you missed it while referencing driveways and sidewalks in residential hoods, lol (which isn't relevant or worth the discussion). Streetscapes or various residential neighborhoods (and certainly not driveways : ) are not going to make a city shine as unique; but the Bay, cable cars, GG, redwoods, hilly/steep streets, and an iconic majestic landscape that is recognizable by nearly everyone absolutely does (all which can be viewed from the street). It just depends on where you're driving/standing/walking.
Point being - you shouldn't have to walk/drive every inch of sidewalk/street or neighborhood in order for it to be distinguishable (or it isn't). Isn't that the point of the term; or it's as if you are asking what city is the most distinguishable IF you don't include all the obvious factors at street level which make it unique. Why not start a thread re: city vs. city architecture (as that's the basket where it appears you're putting all your eggs).
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 04-11-2020 at 04:05 PM..
I mentioned the single park (which includes redwood trees and is well-traveled/highly populated) in the middle of downtown as notable because you missed it while referencing driveways and sidewalks in residential hoods, lol (which isn't relevant or worth the discussion).
What's there to miss? It's not representative of the city. The OP said "unique overall at a street level". A single park is irrelevant.
Quote:
Streetscapes or various residential neighborhoods (and certainly not driveways : ) are not going to make a city shine as unique;
This isn't about "making a city shine". It's about how the general built environment stands out.
Quote:
But the Bay, cable cars, GG, redwoods, and an iconic majestic landscape that is recognizable by nearly everyone absolutely does
This applies to very specific sections of the city and viewpoints.
Quote:
(all which can be viewed from the street). It just depends on where you're driving/standing/walking.
But it's not universal to the city. It's not a unifying attribute of San Francisco's built environment at the street level. It's definitely iconic and recognizable, but really only viewed in specific locations.
If you are at street level, the unifying theme across San Francisco is (1)lack of trees, (2)hilly, and (3) bay windows. Most streets do not have expansive views of iconic San Francisco monuments. And honestly, if views off in the distance are what makes a place unique, then it's actually NOT unique at street level...the point of the thread.
Quote:
Point being - you shouldn't have to walk/drive every inch of sidewalk/street or neighborhood in order for it to be distinguishable (or it isn't).
You really don't understand what the OP asked about.
Quote:
Isn't that the point of the term; or it's as if you are asking what city is the most distinguishable IF you don't include all the obvious factors at street level which make it unique.
The Golden Gate bridge is not a street-level characteristic. Cable cars are a street-level amenity in a tiny fraction of the city.
Stop using views of icons as what makes a place distinguishable. The OP is asking for "general at street level".
NYC is not unique at street level because there are views of the Empire State Building. LA is not unique at street level because the San Bernardino mtns are off in the distance.
Quote:
Why not start a thread re: city vs. city architecture (as that's the basket where it appears you're putting all your eggs).
Well, we are looking at street-level characteristics (not iconic buildings or views off in the distance), so that leaves us with:
- Architecture styles & features
- Building Scale
- Building materials
- Streetscapes (landscape + hardscape)
The Golden Gate bridge is not a street-level characteristic. Cable cars are a street-level amenity in a tiny fraction of the city.
Well, we are looking at street-level characteristics (not iconic buildings or views off in the distance), so that leaves us with:
- Architecture styles & features
- Building Scale
- Building materials
- Streetscapes (landscape + hardscape)
The GG and cable cars ARE street-level and are viewable/usable as part of the streetscape you specifically list above. It's hilarious to suggest street-level does not equate to mass transit and bridges in your mind (whether viewing from the street or riding on/over them). Btw, by definition, streetscape includes the view/character (and it's quite a view from various streets, parks and a unique trail system throughout the city).
That said, if you wanted the thread to be in re: distinguishable architectural and building styles (and bay windows/driveways/specific residential neighborhoods), then you should have stated as much; but it's not what the thread title suggests as a whole.
