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.
An intriguing concept that was brought forth in the "Most Urban" thread when it was still interesting is the concept of "pedestrian" traffic. Not much to go on out there in the web. But I found a couple of tidbits that I thought may be of interest concerning Powell St. of Downtown San Francisco and how it compares with other busy pedestrian thoroughfares from other major cities.
Plus a couple of other various steets from SF, London, Melbourne. Sorry, I'm feeling pretty lazy, lol! However, I feel this data goes to show how high some of SF's streets can peak if they are being compared to streets like these. These are streets where there is so much pedestrian action that you can sense the "vibrancy" in the air. So, if that's what you want to talk about. Pedestrian volume is a good start.
I would love to see counts for other cities/streets. But like I said, information is sparse on this concept.
I'm not sure why pictures of Manhattan are being shown, my thread wasn't intended to be what city is most like Manhattan, it is to compare the part of each city that function the way Manhattan does (center of culture, fashion, business, etc).
I added photos of Manhattan to give posters an idea of the feel of Manhattan is. I guess it's a bit off topic for the thread since looks aren't the same as function. I'm a bit overenthusiastic about posting my photos at any chance they're even slightly relevant. Sorry for the hijack but hope you like the photos!
I added photos of Manhattan to give posters an idea of the feel of Manhattan is. I guess it's a bit off topic for the thread since looks aren't the same as function. I'm a bit overenthusiastic about posting my photos at any chance they're even slightly relevant. Sorry for the hijack but hope you like the photos!
Pics were great! Just didn't want the thread to turn into no city can compare to NYC blah blah blah
Central Park isn't in the city center either; it's the center of the island but north of Downtown and Midtown. Philadelphia's Fairmount Park starts at the Art Museum and is mostly bordered by very urbanized areas. There's also the Delaware waterfront; supposedly they were doing things on the Schuylkill waterfront on the east bank but last I was there, there was a park, but it stank (literally, of garbage).
Central Park starts at 59th street, which I think is the northern edge of Midtown so at least it's adjacent to the city center. I didn't realize Fairmount Park starts at the Art Museum, I haven't gone past the Art Museum. I remember a very nice park in Philly that we drove to and seemed like it was on the edge of the city past the sketchiest neighborhood I've seen (Bed Stuy with housing projects was close, but the Philly hood felt worse). And yea, Manhattan doesn't really have a park in the center, if center is south of 59th street. Personally, I feel that Manhattan should have a number of small parks there, maybe at the expense of the full size of Central Park. But that's another thread.
But by looks, posters here have convinced me (esp kidphilly) that Philly looks the most Manhattan-like in style if not in scale. To answer the OP's question, of American cities, Chicago, Philly and San Francisco all have good arguments in their favor for having the most urban Manhattan-like place. Boston is urban but doesn't have quite the right feel, something about makes me feel like I'm in a smaller town. Chicago's probably the best choice.
The correct answer is London, the city I'm most familiar with (at least until 4 years ago) besides NYC. A friend who visited Hong Kong told me it felt quite a bit like Manhattan. But with nature immediately next door.
Central Park starts at 59th street, which I think is the northern edge of Midtown so at least it's adjacent to the city center. I didn't realize Fairmount Park starts at the Art Museum, I haven't gone past the Art Museum. I remember a very nice park in Philly that we drove to and seemed like it was on the edge of the city past the sketchiest neighborhood I've seen (Bed Stuy with housing projects was close, but the Philly hood felt worse). And yea, Manhattan doesn't really have a park in the center, if center is south of 59th street. Personally, I feel that Manhattan should have a number of small parks there, maybe at the expense of the full size of Central Park. But that's another thread.
But by looks, posters here have convinced me (esp kidphilly) that Philly looks the most Manhattan-like in style if not in scale. To answer the OP's question, of American cities, Chicago, Philly and San Francisco all have good arguments in their favor for having the most urban Manhattan-like place. Boston is urban but doesn't have quite the right feel, something about makes me feel like I'm in a smaller town. Chicago's probably the best choice.
The correct answer is London, the city I'm most familiar with (at least until 4 years ago) besides NYC. A friend who visited Hong Kong told me it felt quite a bit like Manhattan. But with nature immediately next door.
There are similarities but on the whole Philly to me feels most like BK actually
But there are aspects they share (makes sense as they both developed at the same time and are in very close proximity to one another physicially with basically the exact same weather (that factors in some ways)
You could also argue that NYC mimicked Philly in some ways early on. To me though there is not equivelent to midtown (sans a few blocks maybe and Chicago or SF mimic this better more likely, esp the Loop in Chicago)
These are some images (my own) that remind me of parts fo Manhattan or BK though - but end of the day Philly is a rowhouse city and far moreso than NYC and more similar to Baltimore in this regard
Which is not to say Philly is much like Manhattan; it's not; it's less cohesive and obviously not nearly as populated.
Manhattan has slightly more people than Philly but not by much (110,000). At their peak the difference was wider. Manhattan reached 2.33 million and Philly 2.07 million, though not at the same time; Philly reached its peak in 1950, Manhattan 1910. In 1910, Manhattan had 50% more people!
For Toronto, you'd definitely have to include downtown and Yonge & Eglinton (Midtown, but has the busiest intersection for pedestrians). Otherwise, it's hard to say exactly what other areas to add. A lot of the main streets (College, Bloor/Danforth, Queen, Yonge) extend quite far from downtown and still have a lot of ammeneties and such, but away from those streets it's pretty quiet. You also have North York Centre, which is urban and has a lot of ammenities and density (3 of the 5 census tracts above 100,000ppsm), but it's 8 miles from downtown and surrounded by inner-ring suburb style neighbourhoods.
The main aspects where Toronto is not comparable to Manhattan or even some of the other big cities I would say is high end food, museums and historic architecture. Toronto has a very large number of theatres though (similar to Broadway), and high transit ridership. Toronto doesn't have that much rapid transit compared to DC or Chicago, but it has a quite good gridded bus network. Toronto ranks #10 among Canadian/US cities for route miles, but 2nd in ridership and 1st or 2nd for ridership/mile.
Here's some pictures of Toronto that are somewhat New York/Manhattan-esque
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.
