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.
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?
So we are now comparing Boston’s most built up neighborhoods immediately adjacent to its CBD, to SF’s fringe neighborhoods 7-10 miles out from downtown? Copy
Both cities are of comparable built structure in their cores, the difference is SF has more of it over its land area area where as Boston doesn’t maintain that urbanity to its administrative fringes which is the whole reason why SF has 200k more people despite the two being almost identical in land area
So we are now comparing Boston’s most built up neighborhoods immediately adjacent to its CBD, to SF’s fringe neighborhoods 7-10 miles out from downtown? Copy
Both cities are of comparable built structure in their cores, the difference is SF has more of it over its land area area where as Boston doesn’t maintain that urbanity to its administrative fringes which is the whole reason why SF has 200k more people despite the two being almost identical in land area
Adding Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea to “Boston” while removing West Roxbury, Hyde Park, and Roslindale would increase the city’s population by ~140k without changing the land area. It’s not a huge difference.
Furthermore, let’s be clear: Boston doesn’t “compete” in terms of central neighborhoods. It blows the equivalents in San Francisco out of the water. The fact that they have similar population densities with Boston having such low-density southwestern neighborhoods shows how much denser its northern ones must be in order to compensate.
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
I FINALLY found a source. Not sure how legit it is, but per this one the densest zip code in Boston (02113) is the 35th densest zip code in the country, surpassed by none except those in the NYC area. San Francisco’s densest zip code (94108) comes in at 48th in the country and Philly’s densest (19103) comes in at 122nd.
The 2nd and 3rd densest zip codes in SF outdo Boston’s 2nd and 3rd, but for peak density: Boston is king.
Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
You’re nuts if you think there is a huge delta between these cities.
Adding Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea to “Boston” while removing West Roxbury, Hyde Park, and Roslindale would increase the city’s population by ~140k without changing the land area. It’s not a huge difference.
Chelsea is 2.1 square miles
Somerville is 4.1 square miles
Cambridge is 6.4 square miles
Boston is 48 sq. miles so you’d have to make Boston the size of DC (61 sq. miles) to equal San Francisco’s population density at 46 sq. miles
~25% resident density difference is substantial
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS
Furthermore, let’s be clear: Boston doesn’t “compete” in terms of central neighborhoods. It blows the equivalents in San Francisco out of the water. The fact that they have similar population densities with Boston having such low-density southwestern neighborhoods shows how much denser its northern ones must be in order to compensate.
Backbay, North & South End which are Bostons most structurally dense neighborhoods by far. What SF and Philly for the that matter lack in brownstones they make up for in 20-30 story apartment buildings and hence are 100% comparable in built form when it comes to core districts.
Regarding population densities, their resident populations are not similar, only during peak daytime pop. does Boston close the gap
Chelsea is 2.1 square miles
Somerville is 4.1 square miles
Cambridge is 6.4 square miles
Boston is 48 sq. miles so you’d have to make Boston the size of DC (60 sq. miles) to equal San Francisco’s population density at 46 sq. miles
West Roxbury, Roslindale, and Hyde Park are all ~4-4.5 square miles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Backbay, North & South End which are Bostons most structurally dense neighborhoods by far. What SF and Philly for the that matter lack in brownstones they make up for in 20-30 story apartment buildings and hence are 100% comparable in built form when it comes to core districts.
Add Fenway, Allston, Charlestown, Chinatown, and Beacon Hill.
The typical brownstone in one of Boston’s central neighborhoods is at least 3 or 4 stories tall. In Back Bay especially, they get much taller. Some are taller. In Philly, the rowhomes are generally shorter. I actually don’t know much about SF’s vernacular. I suppose the painted ladies are roughly that height.
"Im seeing a trend in the Boston area that is absolutely the way future cities are going to need to function and its amazing. Im not sure if its a byproduct of lack of space in the core, or if its being strategically done, but this new model of each neighborhood having its own core is absolutely the future. The old model of jobs downtown and housing on the outskirts which leads to horrible traffic, pollution, and 0 walkability or bikeability is going away.
Were seeing new cores going up in Allston yards, Fenway Boylston, Fenwat ctr, JFK/Bayside, Seaport, Broadway, Suffolk downs, Beacon yards, Kenmore, Assembly, Dot ave, Andrew sq, Ruggles, Dudley, South bay, Readville, Ink block... and on and on.
At first it wont lead to massive shifts, but over time people move around and change jobs, and with job and housing cores now scattered all over the Boston metro area people will be either much more likely to live closer to the core they work at, work in the core closer to where they live, or live and work in two areas that are easily accessible to eachother."
-Someone wicked smart... This comment came after 4 million square feet of office/residential space were announced today at bayside. https://www.dotnews.com/files/styles...?itok=U63MCdr6 <-- There are like 10-15 of these either under construction or in pipeline that are realllllyyyy adding to the built environment.
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 in Boston.
I can't find the source because it was last year I seen it. But maybe you can find it. How to look up census tracts population per square mile. Chicago has one census tract of over 100,000 people per square mile but that census tract is only a high rise building so it doesn't really count however the only other two cities with census tracts over a hundred thousand people per square mile is New York and San Francisco and San Francisco has six of those tracks and they're blocks long
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
By your logic LA is more urban than Paris because a larger area of lower density
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.
