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.
And as far as urbanized density Population Per Square Mile
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 6,130.4
San Jose, CA 5,914.1
Washington, DC-VA-MD 3,400.8
Baltimore, MD 3,041.2
Boston, MA-NH-RI 2,322.6
The Boston area is certainly not dense. However, I would say the average Boston suburb still has urbanity lacking in Bay Area burbs (I am not talking about cities like Oakland, San Jose). Every town outside Boston has houses that are farrrr further apart than in the Bay Area. However, these towns all also have town centers and downtowns that are still utilized by the people in the community. In Boston suburbs people actually walk places to shop, eat, commute, etc.
Providence, Rhode Island 50 miles from Boston
Worcester, Massachusetts 45 miles from Boston
Manchester, New Hampshire 50 miles from Boston
these are "super urban areas" about 45 miles outside Boston's CBD.
What I meant was super urban suburbs.
Worcester has a population density of 4596.5 per square mile. That's actually about the same as the population density of the entire 50 mile drive between SF and San Jose.
So imagine Worcester for 50 miles and that's what the SF Peninsula is.
Otherwise, Manchester and Providence are over 9,000 each and I'll give you those 2.
Quote:
I am not saying this is a reason for Boston to win. I just felt that question needed to be answered.
Worcester has a population density of 4596.5 per square mile. That's actually about the same as the population density of the entire 50 mile drive between SF and San Jose.
So imagine Worcester for 50 miles and that's what the SF Peninsula is.
Otherwise, Manchester and Providence are over 9,000 each and I'll give you those 2.
Cool.
I don't need to imagine the SF Peninsula. I have been there many times and my sister lived in San Bruno.
The population density was greater than Boston burbs but that doesn't make it "urban'. San Bruno and Pacifica are filled with residential neighborhoods only connected to commercial areas and other neighborhoods by huge divided highways. You can't walk anywhere and definitely feel more removed from everything than you do in Boston's inner suburbs.
EDIT: Also, you probably don't want to advertise the peninsula as "Worcester for 50 miles".
That's not a bad thing. After all, they live there cause they want to feel removed without actually being removed.
I see what your saying but I prefer being a little removed from my neighbors (maybe have a yard) and still walking distance from shops, parks, and the train. As opposed to in the cities south of SF where it seems to be the opposite.
Oh? And how many people fly from Fremont to San Francisco.
mountains too.
The immediate Oakland Area, which includes Berkeley, Alameda and Emeryville is more densely populated than most major cities in the US.
And here's Hayward since you brought it up. About 30 miles from DT San Francisco.
Now that I think about it, this pic is about 55-60 miles south of Downtown San Francisco. The Density is the same for that entire 55-60 miles with no breaks or open space.
And considering our gorgeous setting and wonderful climate-the bay and mountains are hardly 'in the way'.
And as far as urbanized density Population Per Square Mile
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 6,130.4
San Jose, CA 5,914.1
Washington, DC-VA-MD 3,400.8
Baltimore, MD 3,041.2
Boston, MA-NH-RI 2,322.6
The Boston area is certainly not dense. However, I would say the average Boston suburb still has urbanity lacking in Bay Area burbs (I am not talking about cities like Oakland, San Jose). Every town outside Boston has houses that are farrrr further apart than in the Bay Area. However, these towns all also have town centers and downtowns that are still utilized by the people in the community. In Boston suburbs people actually walk places to shop, eat, commute, etc.
I'm not sure how the Boston 'burbs actually compare since I have yet to visit there, but what you've described is true in many Bay Area suburbs as well. Many have their own downtowns and are fairly walkable in the areas immediately surrounding the downtowns. And there is public transportation that, though not the best in the world, does help pick up the slack. Many people get around in these communities by walking or riding their bikes. Places like Burlingame, San Mateo, Palo Alto, Walnut Creek, Mountain View, Redwood City, etc. all make doing this very simple. In Berkeley half the population seems to resent car owners (I'm exaggerating when I say half of course). Berkeley and PA might not exactly be what you'd consider true suburbs, but they are very bike friendly and walkable. Same with the Westlake District in Daly City. You really don't need a car if you live there, and its basically a small city unto itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
What I meant was super urban suburbs.
Worcester has a population density of 4596.5 per square mile. That's actually about the same as the population density of the entire 50 mile drive between SF and San Jose.
So imagine Worcester for 50 miles and that's what the SF Peninsula is.
Otherwise, Manchester and Providence are over 9,000 each and I'll give you those 2.
Cool.
The population densities for many Bay Area cities far exceeds 4,600 psm, and some exceed 9,000 as well. Here's a few examples:
Daly City: 13,425
Burlingame: 6,392
South SF: 6,929
San Mateo: 7,551
Mountain View: 5,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
That's not a bad thing. After all, they live there cause they want to feel removed without actually being removed.
This is very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWereRabbit
I see what your saying but I prefer being a little removed from my neighbors (maybe have a yard) and still walking distance from shops, parks, and the train. As opposed to in the cities south of SF where it seems to be the opposite.
Not true at all. Burlingame and much of San Mateo are perfect examples of this. With the exception of most of their hill regions, both are exactly what you describe. Both cities offer walkability to their downtown areas, plenty of parks, and plenty of neighborhood shopping areas as well, while virtually every house has a front and back yard with space in between homes. The neighborhoods in the hills are mainly residential for the most part, but even then there are localized shopping centers within each community. This is true in plenty of other Bay Area suburbs as well, some of which I have already listed.
I mean these cities are basically eastcoast-westcoast mirrors of one another...what one prefers will probably come down to personal preference...
They are my two favorite American cities and I really cannot argue for the general urbanity of one over the other....to me it's a wash...
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.
