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.
A couple of the census tracts along the waterfront in or near the Mission Bay area have densities well below 10k per sq mile. More like the 2-3k ppsqm range.
Okay, I stand corrected.
Census Tract 226 and 9809 which are industrial areas along the waterfront have lower densities than 10,000--otherwise, most of the census tracts I mentioned do meet the criteria that I mentioned earlier and in sum constitute a far larger land mass than commensurate 10,000+ppm & $100,000 Median Household Income census tracts in Brooklyn.
Manhattan on the other hand has neighborhoods that are interconnected and people move from one area seamlessly to the next. While they have neighborhoods, they actually don't have little local downtown commercial districts the way SF does. There are just shops and restaurants almost everywhere, they blend into each other, and it is hard to really pinpoint where one commercial area ends and the next begins.
nyc's mass transit does a wonderful job of blanketing its city. but i think there is a fact about manhattan that we don't usually recognize when it comes to its extensive subway service: geography/topography.
manhattan is an usual piece of topography, linear in the way that nothing else is; perhaps metro ny's true "long island". think about it: why does manhattan transit function so well? it's because it is basically a spine with a few north/south subway routes that connect the whole place and a few east heading lines into brooklyn and queens. manhattan is like no other piece of real estate: it can't be centralized because the whole place is centralized, every spot on that north south spine is "the center". only such a piece of land could have what is viewed as its true core, midtown, occupy the 40's and the 50's on its grid.
the linear nature of manhattan explains much about its density and its extensive rapid transit service. If Manhattan were more than a mile wide, let's 2, or 3, or 4, it would have been a vastly different place.
I believe it. In all fairness, though, SF was less populated then and not many people had cars like we do now.
Yes, there are certainly more cars and surface traffic around than 1912. But we're comparing cable pulled street cars to light rail that is on tracks and in some cases tunnels. I thought it would have kept at least par over 100 years.
I have a theory about San Francisco and Los Angeles I'd like to share, just to get your opinions. First off, I think that both are truly great cities of global importance. No state but California could serve up two such super star cities.
My theory is related to the competition between the two to be "The Metropolis of the West". San Francisco, from the days of the Gold Rush, became "The City", the West's only great city, arguably for more than half a century.
LA's true growth was the product of the 20th century, built on oil, defense, Hollywood, an incredible man-made harbor, the ability to corner the market on water, and the mobility of transportation advancements after WWII. LA, at its peak, was the city of the car, a new kind of city compared to the tight urban complexes that personify San Francisco and the cities of the northeast and the midwest.
At the height of the car culture, LA seemed like "the place". And LA seemed to have overtaken SF and was viewed as the true center of the west.
My theory is that as the automobile went from being a source of growth and development in the second half of the 20th century, taking the rise of LA with it, today it is viewed far more negatively due to environmental concerns, the high cost of oil, and the desire for cities that are walkable, dense, and rich in public transit.
LA, to its credit, has worked to reassemble a mass transit system on a modern scale, well past the old dismantling of the little red trolly's of Roger Rabbit fame.
But it can't make itself into a San Francisco, the second densest of American cities, a magnet as such and one that now pulls from the very center of the bay area's car culture (Silicon Valley) back into the joys of the city.
So my theory is basically this: did the rise of the automobile give LA the edge that let it surge past the oldest and most important of western metropolises, San Francisco, but the decline in the adoration of the car may have contributed to San Francisco (meaning actually the Bay Area) being the more important metropolis today? (or at least, SF/Bay Area has caught up with metro LA after the latter rose to its preeminent position in the 20th century)
Well, it's not so much that people don't love the car anymore...it's the decline in quality of life due to so many cars. CA has grown so much-what is it? doubled its population in 30 years or something like that? So people have almost no choice [and this goes for other states and cities around the world] but to 'want to return to dense, urban core, walkable]. Honestly, it's not possible to actually live ones life at the rate we were heading, in terms of time spent in a car vs. time 'living life' [whether work, school, shopping, recreation].
That said, SFO's counter culture and creativity magnet [LA certainly has its creativity, of course], has continued to attract a particular mindset-hence, we have SV [this is arguably a more important factor than the automobile, to SFO's continued economic growth, desirability, higher pay on average, etc.]. Even though the counter culture thing is a myth at this point, and SFO lives off the largese of its past reputation [I mean, really, farmer's markets and local foods, creative types, are now found in so many more places-no need to head to Berkeley for certain things anymore, etc. But SFO and surrounds were certainly pioneers], the area is still driven by innovation, while LA is largely driven by image and lifestyle. SFO and surrounds is more ambitious.
