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.
Really? I didn't see what the big deal was in the Tenderloin... I know a friend who lives off OFarrel in the TL and besides a lot of homeless it didn't seem that bad to what I've seen in cities like Chicago/NO/Cleveland. I mean I definitely wouldn't go there looking like a tourist or a girl at night but... seems doable. Though I know I'm on the edge of it there...
Is it really THAT bad? I mean it is right next to downtown...
The Tenderloin is bad, you never know what to expect out there. O'Farrel is not the worst street in the TL for crime. The TL is worse closer to market street. Golden Gate Ave., Turk St., Leavenworth, Eddy, etc..Some my experiences in the TL as I had many friends who lived there were having a knife pulled on me by the owner of a liquor store and being chased across market by a gang of hoodlums. The TL does have a lot of shootings, drugs, homeless, and prostution. As well it also has the highest % of children of any neighborhood in the city. Like Dave Chappelle said "never have I seen a place in my life where people smoke crack so casually."
I feel like you may have missed the most crowded sections of the city (or may have been there at a wierd time) if you think parts of Newark have more foot traffic. Sections of SF (parts of Union Square, Chinatown) have more foot traffic than anywhere Ive been in the US outside of NYC (certainly, Ive never seen that kind of foot traffic in Boston).
And Ive spent more time in Newark than I care to admit
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_starks
wow, my 1st multi quote
see, on paper that may be true, but i didn't see it as being more dense than anywhere except nyc.. that's all i'm saying. appearances can be deceiving i guess..
parts of Newark appear to have as much foot traffic as the busiest parts of SF. i think its what you are accustomed to. bridgeport is the most urban city in CT (remimds me of the bronx) but no one talks about it because its pathetic...i guess i have a different image of "urban". i think of the movie Juice over Menace II Society
Really? I didn't see what the big deal was in the Tenderloin... I know a friend who lives off OFarrel in the TL and besides a lot of homeless it didn't seem that bad to what I've seen in cities like Chicago/NO/Cleveland. I mean I definitely wouldn't go there looking like a tourist or a girl at night but... seems doable. Though I know I'm on the edge of it there...
Is it really THAT bad? I mean it is right next to downtown...
Its not THAT bad IMO, but it does get pretty crazy on certain blocks. Its a very small area too. O'Farrell used to actually be the heart of it back in the 90's, but now its basically dormant and nothing much to worry about. If you want to see how it can get, drive (I wouldn't particularly recommend walking) down Jones St between O'Farrell and McAllister on a Friday or Saturday night, or cruise around the vicinity of Turk, Ellis or Golden Gate near Taylor or Leavenworth. Probably the worst corner in the neighborhood is Jones/Ellis.
It actually used to be much worse IMO. Especially 6th St between Market and Howard. Now that's not really a big deal anymore. It can get pretty bad at times, but you can also walk through it and come out unscathed. That's actually part of what makes it so crazy. There are homeless people, junkies and dealers everywhere, and sometimes they'll target whoever while others they'll pay no mind to. Its pretty random over there.
But that's exactly why I (and many others) don't consider it as bad as HP or Sunnydale. You can walk through the TL and be fine, and at times the neighborhood can be relatively docile (in comparison to how bad it CAN get). The HP hill otoh is absolutely not somewhere one can expect to walk through and come out unscathed. Its possible that one might, but its not a wager that individual should plan on making. Part of what makes HP worse is that its way off in the Southeast corner of the City near the water where its "out of sight, out of mind" for many people. The Bayview (the business part of HP centered around 3rd St) is becoming pretty gentrified now and people can now go to 3rd and pretty much feel okay. But "the hill" where all the projects over there are, is a different story. The TL is still in downtown and gets more traffic passing through it, which means more likelihood of witnesses or help. So ultimately, its a bad neighborhood, but not unthinkably bad. And I think its more reminiscent of an urban East Coast ghetto neighborhood (not a project) than our ghettos like HP or West Oakland are.
I feel like the poll is just wrong here. I mean, just look at google streetview and explore these two cities.
There is no question that San Francisco is the more urban city. It's more dense, more vibrant, and just has more of a "city" feel to it. I think the east coast bias of this board is showing here.
I appreciate Boston for its history, its brick buildings, and its urban fabric. But I think San Francisco, despite having far less brick buildings, has a stronger urban fabric. Even in its fringes it still has rowhouses. Everywhere you go in SF you feel like you are in "the city". Besides NYC I cant think of any other city in this country, including Boston, where this is true.
There is no question that San Francisco is the more urban city. It's more dense, more vibrant, and just has more of a "city" feel to it. I think the east coast bias of this board is showing here.
Hrrm... SF seems to have a lot more going on...mostly due to sheer density and foot traffic is higher over certain parts of SF for sure.. as well as a crazy amount of tourists for the small area...Boston feels more old world, but I'm not sure there is actually a limitation on city amenities to do, perhaps less people out enjoying it? as far as more urban, I don't think it is a landslide either way. They are very comparable urban fabrics, if not very comparable culturally.
Erin have you ever been to Chicago,Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore, etc.? While I agree SF is more vibrant, per "(2): pulsating with life, vigor, or activity" I'm not sure how they would feel anything but an urban city...
I think the east coast bias of this board is showing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin3465
Even in its fringes it still has rowhouses. Everywhere you go in SF you feel like you are in "the city".
I'm from Baltimore, an old east coast city, and it can't compare to San Francisco when it comes to urban feel. Baltimore has large pockets of neighborhoods that feel quite suburban with single family homes on large lots, sometimes without sidewalks. On the other hand, San Francisco, like you said, is basically rowhomes from the city center all the way out to the edges and sometimes beyond. The city is completely built out into one whole cohesive urban entity.
As to the original question, I still think it's a tough one because while I believe that San Francisco as a whole may be more urban, Boston has extremely dense almost European-style neighborhoods such as the North End and Beacon Hill. So I think it's a close call and neither city "definitely, all the way, no questions asked" is the clear winner.
Neither is a top-tier nightlife city, but SF's nightlife is more diverse, more interesting, and--in a word--better.
And I would say people have a way more mellow mentality in SF than Boston and other east coast cities, but its not a slow pace. SF is definitely buzzing and it has the feeling of people constantly "moving".
Boston's public transit is definitely better, though--by a long shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest
Boston all day long. SF's slow a$$ pace brings it down a few notches plus the nightlife in not on par with Boston.
Boston all day long. SF's slow a$$ pace brings it down a few notches plus the nightlife in not on par with Boston.
Where is this slow a$$ pace of which you speak? Ocean Beach? Outer Sunset District maybe? Have you even been to SF? If you find it slower than NYC I could understand, but compared to DC (at least from my experience) SF has a MUCH faster pace. Regardless of which city you may find faster, it is supremely incorrect to refer to it as a "slow a$$ pace" as though its rural Wyoming or something.
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.
