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 think the Manhattan-Brooklyn and San Francisco- Oalkland comparisons are a little bit ridiculous. New York and San Francisco are two of the cities where I spend most of my time. They also happen to be two of my favorite cities. However, aside from the density number (NOT look and feel), there's not much to compare.
Oakland is a LOT more disconnected from San Francisco than Brooklyn is from Manhattan. Brooklyn is connected by multiple bridges, tunnels and subways across a relatively narrow stretch of river/harbor while Oakland is a few miles across the bay. You can easily walk or bike to Manhattan from Brooklyn, not so much with SF-OAK. Sure, one is the principal urban area and one is secondary and they're separated by water, but that's really where the similarities end. Oakland feels much more like a separate municipality than Brooklyn does.
I'd even go so far as to say that Newark is much more comparable than Brookyn when it comes to Oakland's relationship with San Francisco. In fact, it's about 10 miles driving from lower Manhattan to Newark. It's about 12 from Powell at Market to downtown Oakland. Newark is a separate municipality that's clearly secondary in the region, it's grittier, but it has a major airport that functions as a major airport in the NY metropolitan area. Even the sports complex in East Rutherford works in a similar fashion to Oakland's sports complex. There are a LOT of similarities between Manhattan/Newark and San Francisco/Oakland. But Brooklyn/Oakland? Not so much.
I also don't think that San Francisco's financial District/the Tenderloin looks or feels anything like Manhattan (any part of it). The Financial district is certainly dense, but it doesn't come anywhere close to matching the size of either of Manhattan's premiere business districts (Lower or Midtown). They layout is different too. San Francisco has sort of a "Main Street" setup with Market being the Main Street. New York has nothing like that. If anything, the most similar comparison I could make to Market Street in San Francisco's Financial District is Broad Street in Philadelphia (Canal in New Orleans on a much smaller scale too). The spire of City Hall at the end of the Canyon of high rises in Philadelphia is eerily similar to viewing the spire of the Ferry Building at the end of Market in San Francisco.
The tenderloin may have a similar density to pockets of Manhattan, but I think that's where the similarities end too. In fact, I can't think of a neighborhood anywhere else in the country that's much like the Tenderloin. I actually love the Tenderloin for its quirkiness, and decent bars and restaurants. It's like one of the last bastions of authentic grittiness close to central San Francisco. Still, it doesn't remind me of New York at all. It doesn't remind me of anything, and that's not a bad thing.
New York and San Francisco are great cities in their own right. There's no need to try and dray parallels between the two. There are some (mainly higher density/diversity), but they're each very unique and we're all better for that.
Great post and very much agree, and even on the aspects of why SF is a great/different place.
No, it doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world, what a stupid thing to say.
No, it doesn't have the best colleges in the world. Harvard is number 2.
I agree with the other points though.
I'm quite knowledgeable on the US. Boston isn't a city that thinks it's bigger than it is. It's a very affluent city that cities like Detroit and Miami wish they were but aren't. I'd even say Los Angeles, which, let's face it, is big but still pretty awful. It's also, in my opinion, one of the few attractive cities in the US - ie it doesn't have bland ugly concrete buildings but more historic architecture.
Yep, and Leeds and Manchester wish they were London.
I also don't think that San Francisco's financial District/the Tenderloin looks or feels anything like Manhattan (any part of it). The Financial district is certainly dense, but it doesn't come anywhere close to matching the size of either of Manhattan's premiere business districts (Lower or Midtown). They layout is different too. San Francisco has sort of a "Main Street" setup with Market being the Main Street. New York has nothing like that. If anything, the most similar comparison I could make to Market Street in San Francisco's Financial District is Market Street in Philadelphia (Canal in New Orleans on a much smaller scale too). It's too bad that the view of the city Hall tower isn't better from Market in Philadelphia, otherwise the comparison would be perfect (similar vistas to SF's Market Street with the Ferry Building a the end).
I have to disagree with this.
