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.
My point is you don't need highrises and skyscrapers to have a big city feeling. Look at Paris. Density for the city is around 55k psm, yet it's just 6 story midrises across the city except for La Defense.
Chicago's best neighborhoods IMO is not even in the downtown area.
My point is you don't need highrises and skyscrapers to have a big city feeling. Look at Paris. Density for the city is around 55k psm, yet it's just 6 story midrises across the city except for La Defense.
Chicago's best neighborhoods IMO is not even in the downtown area.
I agree that downtown is not the best neighborhood, but density also isn't everything.
Sf is still more dense than Chicago is lol. Doesn't matter how many highrises it has and you'd be surprised at some of the density levels of SF. They can reach Manhattan level densities.
Uh, I live in SF and realize it's very dense. My point is, pure density aside, Chicago's downtown feels bigger and more impressive and "urban" because of taller buildings
Chicago downtown is bigger, San Francisco is denser and more vibrant. SF doesn't need to feel European, it's got a distinctive Northern California/Pacific rim feel which is what it is.
As for Chicago, you can clearly see their dense areas at 40k follow up the lake. So the "more vibrant downtown" in SF happens b/c the dense areas are right around DT. Chicago's is more commercial oriented.
This is basically it. Due to SFs compact nature and lack of space, the transition btwn DT and the neighborhoods is pretty much nonexistent, hence the seemingly greater density.
That just happens to be one of SFs strengths vs other cities.
Chicago is really very dense as well, but more 'broad shouldered'(pun intended), bigger, more breathing room hence the ability to accomodate so many massively huge towers and likewise massive urban redevelopment projects.
This is basically it. Due to SFs compact nature and lack of space, the transition btwn DT and the neighborhoods is pretty much nonexistent, hence the seemingly greater density.
That just happens to be one of SFs strengths vs other cities.
Chicago is really very dense as well, but more 'broad shouldered'(pun intended), bigger, more breathing room hence the ability to accomodate so many massively huge towers and likewise massive urban redevelopment projects.
Good way to put it.
The other difference is that Chicago had a ring of industrial land surrounding downtown. San Francisco never had such a thing. The big coastal Northeastern cities don't either, which is one of a number of ways (Chicago just feels more open in general) San Francisco feels more like a northeastern city even if Chicago is the more centralized, larger city.
I disagree but some hoity toity planning group seems to think so and the median home price in Chinatown is over 1 million dollars so somebody thinks it's desirable.
Furthermore, as far as upscale vibrancy and total economic activity, SFs areas at 20,000+ beat Brooklyn at 100,000+ resoundingly without any effort whatsoever.
Density gives Brooklyn and the Bronx zero advantage over SF whatsoever, theyre just more dense.
And it wasn't named that because of how desirable or upscale it is, which it is not whatsoever, and was actually cited by the APA for it's "housing affordability". Congrats, Chinatown joins the ranks of Downtown Walla Walla, WA. LOL
"...The APA also cited its "bustling sidewalks, housing affordability (and) sustainable character."
Does that "home price" include properties with multiple rental units?
It would be interesting see how 20K+ ppsqm neighborhoods in Brooklyn and SF compare, not sure why you would use two different standards here.
what about population residing in 20K+ for both? Why 100K for one and 1/5th for the other
SF is generally more wealthy on average than any other city but what would be the point of this exercise?
It would show which cities have the most desirable dense neighborhoods. I mean, most of us could already take a guess, but, you could get it down pretty close.
I'm not sure why super-expensive housing is a plus?
Well we are talking about the sort of people who can afford these kinds of prices, right?
It's not my fault that the agreed parameters of the discussion just happen to allow the most chic urban neighborhood on the west coast to be included. lol
Hmmm I know sunset park is the highest of those, over 100k I think... Rego Park probably the lowest, Park slope over 60k or so... I've seen them before posted, so, not fair...
Yep, I didn't expect you'd know those numbers off the top of your head. Rego Park is lower overall, but the census tracts the view I should is around 90k / sq mile. It looks the most built up out of the three, Sunset Park less than the other two. It's just overcrowded with immigrant families. I found an article on public school that said the local elementary school conducts classes in hallways it's so overcrowded.
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.