That said, SFO is famously 7 miles by 7 miles-on a peninsula, etc. People are often surprised that SFO only has roughly 800k people. There's only so much space, and nowhere to expand...Of course it's going to find ways to maximize public transit. LA has close to 4 million in the city proper. It's so different that it's amazing...and very hard to compare and contrast, in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean re: the bay area now pulls from its car culture [SV] into the 'joys of the city'. A few more people may want to live in the city and commute to SV now...but largely, people will rent a room near the office and go to the city on weekends. And families will not choose SFO over the peninsula/SV area or east bay, for sure. In fact, schools in both urban SFO and LA, along with cost living/quality of life, will not be attracting families to the 'joy of the city' anytime soon. Yes, there are some effort, some charter schools, etc. But overall, it will be many decades before we see that kind of shift.
I think demographics play a huge factor-and while some talk about the CA 'exodus'-lol-the folks moving 'back' to urban core are largely newly graduated or single adults. And many of them do move from out of state. I don't have stats off hand, but I'd be curious regarding new transplants-how many families vs. singles or couples with no kids, etc are moving into SFO vs. LA.
Well, it's not so much that people don't love the car anymore...it's the decline in quality of life due to so many cars. CA has grown so much-what is it? doubled its population in 30 years or something like that? So people have almost no choice [and this goes for other states and cities around the world] but to 'want to return to dense, urban core, walkable]. Honestly, it's not possible to actually live ones life at the rate we were heading, in terms of time spent in a car vs. time 'living life' [whether work, school, shopping, recreation].
That said, SFO's counter culture and creativity magnet [LA certainly has its creativity, of course], has continued to attract a particular mindset-hence, we have SV [this is arguably a more important factor than the automobile, to SFO's continued economic growth, desirability, higher pay on average, etc.]. Even though the counter culture thing is a myth at this point, and SFO lives off the largese of its past reputation [I mean, really, farmer's markets and local foods, creative types, are now found in so many more places-no need to head to Berkeley for certain things anymore, etc. But SFO and surrounds were certainly pioneers], the area is still driven by innovation, while LA is largely driven by image and lifestyle. SFO and surrounds is more ambitious.
That said, SFO is famously 7 miles by 7 miles-on a peninsula, etc. People are often surprised that SFO only has roughly 800k people. There's only so much space, and nowhere to expand...Of course it's going to find ways to maximize public transit. LA has close to 4 million in the city proper. It's so different that it's amazing...and very hard to compare and contrast, in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean re: the bay area now pulls from its car culture [SV] into the 'joys of the city'. A few more people may want to live in the city and commute to SV now...but largely, people will rent a room near the office and go to the city on weekends. And families will not choose SFO over the peninsula/SV area or east bay, for sure. In fact, schools in both urban SFO and LA, along with cost living/quality of life, will not be attracting families to the 'joy of the city' anytime soon. Yes, there are some effort, some charter schools, etc. But overall, it will be many decades before we see that kind of shift.
I think demographics play a huge factor-and while some talk about the CA 'exodus'-lol-the folks moving 'back' to urban core are largely newly graduated or single adults. And many of them do move from out of state. I don't have stats off hand, but I'd be curious regarding new transplants-how many families vs. singles or couples with no kids, etc are moving into SFO vs. LA.
Yes, I agree that it is the decline in quality of life that is caused by cars that turn people off to them. People are realizing, most notably the Millenials, that commuting 1-2 hours a day in traffic is a huge waste of time, and no way to live, especially if there are better options.
What San Francisco is blessed with is a perfect storm of factors. You are right in that its recent success is due to Silicon Valley, but I think that is just one part, although it is a big aspect.
So SF is next to Silicon Valley which is the brightest spot in the economy right now. Due to the recession, the economy is now structurally changing and is moving more towards high tech and the tech industry is expanding. This benefits SF which is in a position to receive the influence and windfall from SV.
