How big is San Francisco? (Oakland, Santa Rosa: neighborhood, pharmacy, live in)

[jaycich]

I guess trips into town where to specific places, I never drove around too much there.

Understand the thing with houses close togethers, but still remember them being similar to our Montrose or the heights area.

[jaycich]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

The last thing anyone would call SF is "suburban". Most European visitors say it's very European, meaning--no side yards, houses jammed up against each other, interspersed with apartment buildings.

By "walkable", people are referring to neighborhoods, where grocery, pharmacy, transit and other basic needs are within walking distance. That describes nearly all of SF, unlike some other cities. Berkeley and Oakland also have quite a few walkable neighborhoods; Oakland has many more than just "a couple".

Also, OP, I can't imagine what you're referring to, when you say SF has a big downtown, twice the size of downtown LA. SF has a very compact downtown. It sounds like you're relatively new to the area, or have only visited a few times, and aren't familiar with all the neighborhood divisions, in SF and Oakland, both. SF and parts of Oakland are fun cities to explore.

Like this pic would you call this city or suburb?

I'm trying to get on the same page with people, I'm not trying to argue city/suburb. I'm just trying to figure out semantics.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by jaycich

Like this pic would you call this city or suburb?

I'm trying to get on the same page with people, I'm not trying to argue city/suburb. I'm just trying to figure out semantics.

That is Alamo Square. It's very much the city.

See density map below. Pretty much no populated part of SF has fewer that 10,000 ppl per sq mile.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by jaycich

Like this pic would you call this city or suburb?

I'm trying to get on the same page with people, I'm not trying to argue city/suburb. I'm just trying to figure out semantics.

What pic?

FYI, "downtown" usually refers to the area around Union Square, let's say--a certain radius around the square, + the FiDi. This area is walkable from one side to another in about 15 minutes of brisk walking. Market St. delineates one border of downtown. I would be very surprised if downtown LA were that compact.

On the map provided, you can see that the city is basically a square. Where you see "Daly City" marking a dividing line is the southern border of SF. The west, east and north limits of the city are waterfront. Everything within those 4 borders is the city of SF. There are no suburbs, unless you count Daly City as a suburb. It's very densely populated, except for the parks and oceanfront areas, obviously. I guess there are a couple of neighborhoods that you could say look suburban, but they're rare and even more expensive than the rest of SF: St. Francis Wood comes to mind.

edit: I looked up Montrose, in Houston. Seems to be a lot of variation there. I can see how some of it, in some ways, may be reminiscent of SF, but there are high-end neighborhoods with standard, spacious lots/yards, and elegant homes, too. Is that what you mean by "suburban"?

[jaycich]

This pic here https://www.google.com/search?client...SujC9aaOuJ7WM:

When I think city I think built up, low rise residential, sometimes with commercial on the first floor. Corner store, barber shop. A light rail train near. A grocery store would be like a little bodega maybe the size of a CVS.

[jaycich]

I remember a zigzag street that went up.

I maybe mixing up with other cities

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by jaycich

I remember a zigzag street that went up.

I maybe mixing up with other cities

OK, thank you; these examples (incl photo) are helpful, to give us an idea of where you're getting your impressions.

The zig-zag street is part of Lombard Street. It's not typical. Still, it's considered "urban", because it's not the typical suburban platting that provides front, side, and back yards. And if you look at the photos of it closely, you'll see that it's flanked by mostly low-rise apartment buildings, not single-family homes.
That popular photo of Victorian houses is what's left of what used to be a neighborhood of Victorians not too far from downtown: the Western Addition. That section of it happens to be across the street from a park, so it may look "suburban" to you, but notice again, that there are no yards. And there are plenty of buildings around those areas, that do have commercial spaces on the ground floor, and apartments above, along with low-rise apartment buildings without the commercial level. Also be aware that many Victorians have been divided into several separate apartments, one on each floor.

Basically, when most people think of "suburban", they think of single-family homes (maybe duplexes here and there) surrounded by gardens, a driveway leading to a garage, and that type of spaciousness on the lot. Although Seattle is full of neighborhoods like that, and those areas still aren't considered "suburbs", so--go figure. But most SF neighborhoods are a far cry from that. The fact that there are individual homes in some neighborhoods, squeezed against each other, doesn't make the neighborhood a "suburb". All of SF is defined as urban. SF's suburbs are actually Berkeley and Oakland.

[jaycich]

I locate market square and Lombard with Chinatown that looks about right. I've walked through there. I don't believe I've been South of there.

Just figuring out where I'm at. It's hard for me to look at a map and tell how big something is. I see it now, it's a lot bigger than I thought.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Also, OP, I can't imagine what you're referring to, when you say SF has a big downtown, twice the size of downtown LA. SF has a very compact downtown. It sounds like you're relatively new to the area, or have only visited a few times, and aren't familiar with all the neighborhood divisions, in SF and Oakland, both. SF and parts of Oakland are fun cities to explore.

The OP may be more referring to the "financial district" of each city when comparing their downtown areas. In that regard, SF has a significantly more substantial skyline with far more buildings over a larger area, and the comparison seems about right. DTLA has a large land mass, but not nearly as many tall buildings.

[nowhereman427]

Originally Posted by jaycich

I remember a zigzag street that went up.

I maybe mixing up with other cities

That could be the famous Lombard Street or the less famous street in Potrero hill.