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.
NYC isn't suburban. You won't find bungalow housing next to apartment buildings unless you go REALLY far out into the outer boroughs.
A legitimately urban city doesn't need apartment buildings to boost its density ratings.
You must be a SF hater. The truth is Sf, demolishes Philly as a city. You are going to have to learn to accept it. SF is also denser on paper too so yeah.
You must be a SF hater. The truth is Sf, demolishes Philly as a city. You are going to have to learn to accept it. SF is also denser on paper too so yeah.
No, you all just love to delude yourselves into thinking that.
San Francisco is urban for the West Coast and that's it. You'd never find bungalow housing in a legitimately urban city.
You're not as important as you think you are. Get over yourselves, New Money.
SF is "denser on paper" because Philadelphia lost population, and at Philadelphia's previous peak it was almost entirely rowhousing with much smaller apartment buildings. Philadelphia blows SF out of the water in many categories, especially when it comes to being urban.
You must be a SF hater. The truth is Sf, demolishes Philly as a city. You are going to have to learn to accept it. SF is also denser on paper too so yeah.
And Philly is actually denser in the core 49 sq miles - actually almost 18% more dense.
In the same space as SF it would be over a million. Almost 33% of the 130sq miles of philly are not inhabited, ports, airports, refineries, industrial wasteland etc.
But regardles SF is dense, esp by US standadrs. to me very similar to Boston and Philly in this reagrd
And Philly is actually denser in the core 49 sq miles - actually almost 18% more dense.
In the same space as SF it would be over a million. Almost 33% of the 130sq miles of philly are not inhabited, ports, airports, refineries, industrial wasteland etc.
But regardles SF is dense, esp by US standadrs. to me very similar to Boston and Philly in this reagrd
You won't find bungalows in Boston or Philadelphia.
No, you all just love to delude yourselves into thinking that.
San Francisco is urban for the West Coast and that's it. You'd never find bungalow housing in a legitimately urban city.
You're not as important as you think you are. Get over yourselves, New Money.
SF is "denser on paper" because Philadelphia lost population, and at Philadelphia's previous peak it was almost entirely rowhousing with much smaller apartment buildings. Philadelphia blows SF out of the water in many categories, especially when it comes to being urban.
You do realize that most San Francisco housing is rowhouses, correct? Philly has plenty of detached homes as well, but both cities have a ton of rowhouses.
You do realize that most San Francisco housing is rowhouses, correct? Philly has plenty of detached homes as well, but both cities have a ton of rowhouses.
No, it isn't.
Philadelphia's only detached housing is either projects, RDA projects, or in the far Northeast and far Northwest.
You are not now nor will you ever be as urban as Philadelphia. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise
Yeah, where are all these SF bungalows?
All over.
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.
