Boston vs San Francisco: Cheers vs Full House

[KentXie]

^ at the same time boston is a tiny city and they may be looking out for the next hundred years because if we start building fast its gonna be crammed, theres plenty of time to slowly keep building up the skyline.

San Francisco proved that it is possible for a small city to do so. So why can't Boston?

 

[stick n move]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

San Francisco proved that it is possible for a small city to do so. So why can't Boston?

san francisco is enormous compared to boston

 

[Pierce]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

san francisco is enormous compared to boston

according to wikipedia:

BOS
city: 620,535 people, 48.43 sq mi
urban: 4.0 million people, 1,774 sq mi
metro: 4.5 million people, 4,511 sq mi

SF
city: 808,976 people, 46.7 sq mi
urban: 3.2 million people, no area stated
metro: 4.2 million people, 3,524 sq mi

sound pretty comparable to me

 

[blade_bltz]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^ SF has added a few 650 footers since that pic was taken (you can see the cranes)

Also, Pierce - comparable by the numbers, to some extent yes, but one thing SF has that Boston does not is unbroken urban fabric across the entirety of the city. No deadzones created by freeways or huge scars left by urban renewal. Comparably few vacant lots. Comparably few strips of one story retail...(grr).

Honestly, I'm always shocked SF *only* has 200k more people. Chalk it up to Boston's college students or something...

Also, the metro numbers you posted aren't valid for comparison, since the Bay Area is arbitrarily divided in half by the Census bureau. Absolutely no justification for not including Silicon Valley in San Francisco-Oakland.

Oh, and none of this means Boston shouldn't get a 1000 footer. As already mentioned, if places like Charlotte can go tall...etc etc

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

san francisco is enormous compared to boston

Yes but your comment is mainly referring to the size and infrastructure of the city. If San Fransisco, a city that is even more dense and smaller can continue to expand quickly without being crammed, Boston can.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Also, the metro numbers you posted aren't valid for comparison, since the Bay Area is arbitrarily divided in half by the Census bureau. Absolutely no justification for not including Silicon Valley in San Francisco-Oakland.

Actually, it is pretty comparable.

San Francisco Bay Area CSA
7,354,555, 8,757 sq. mi.

Boston CSA
7,514,759, 10,644 sq mi

 

[tocoto]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

san francisco is enormous compared to boston

First I think Boston and SF are among the best cities in the US but...

Having lived for a long time in both cities I can't say SF is in any way physically enormous compared to Boston. In fact the two cities are comparable in many ways. The feel of Boston grows out the small mentality of the city leaders and citizens (this ain't New York), a mentality that exists in SF but to a lesser extent (high rise moratorium). Boston generally underplays itself for some reason, maybe it's the puritanical roots. Boston has had every chance to be a really big, prominent city even with its current boundaries and population because it had and still has some of the largest and most important banks, corporations and universities in the country. Its skyline could be one of the top 3 or 4 in the country if the best towers proposed in the past 30 years had been built. Those buildings could have been filled if the corporate leaders from Hancock to Gillette to Fleet to so many others had bought rivals instead of sold out. Somehow the mentality of the place is too small to achieve that alpha quality, and so Boston never becomes the prominent place it could be and always settles for second or even third best when it could be among the top.

That said - if Boston were as prominent as it could be, it probably would have lost its charm and livability long ago and the same could be said for SF. We can always visit NYC if we want the alpha city experience.

 

[blade_bltz]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Actually, it is pretty comparable.

San Francisco Bay Area CSA
7,354,555, 8,757 sq. mi.

Boston CSA
7,514,759, 10,644 sq mi

sigh...I don't want to get into a debate. I'm saying the Bay Area, as as an MSA and not a CSA which is based on county-wide commuting patterns, should not arbitrarily cut off Silicon Valley. You have dense, completely uninterrupted development running all the way from SF to the South Bay at 6000 sq/mi. Replace all the tiny, super low density towns along the Pike (to Worcester) and I-95 (to Providence) with Quincys, and the comparison to the Bay Area makes more sense.

