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.
New York, almost any city in Europe or Asia. Lots of areas of Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc. San Fran is certainly dense though. It helps that it's such a small area. If you take only 49 of the 237 square miles of Chicago along the north side of the city you're going to have density around 25,000 per square mile.
Manhattan is half the size of Chicago and much denser than NYC as a whole. It's amazing though how many people Asian cities and cram into a square mile.
I love that satellite photo and how you can also see the density of the East Bay across the bridge. One of my favorite views is the one below, of the Oakland skyline with "The City" in the background....
I love that satellite photo and how you can also see the density of the East Bay across the bridge. One of my favorite views is the one below, of the Oakland skyline with "The City" in the background....
Density=SF's last ditch effort when they try to convince you they are in the big leagues. Okay it's dense, but its small, has a low population, the weather is not great for being a coastal city, and it's expensive.
Actually, the contiguous urban Bay Area is comparable to Chicagoland in terms of population (7.5 million vs 9 million). Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City etc are urban and basically connect right to SF.
If political boundaries were drawn differently SF could easily have a population of 2 million and still be quite dense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
Density=SF's last ditch effort when they try to convince you they are in the big leagues. Okay it's dense, but its small, has a low population, the weather is not great for being a coastal city, and it's expensive.
Actually, the contiguous urban Bay Area is comparable to Chicagoland in terms of population (7.5 million vs 9 million). Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City etc are urban and basically connect right to SF.
If political boundaries were drawn differently SF could easily have a population of 2 million and still be quite dense.
Oakland isn't dense at all. Save the tiny downtown and Lake Merrit area. Berkley isn't really dense either. Tons of old single story homes. Don't get me wrong, it's still relatively (for california) urban. If you expanded Sf's boundries it would actually be less dense. I'd suggest doing some research.
He didnt say it would be more dense. I agree that you could easily combine SF, Oakland, Berkeley, and Daly City and it would still be a dense city. Oakland, Berkeley, and DC remind me of some of the less dense areas of Chicago (but not the least dense industrial areas in the south)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
Oakland isn't dense at all. Save the tiny downtown and Lake Merrit area. Berkley isn't really dense either. Tons of old single story homes. Don't get me wrong, it's still relatively (for california) urban. If you expanded Sf's boundries it would actually be less dense. I'd suggest doing some research.
Not to mention, SF's density (and these other cities) has increased greatly since the 2000 census.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
Oakland isn't dense at all. Save the tiny downtown and Lake Merrit area. Berkley isn't really dense either. Tons of old single story homes. Don't get me wrong, it's still relatively (for california) urban. If you expanded Sf's boundries it would actually be less dense. I'd suggest doing some research.
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.