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.
I would choose SF myself, but its actually a lot closer than this poll suggests...
I think that is just it - both are actually pretty close but people who have been to both would put a slight edge to San Fran - having said that to me the difference is immaterial - if you like an urban feel and density you can't wrong with either
In many ways they seem like the bi-coastal siblings...
1. New York City - 27,000
2. San Francisco - 16,000
3. Chicago - 12,000
4. Boston - 12,000
5. Philly - 11,000
6. Miami - 11,000
7. Washington, D.C. - 9000
8. Los Angeles - 8000
9. Baltimore - 8000
10. Seattle - 7000
11. Detroit - 7000
12. Minneapolis - 7000
13. St. Louis - 6000
14. Cleveland - 6000
this is pretty close, San Francisco remains consistent almost thruout the whole city, Boston Diminishes in West Roxbury/ Hyde Park, sunset district is not too different from say.... Nob Hill.
I would choose SF myself, but its actually a lot closer than this poll suggests...
yeah, i was surprised by that too. i guess technically, SF is more dense , but not really by that much. and i prefer the boston-type of density - the classic brownstone and brick look that appeals to me..
1. New York City - 27,000
2. San Francisco - 16,000
3. Chicago - 12,000
4. Boston - 12,000
5. Philly - 11,000
6. Miami - 11,000
7. Washington, D.C. - 9000
8. Los Angeles - 8000
9. Baltimore - 8000
10. Seattle - 7000
11. Detroit - 7000
12. Minneapolis - 7000
13. St. Louis - 6000
14. Cleveland - 6000
this is pretty close, San Francisco remains consistent almost thruout the whole city, Boston Diminishes in West Roxbury/ Hyde Park, sunset district is not too different from say.... Nob Hill.
yeah, i was surprised by that too. i guess technically, SF is more dense , but not really by that much. and i prefer the boston-type of density - the classic brownstone and brick look that appeals to me..
To me it's less the density--I actually think SF has more of an urban feel overall...there seems to be more people on the streets and a more diverse range of people, and the infrastructure feels more squeezed together and dynamic.
SF also has a wide range of areas from very posh to very gritty, often in very close proximity.
Nonetheless, this is definitely close, these cities are remarkable similar in their levels or urbanity.
To me it's less the density--I actually think SF has more of an urban feel overall...there seems to be more people on the streets and a more diverse range of people, and the infrastructure feels more squeezed together and dynamic.
SF also has a wide range of areas from very posh to very gritty, often in very close proximity.
Nonetheless, this is definitely close, these cities are remarkable similar in their levels or urbanity.
The poll is not an indicator that people view Boston as much less urban than SF. It only indicates that most people would agree that SF will edge out eventually, although maybe only slightly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin3465
Wow, how is SF winning by so much?
I would choose SF myself, but its actually a lot closer than this poll suggests...
However, Boston is pretty urban, but compared to SF, not so much.
Boston isn't "pretty" urban. It's very urban. And even though I think SF may be slightly more urban...they're extremely close.
Boston's densest neighborhood is denser than San Francisco's densest neighborhood. Several of Boston's inner neighborhoods are over 30,000 people per square mile. Neighborhoods like Allston-Brighton are about fifteen to twenty minutes outside of downtown. Allston is over 16,000 ppsm and Brighton is over 17,000 ppsm.
1. New York City - 27,000
2. San Francisco - 16,000
3. Chicago - 12,000
4. Boston - 12,000
5. Philly - 11,000
6. Miami - 11,000
7. Washington, D.C. - 9000
8. Los Angeles - 8000
9. Baltimore - 8000
10. Seattle - 7000
11. Detroit - 7000
12. Minneapolis - 7000
13. St. Louis - 6000
14. Cleveland - 6000
this is pretty close, San Francisco remains consistent almost thruout the whole city, Boston Diminishes in West Roxbury/ Hyde Park, sunset district is not too different from say.... Nob Hill.
thats 20,000 people difference but the North End is bigger, this probably means nothing but it was kinda fun searching all of this.
The North End is actually over 60,000 people per square mile. If you look at the link you provided, you'll see about 50% of the area which is being counted as the North End is actually water.
The North End is actually over 60,000 people per square mile. If you look at the link you provided, you'll see about 50% of the area which is being counted as the North End is actually water.
oh, right but I dont think they count the water as 0.6 miles squared.
Anyways, I love both cities they are truly distinct from the rest of the US and IMO theyy are more beautiful than any US city even NYC.
Outside of the US I still like Barcelona and Naples better. But they are also two times the size of San Francisco.
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.