The point is that the definition of MSA doesn't work in the Bay Area, since both SF and San Jose are huge economic hubs, and thus they each get their own MSA...but there are absolutely no areas of low density separating them as in the case of Boston and Providence. So the Bay Area really is just one metropolitan area.

 

[Shepard]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

sigh...I don't want to get into a debate. I'm saying the Bay Area, as as an MSA and not a CSA which is based on county-wide commuting patterns, should not arbitrarily cut off Silicon Valley. You have dense, completely uninterrupted development running all the way from SF to the South Bay at 6000 sq/mi. Replace all the tiny, super low density towns along the Pike (to Worcester) and I-95 (to Providence) with Quincys, and the comparison to the Bay Area makes more sense.

It's not really true. What you call "dense, completely uninterrupted development running all the way from SF to the South Bay" is actually a 4-mile wide strip between 280 and the Bay. And it isn't "dense" - within that strip it's Newton at its most dense. West of 280 it's Carlise! San Jose itself, meanwhile, is large but is also towers-in-the-parkish.

The problem with assessing the size of the Bay Area is that yes, it's fairly dense, but it also spreads over a huge area along narrow corridors due to geography. Boston's metro is a cohesive area, but the Bay Area spreads around all different sides of a tremendous bay, with parts of each side somewhat akin the I-95 corridor from Stamford CT to New Haven.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

To add some further "data" to the debate, The U.S. Census Bureau lists "Urbanized Areas" Which, in my opinion, is a far better measure of the actual urban size of a city than metropolitan area. Here's the list from the Census Bureau. It's rather lengthy, but thankfully someone at good 'ol Wikipedia put it in order for us.

According to those standards, Boston's urbanized area is larger than San Francisco.

Personally, the two cities have always felt similarly sized to me. San Francisco feels more dense at the core (because it is), but the geographic restrictions are quite obvious.

 

[tocoto]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm surprised at how high on the list Providence is.

 

[nova617]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm not sure how someone can realistically compare SF and Boston. I consider the entire Bay Area to be metropolitan San Francisco...more than 7,000,000 people. The sophistication and cultural amenities of SF are world-famous as well as the aesthetic value of the terrain. Economically, SF and its metro are far wealthier and more influential...Silicon Valley, SF Financial District, Napa Valley, etc. Liberal politics that make Boston look stodgy. Oaksterdam, North Cali bud, beaches, Opening Gala at the (REAL) Opera, Golden Gate Bridge, etc. etc. Not to mention that the skyline is far superior despite the fact that it is an earthquake zone. As far as I'm concerned, the only advantages Boston has are the history and the relatively cheap housing (although still incredibly overpriced). And the restaurants.

 

[nova617]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

(restaurants in SF are better, i meant to say)

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Watch yourself stoner. You're poking a hornets nest.

 

[nova617]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Ad hominem attacks do not comprise an argument.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm not sure how someone can realistically compare SF and Boston. I consider the entire Bay Area to be metropolitan San Francisco...more than 7,000,000 people. The sophistication and cultural amenities of SF are world-famous as well as the aesthetic value of the terrain. Economically, SF and its metro are far wealthier and more influential...Silicon Valley, SF Financial District, Napa Valley, etc. Liberal politics that make Boston look stodgy. Oaksterdam, North Cali bud, beaches, Opening Gala at the (REAL) Opera, Golden Gate Bridge, etc. etc. Not to mention that the skyline is far superior despite the fact that it is an earthquake zone. As far as I'm concerned, the only advantages Boston has are the history and the relatively cheap housing (although still incredibly overpriced). And the restaurants.

We are talking about density-wise which as already shown is comparable. You are right about the other things and aside from the weather, San Francisco has shown that a city of small area size can achieve such things without clogging the city. If San Francisco is to be able to do that, Boston can do it too but people often believe that because Boston is small in size, it would not be able to achieve these accomplishment or that it should be done so slowly. There is no excuse!