DT SF certainly feels more like Manhattan in parts (in "parts", that's all that's ever been claimed in this thread, to my knowledge) than it does Philly, IMO. the Market and Market comparisons are somewhat valid but that's not a lot to go on. In terms of built environment, density, bustle, DT SF feels more like parts of Manhattan than it does center city Philly.
But really SF mostly feels just like SF, Philly feels like Philly, NYC like NYC, etc. I don't know why people get so bent out of shape over simple comparisons.
DT SF certainly feels more like Manhattan in parts (in "parts", that's all that's ever been claimed in this thread, to my knowledge) than it does Philly, IMO. the Market and Market comparisons are somewhat valid but that's not a lot to go on. In terms of built environment, density, bustle, DT SF feels more like parts of Manhattan than it does center city Philly.
But really SF mostly feels just like SF, Philly feels like Philly, NYC like NYC, etc. I don't know why people get so bent out of shape over simple comparisons.
I would strongly disagree but again unless there is some attachment to Manhattan you will continue your mantra and yet suggest SF has no similarities to philly when IMHO the reality is the complete opposite SF is far more similar to Philly than SF is to Manhattan.
SF is so far closer to Philly than it is to Manhattan, not even close on the comparison. Again the saying i felt like i was in Manhattan and then i turned the corner. Scale alone makes the comparison to Manhattan rediculous - that is the aspect of NYC - scale of density, vibrancy, etc.
Your in parts fits for Philly too with regards to Manhattan (even could suggest Philly covers the feel of Midtown and East Village better than would SF yet Philly and SF are far closer to each other than either are remotely close to Manhattan) even moreso why they are far more similar. It seems like you continue to take a few blocks and extrapolate to something SF is not - it seems silly to me
its the closest thing to Manhattan etc. On the whole i would actually argue there are far more aspects of Philly that feel like NYC (esp BK and Queens) than does SF - once outside of the DT of SF it feels very little like NYC IMHO - not a bad thing as I quite like SF (great neighborhoods that sorround a great DT)
New York and San Francisco are great cities in their own right. There's no need to try and dray parallels between the two. There are some (mainly higher density/diversity), but they're each very unique and we're all better for that.
Didn't want to quote the entire post, but it boils down to your last paragraph. Bravo!
San Francisco is San Francisco, why should it try to claim that it's New York? I mean, you and I could do the same thing with Boston, which does have a financial district that resembles downtown Manhattan, but why would we want to do so? Why devalue either city by seeing only the commonality when there is so much awesome distinctiveness? The idea of making the comparison in anything but the most casual manner screams out some sense of inadequacy.
DT SF certainly feels more like Manhattan in parts (in "parts", that's all that's ever been claimed in this thread, to my knowledge) than it does Philly, IMO. the Market and Market comparisons are somewhat valid but that's not a lot to go on. In terms of built environment, density, bustle, DT SF feels more like parts of Manhattan than it does center city Philly.
I know that only "parts" have been been compared (namely the Tenderloin and the Financial District). My point was that I think that once you get past density stats, the similarities end. You said it yourself, SF is SF... NYC is NYC.
What is it about the "built environment" in San Francisco that is more like Manhattan than Philadelphia? High rise buildings? mostly wall to wall construction? That may make San Francisco more similar to Manhattan than other cities on the West Coast;but those connections are still loose at best and irrelevant overall (not to mention, the same could be said about Philadelphia). Obviously each of those cities is unique in its own right, but I think the connections between SF and Philly are more similar than NYC and SF for the reasons I listed in the previous post. What are your reasons?
Not so sure what the issue with being compared to Philadelphia is. It's a great, high density downtown area that just so happens to be built in a similar way to San Francisco (Main Street model, similar size, etc). There's nothing in New York that resembles that model and NYC's Financial District can be best compared (in terms of layout, look and feel) to Boston's (which is obviously much smaller).
Beyond that, I think there are a number of other cities that have downtown areas that are more comparable to New York than San Francisco. I'd probably draw NYC-Philly, NYC-Boston, NYC-Chicago comparisons before I'd start with SF-NYC. Even still, all of those cities are more unique than they are similar.
