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.
Yes, I’m talking about NYC, not about the entire East Coast.
And yes, Jersey City is not officially in NYC proper, but it’s connected to Manhattan by sharing a border, tunnels, and 24/7 rapid transit just like the outer boroughs in NYC, so I expected JC to be more in line with the outer boroughs.
There's a lot of moving the goal posts in the responses here. Based on city proper size, SF will remind the 2nd densest. The SF MSA is relatively dense as well. SF packs a lot in terms of density and GDP Per Capita for a city its size. Despite its issues, SF always finds a way forward. It's a gorgeous place and we're lucky to have this kind of city in the US.
There's a lot of moving the goal posts in the responses here. Based on city proper size, SF will remind the 2nd densest. The SF MSA is relatively dense as well. SF packs a lot in terms of density and GDP Per Capita for a city its size. Despite its issues, SF always finds a way forward. It's a gorgeous place and we're lucky to have this kind of city in the US.
We are, but the question is what city could/would pass SF. SF is beautiful (Albeit, not nearly as beautiful streetwise as it was 10-15 years ago).. but thats not the question.
Sure it's possible but it's highly unlikely. There really aren't as many infillable areas in Boston as you think. You'd have to destroy neighborhoods, and that's not what the residents want. High rises are only allowed in certain areas. Much of the urban area surrounding downtown is not even part of the city, so a large part of the densifying happens in nearby cities. In fact, Boston is only the 4th densest city in metro Boston. It will have to catch Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea before it can even think about San Francisco.
I think Boston is unique in that it would actually gain density if it became bigger.
What do you mean by "compared to over here"? Compared to NYC proper, yes it's not very dense. But compared to the rest of the East Coast, SF feels just as if not more urban and dense than the vast majority of cities.
it really depends the densest area of Philly in comparable size to SF is slightly more dense just Philly has a lot more land area (135 sq miles) with an enormous port, 18 sq miles of park, two airports and the east coasts largest oil refinery complex etc.
To me SF (with some high peak in a very small footprint) feels no more dense than Boston or Philly. None are close to NYC in pure scale of dense construction
Philly peaked at about 18K ppsm over the 135 sq miles in the 1950s and then lost population mostly because of household size changes since then
It's doubtful any city will be denser than San Francisco.
They're mountain limited--terrain unsuitable for use. The city is relatively small in square miles. And nothing can be done about it either.
This is the only time I've ever heard SF described as "mountain limited". OP, did you not notice the water on 3 sides? Being a peninsula, most people characterize it as limited by water. Its growth to the south was limited by the border to the next county. There's flat, unimpeded terrain there contiguous to SF, but it belongs to the county to the south of SF.
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.
