5 ms·
The really interesting thing about SF is that it's not 7x7 as people claim- it's actually more like 3x3. The "City" is confined to a tiny area downtown and in t
by woah 13y ago
The really interesting thing about SF is that it's not 7x7 as people claim- it's actually more like 3x3. The "City" is confined to a tiny area downtown and in the Mission and SOMA. The entire southern and western parts of SF are low-density suburban sprawl. This is a result of terrible planning in the 50's and shortsighted opposition to new housing and transit ever since.
- RickHull 13y ago> it's actually more like 3x3. The "City" is confined to a tiny area downtown and in the Mission and SOMA. What about Nob Hill, Russian Hill, and North Beach? Pacific Heights, Marina, Haight? These aren't examples low-density suburban sprawl.
- woah 13y agoGood point, I guess I was lumping them in with downtown. But still, it's basically just the northeast.
- geebee 13y agoI'm guessing you're talking mainly about the outer richmond, outer sunset, and maybe the excelsior? There are a few truly suburban-ish spots in the hilly parts in the middle of the city (like Monterey Heights, for instance), but I don't think those are very extensive. Population density of the outer sunset is: 16,489 Monterey heights: 9,639 btw, I'm getting these from http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Monterey-Heights-San-Francisco-CA.html http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Monterey-Heights-San-F... Now let's take a really sprawly place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch,_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch,_California about 3,500/sq mi This might not be completely fair, since I'm taking all of antioch whereas I'm doing SF in a neighborhood-by-neighborhood way... but all in all, I just don't think you can call any part of san francisco "suburban sprawl" without stretching the term beyond what people typically mean when they say it.