Quote:
But really SF mostly feels just like SF, Philly feels like Philly, NYC like NYC, etc. I don't know why people get so bent out of shape over simple comparisons.
I agree. San Francisco is one of the most unique cities in the country (as is New York). It's perfectly distinct by itself. I wouldn't say I was bent out of shape... I just thought the comparisons between SF and NYC that I've read so far are a bit asinine. Particularly the Oakland and Brooklyn one. Still, the Tenderloin/Financial District to Manhattan comparison is far-fetched too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan
Didn't want to quote the entire post, but it boils down to your last paragraph. Bravo!
San Francisco is San Francisco, why should it try to claim that it's New York? I mean, you and I could do the same thing with Boston, which does have a financial district that resembles downtown Manhattan, but why would we want to do so? Why devalue either city by seeing only the commonality when there is so much awesome distinctiveness? The idea of making the comparison in anything but the most casual manner screams out some sense of inadequacy.
Thanks. And Excellent points. Each of the cities that have been mentioned so far are far more unique then they are similar to another; and trying to say one (even in just a few aspects) is like another is a big stretch.
People are saying Boston, San Fran, Seattle etc. but those cities actually offer things and have reasons to brag...A city like Phoenix, is a much better answer.
Why? The Phoenix metro actually is big; however, with the exception of the Californians who have tried to make it more SoCal-friendly, Phoenix doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. However, there is never a shortage of ignorant CD posters who chose to point out all of the city's flaws despite knowing little to nothing about the city.
I have to back the guy Steven here. When terms like "straw man" start getting thrown around on an internet forum, the thread hasn't reached logical levels, it's just devolved into nitpicky silliness. SF, in its own way, is a lot like Manhattan in that it's a very dense central area at the center of an area with a large population. And I don't think the Oakland-Brooklyn comparison is ridiculous, either. He's right. In terms of how they function and are viewed within their metros, there are a lot of similarities. I didn't see him say anything like "Oakland has a large population of natives descended from Italian immigrants". All I see from those attacking him are very specific and trivial complaints about an argument that is inherently harmless and actually contains quite a bit of truth.
I have to back the guy Steven here. When terms like "straw man" start getting thrown around on an internet forum, the thread hasn't reached logical levels, it's just devolved into nitpicky silliness. SF, in its own way, is a lot like Manhattan in that it's a very dense central area at the center of an area with a large population. And I don't think the Oakland-Brooklyn comparison is ridiculous, either. He's right. In terms of how they function and are viewed within their metros, there are a lot of similarities. I didn't see him say anything like "Oakland has a large population of natives descended from Italian immigrants". All I see from those attacking him are very specific and trivial complaints about an argument that is inherently harmless and actually contains quite a bit of truth.
I have to back the guy Steven here. When terms like "straw man" start getting thrown around on an internet forum, the thread hasn't reached logical levels, it's just devolved into nitpicky silliness. SF, in its own way, is a lot like Manhattan in that it's a very dense central area at the center of an area with a large population. And I don't think the Oakland-Brooklyn comparison is ridiculous, either. He's right. In terms of how they function and are viewed within their metros, there are a lot of similarities. I didn't see him say anything like "Oakland has a large population of natives descended from Italian immigrants". All I see from those attacking him are very specific and trivial complaints about an argument that is inherently harmless and actually contains quite a bit of truth.
Having lived in both NYC and SF I will disagree on many of the similarities, as stated with that notion Cinci and Covington KY would also be NYC and Brooklyn in that argument not to mention the tone and tact made has history but thanks for the feedback. Not to mention Queens, BX, Jersey City etc but whatever
If having a few blocks of density makes a place a NYC (which has miles upon miles of it) we all need to evaluate perspective and while there is a grain of truth to many things the positioning and dismissal of aspects with SIGNIFICANTLY larger grains of truth create the reponses to the nonsense; there is much history in this respect
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.