What SF also has is the location, cultural and lifestyle amenities, and relatively mild weather. Young folks are largely after these things, and are no longer looking for the big house in the suburbs, long commute, and strip malls. Since they are delaying children and stats show even marriage, it doesn't matter so much to them they live in a family un-friendly city.
Also, SF has less of an established elite culture like NYC and the East Coast. This means that young folks who come find, perhaps subconsciously, that they are able to become the elite class quite easily and compete for the best resources. In SF, we do have a tech elite. In NYC, even if there were tons of tech millionaires, they'd still be competing against old money and Wall Street for the houses on Park Ave.
So an educated young person who needs a job (tech industry/SV), wants to make a lot of money (tech), also wants to live a certain lifestyle (SF's cultural and lifestyle amenities, weather), with the added benefit of being part of the elite class in a city (SF's lack of elite hierarchy to oppress the newly tech rich), along with all the marketing about "changing the world" that is coming out of the local tech world, is a big draw to them.
I grew up in LA county and to me, it will aways be my hometown, but every time I go back to visit family, I feel like it gets worse. Even though they say the smog has gotten better from before, I think it actually looks like it got worse. This last time I went back, the increase in traffic in just this past year was horrendous and worse than it has ever been before. Even my friends and family that live there told me that in the past year, traffic congestion has gotten worse. Pretty much any hour you drive, any day of the week, there is traffic. I don't ever really enjoy my time down there, but I go to see loved ones. I know every time I go, I start feeling all sick and lightheaded, fatigued and weak. I think it is due to the air pollution, dry air, and heat that my body is not used to.
And the poverty rate in LA is shocking, the first article linked above I think mentions the exact figures.
What I see LA becoming is a gateway (well, it already is) and an extension of Latin America/Asia. In one sense, there is decline, economically, and in quality of life, etc. But in another sense, there is a flourishing of a culture. I'd say LA has the best sampling of Asian culture in the United States.
You've heard that the US doesn't have much of its own real culture, but rather is a patchwork of the cultures brought by immigrants. The US is a nation of immigrants who have settled here. Well, if there was a geographic center for where Asians are contributing their culture to the fabric of the American identity, it would be in LA/OC.
Stretching all the way from LA to OC, you will find Asian groups and communities of all kinds. Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, etc. They have their own economies and can even drive out national American chains. The San Gabriel area has been almost completely taken over by Asian businesses and Vons, Stater Brothers, and other chains have fled.
The children there speak English fluently, but are very immersed in their native culture. They listen to pop music and watch music videos coming out of South Korea and actually prefer those to the stuff coming out of the American music industry these days.
Those who are able to and have the money, take trips back to the motherland, Asia. I think that it is particularly the Taiwanese and Vietnamese that feel a strong connection to their home country and live a large part of their lives back there going back and forth.
The Asian businessmen who are often in the import/trade business see many opportunities and growing business. They get rich and buy huge McMansions in the suburbs in Arcadia and more recently Chino Hills.
Also, as published in the media more recently, is the whole rising of the maternity tourism industry there. Chinese women are arriving on US soil to give birth so their children can have US citizenship, then they go back to China under the guise that they are just there for vacation. That way when their children are adults, they can easily come to the US but also have the benefits of having Chinese citizenship- free healthcare, free public education.
Hispanics and even blacks are becoming more familiar with the Asians that surround them as Hispanic and Asian culture live side by side. In the old days, you wouldn't see a single non-Asian at an Asian restaurant that wasn't PF Changs or Panda Express. Now, you see plenty of hispanics and even blacks dining at Asian restaurants eating pho and what not.
So while I see the decline of LA in a lot of aspects, I also see the flourishing of a beautiful Asian/Hispanic cultural community. One that some day will be so vast, that when you enter the environs there, you won't feel you have just entered a Chinatown, but have entered Asia itself.
(I'd write more about the Hispanic culture in LA, but I am not knowledgable about it.)
Last edited by mini_cute; 01-10-2014 at 12:23 PM..
A lot of techies are commuting 1-2 hours a day down to SV from SF though. They moved to the city to commute to the suburbs lol.
Okay, maybe it is not always the length of the commute but the quality of commute. They are riding nice luxury shuttle buses with wifi. That is a very different experience than riding in your car.
Of course, they live in the city for the amenities too which is a part of it.
Plenty of people still drive though, I know several people that live in SF and commute down the Penninsula.
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.
