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.
Maybe, care to share the underlying data you are using to make these statements? And you realize that Philadelphia has much larger parks than anything in San Fransisco? None the less, the massive oil refinery that is getting ready to be redeveloped. By percentage, SF has a lot more detached single family homes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...LYY.png&w=1440
SF isbthe only city with census tracts over 100k ppsm outside NYC. SF peak density is higher than any city in US or Canada not named NYC. Period. That's why SF almost has twice as many people per square mile as SF and 2nd most housing units per square mile in US and Canada behind only NYC
It’s downtown can absolutely complete but Boston doesn’t maintain that lvl of structural density the way Philly & San Fran maintain theirs once you get 3-4 miles outside of their CBD’s.
SF isbthe only city with census tracts over 100k ppsm outside NYC. SF peak density is higher than any city in US or Canada not named NYC. Period. That's why SF almost has twice as many people per square mile as SF and 2nd most housing units per square mile in US and Canada behind only NYC
Again.... why do you keep bringing up population density when this thread is about built environment?
SF is not more urbanely built than Philly despite having a significantly higher population density, and the only reason it’s housing stock per square mile is that high is because of it tiny official boarders, not raw housing stock count
I’ve been trying to find data myself, but haven’t been able to. I’d be shocked, though, if peak density in SF were much higher than that of Boston.
DC, Boston & SF have virtually identical daytime peak population densities
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
It’s downtown can absolutely complete but Boston doesn’t maintain that lvl of structural density the way Philly & San Fran maintain there’s once you get 3-4 miles outside of their CBD’s.
It’s downtown can absolutely complete but Boston doesn’t maintain that lvl of structural density the way Philly & San Fran maintain theirs once you get 3-4 miles outside of their CBD’s.
Somerville, MA is not only more densely populated than the city of Boston. It’s also more densely populated than the city of San Francisco.
I’ll also remind you that 3-4miles from SF looks like this.
You’d have a point if this thread was about population density, but it’s not.
Built Environment
Just so I understand your point: you’re saying that Somerville and Cambridge are less impressive than Daly City and San Bruno so therefore Boston is less impressive than SF?
Edit: Was at the wrong scale on Google maps. 3mi from the CBD of SF lands you in the Mission District or Laurel Heights? I still think Cambridge and Somerville more than compete. The density drop off in Boston occurs in earnest at 5 or 6 miles from the CBD.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 03-10-2020 at 08:00 PM..
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.