However, if you are bound to architecture/building (a regular poster in the thread is as well), how about the unique art deco style/engineering wonder of the iconic GG Bridge? ; )
The GG and cable cars ARE street-level and are viewable/usable as part of the streetscape you specifically list above. It's hilarious to suggest street-level does not equate to mass transit and bridges in your mind (whether viewing from the street or riding on/over them).
The OP asked for "general street-level". The GG bridge is way off in the distance. It's a monument, not some standard piece of SF's built environment at the street level. The cable cars are in a very limited portion of the city, so no, it's not the "general street level".
Quote:
Btw, by definition, streetscape includes the view/character (and it's quite a view from various streets, parks and a unique trail system throughout the city).
The literal definition, according to Miriam-Webster, is "the appearance or view of a street". Notfrom the street. Another definition: "The visual elements of a street, including the road, adjoining buildings, sidewalks, street furniture, trees and open spaces, etc, that combine to form the street's character."
Do yourself a favor and google image search "streetscape". It is 100% focused on the conditions of the public realm at the street level. Not some bridge in the distance. But hey, what do I know...I only work with traffic engineers, landscape architects, and transportation planners on a daily basis.
Honestly...just look up the dang word that you clearly do not know. Here is the SF Better Streets organization listing all Streetscape Elements by Street Type https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/desi...y-street-type/
It takes basic research. A simple google search.
Quote:
That said, if you wanted the thread to be in re: distinguishable architectural and building styles (and bay windows/driveways/specific residential neighborhoods), then you should have stated as much; but it's not what the thread title suggests as a whole.
However, if you are bound to architecture/building (a regular poster in the thread is as well), how about the unique art deco style/engineering wonder of the iconic GG Bridge? ; )
You are really struggling to understand what "street level" means.
I provided 8 examples of SF neighborhoods (from urban to suburban) that display those characteristics. Clearly more representative of SF street level than anything you've come up with. More of SF looks like this or this, than some iconic cable car street with a view of the GG (I could only find a single block in the entire city that has both of these at street level- near Russian Hill Park)
A view of the GG and cable cars is absolutely not the general street level of SF.
Your logic: Dubai street level must be unique because you can see the Burj Khalifa!
Last edited by newgensandiego; 04-12-2020 at 12:37 AM..
The OP asked for "general street-level". The GG bridge is way off in the distance. It's a monument, not some standard piece of SF's built environment. The cable cars are in a very limited portion of the city, so no, it's not the "general street level".
The GG is a BRIDGE so people can get in and out of the City; it's a 'standard' street/walkway/streetscape in and of itself, lol. The cable cars are mass transit and part of the City Center, the most densely-populated portion of the City (rather than a 'very limited one'). To suggest they 'don't count' is absurd as the very essence of 'distinguishable' is a quality or feature which makes recognition possible (while being seen as different), all while being 'street-level' as the OP states in the title.
This is too ridiculously redundant and not worth a debate; a street is part of a streetscape, lol.
The GG is a BRIDGE so people can get in and out of the City; it's a 'standard' street/walkway/streetscape in and of itself, lol.
A single piece of infrastructure is not representative of miles of streetscapes and neighborhoods across San Francisco. In fact, nothing in San Francisco looks anything like the GG. It's a single icon, not a standard characteristic of SF at street-level. Last time I checked, the typical SF street does not have metal towers and cable suspensions. It has steep slopes, lots of pavement/ few trees, and homes with bay windows.
Why is this so confusing to you?
Quote:
The cable cars are mass transit and part of the City Center, the most densely-populated portion of the City (rather than a 'very limited one'). To suggest they 'don't count' is absurd as the very essence of 'distinguishable' is a quality or feature which makes recognition possible (while being seen as different), all while being 'street-level' as the OP states in the title.
Transit can definitely be a part of a city's standard streetscape (Lisbon trams, for instance), but SF's 3 Cable Car lines represent less than 5 miles of San Francisco 1,260 miles of streets.
Quote:
This is too ridiculously redundant and not worth a debate; a street is part of a streetscape, lol.
Well, hopefully you learned the definition of a streetscape. Educate yourself.
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.
