3 ms·
> nowhere else in the states comes close SF comes close. After moving to SF from [small city/town] Europe a few years ago I spent a long time thinking about w
by Swizec 7y ago
> nowhere else in the states comes close
SF comes close.
After moving to SF from [small city/town] Europe a few years ago I spent a long time thinking about what it is that draws me to SF and why the only other city in USA that I'd even consider is NYC.
The answer I came up with was population density combined with population size. You want a big dense population. That creates the economies of scale that make a city feel like a city.
For example I've got 2 corner stores, 3 bars, and 2 restaurants on the same block as my apartment building. That just wouldn't make sense if there wasn't enough people around here to support those businesses.
If you look at US cities by population density on Wikipedia you'll notice the only places with more than 100,000 people and a density above 10,000 per square mile are San Francisco and New York with some surrounding cities in the greater megalopolis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density#Incorporated_places_with_a_density_of_over_10,000_people_per_square_mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Next on the list is Boston. Then Chicago, Philadelphia, and Miami. But those have densities in the low 1X,000/mi^2 whereas SF is at 17,000/mi^2 and NYC a whopping 27,000/mi^2.
Without density a city feels like a sprawling suburb.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- moogleii 7y agoAfter living in the suburbs of California for quite some time, I would have agreed with you. SF seemed like a metropolis in comparison. But after living in NYC for close to a decade, SF now feels like a large suburb with an attached city center. Imo, density/infrastructure/urban-planning-wise, SF feels most similar to Brooklyn, where cars are still very dominant. Brooklyn alone has a density of 35,000/mi^2, where Manhattan alone is at 69,000. Not knocking on your opinion, just adding my 2 cents. Brooklyn is large, fun, exciting, etc, all the things I’d describe SF as, but I don’t know if I’d call it a metropolis on its own (at least not based on my personal opinion), whereas I would easily describe NYC as so (either defined in its entirety or just Manhattan, which would probably bug the natives).
- Swizec 7y agoI agree, I just haven’t had a chance to live in NYC yet :) But it’s the only upgrade on SF that I can think of in USA based on the cities I’ve visited.
- jhatemyjob 7y agoYou could also just like... have a car.
- fizwhiz 7y ago> SF comes close It most certainly does not. SF is a simulacrum of a proper city, but it's sadly the "best" of what's available in the bay area.