 

[Pierce]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

this is so stupid, but in Boston's defense:

We are way out in front on public transportation; symphony orchestra, the pops, sports culture (sox celts marathon, not that i give a whoop), universities.

and give me the pixies over the grateful dead anyday

But both cities share in a delusion of grandeur that they are the major cultural city on their respective coast.

Honestly I think you'd be hard pressed to convince most people that SF is not the "better city", whatever that is worth, but i've spent time in each and I found them quite comparable in many ways, but not exactly equals of course.

And anyone slogging the boston restaurant scene these days has not done enough dining out in the last 6-8 months.

 

[GW2500]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'd say Boston's closest American comparison is S.F. For all the things you think S.F. is superior in, there are probably just as many things Boston is superior in or we're equal at. I think our summer is better. I mean fuck wearing a sweater in August, but your winter is better. Education, proximity to other major cities (NY, Philly, Balt, DC) all in the same distance as SF to LA. BSO can go toe to toe w/ any city's orchastra. Our 4th of July is probably better. As far as restaurants go, SF is probably the better place for asian and mexican food. But what does SF know about Caribean and brazilian food and maybe you can match our Italian but I doubt it. As far as financial power goes, I'm not sure. One thing I do know is the capital of the world is 4 hrs down the road and I can't help but think Boston is a little more connected to that than SF. Also MBTA is either as good or better than Bart. And as far as herb, whether it's Nor Cali kush, or Vermont purple haze that shit is overpriced and only marginally better.

 

[blade_bltz]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's not really true. What you call "dense, completely uninterrupted development running all the way from SF to the South Bay" is actually a 4-mile wide strip between 280 and the Bay. And it isn't "dense" - within that strip it's Newton at its most dense. West of 280 it's Carlise! San Jose itself, meanwhile, is large but is also towers-in-the-parkish.

The problem with assessing the size of the Bay Area is that yes, it's fairly dense, but it also spreads over a huge area along narrow corridors due to geography. Boston's metro is a cohesive area, but the Bay Area spreads around all different sides of a tremendous bay, with parts of each side somewhat akin the I-95 corridor from Stamford CT to New Haven.

The geographical factors are important, but I don't see why that makes the connectivity between SF and SJ any less real - or the connection between Boston and Providence any more real. The question is whether the 7.5 vs 7.4 million numbers are comparable as metro areas, and this turns on whether Providence (and Worcester, actually) should be included. So if you're trying to make the argument that Providence should be part of the "Boston metro", you need a certain amount of density in between the two, not merely some percentage of commuters from the Providence area driving into the Boston area. In the Bay Area, it is unquestionably the case that you have this density, even if it was "forced" by geographical constraints. In Boston, you reach the exurbs out in Foxborough before you get to Providence. If you had Newton/Quincy all the way down, it would make Boston and Prov way more cohesive.

Newton is 4600 /sqmi, while standing between SF and SJ you've got South City (6700/sqmi), San Bruno (7400/sqmi), Millbrae (6400/sqmi), Burlingame (6500/sqmi), San Mateo (7500/sqmi), San Carlos (4700/sqmi), Belmont (5500/sqmi), Redwood City (3800/sqmi with huge marshes in city limits), EPA (12600/sqmi), Palo Alto (2500/sq mi - half of the town is preserved land), Mountain View (5800/sqmi), Sunnyvale (6000/sqmi), and Santa Clara (5600/sqmi), and Cupertino (4600/sqmi).

I understand that it's all geographically constrained California suburban sprawl, but it's decidedly suburban all the way, whereas 495 territory is pretty clearly Boston exurbia. You definitely pass into a "different metro" when you hit Providence.

Plus, from a non-built environment standpoint, the incredible amount of "reverse" commuting to Silicon Valley from the City and East Bay is probably a better argument for a Bay Area MSA than anything.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The point of the debate is not whether or not the metro is dense all the way or not, it's whether Boston should be able to expand quickly without being crammed. SF is the perfect example and an excellent comparison because area-wise, the city is small, yet it expands big without having too much trouble with the added population. Saying Boston cannot and should not expand quickly because it will get crammed is a weak excuse.