Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

[Segun]

Philadelphia has the potential to be a powerhouse, and has a human scale that extends over a large seamless area. It has a lot of work though. Many of Philadelphia's rundown areas are intact in the sense that developers haven't gotten the chance to carve it up.

Chicago has swaths of of high pedestrian activity spread across a large area to an extent no other city in the US sans NYC does, and judging by the amount of redevelopment across the city, it will be that way for a long time. You can walk for miles upon miles on endless streets. Vibrant commercial streets/intersection are like veins in the Windy City

SF has intense commercial streets like Chicago + a very compact downtown/greater downtown area. Like Chicago, SF finds a way to make it so you can live in the city with a car somewhat comfortably.

Boston has a vibrant, compact downtown, but I'd say its commercial areas aren't quite as busy and don't have the frequency as SF, just a small notch below it.

DC has an extremely bustling downtown, and beautifully arranged residential streets. Its commercial areas are just a notch below Boston though.

[badrunner]

Yeah, who'd want to live in California when you could enjoy "urbanism" like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9206...2!8i6656?hl=en

Narrow streets, wall to wall buildings up to the sidewalk, no garages, no curb cuts. Checks all the boxes for good urban form.

[Segun]

I don't see the problem with that. I prefer a tree canopy myself, but different strokes for different folks. Is it repetitive? yea, but every city I've been too has areas of repetition. I find the Sunset and Outer Richmond areas to be visually bleak IMO.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by The North One

lol why are Californians so easily offended?

Says the guy who goes off on unhinged rants any time someone mentions Detroit...

[The North One]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Says the guy who goes off on unhinged rants any time someone mentions Detroit...

well then pot meet kettle.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Segun

I don't see the problem with that. I prefer a tree canopy myself, but different strokes for different folks. Is it repetitive? yea, but every city I've been too has areas of repetition. I find the Sunset and Outer Richmond areas to be visually bleak IMO.

Indeed, there is no problem with it. It is perfectly representative of the residential built form in the city.

[chris08876]

It's all personal opinion with regards to the urban aesthetics. Northeast cities tend to be by far grittier. Older infrastructure, the changes throughout history manifesting from the industrial/manufacturing centers that they once were (still present but to a less degree) to financial powerhouses. Both SF and LA are relatively young compared to their Northeast counterparts.

I'd say dynamics in population gain over certain periods shaped the way that they look and the % or proportion of certain architectural styles.

I know you're being sarcastic (I think), but I think most would take California. Quite frankly, kinda looks like a slum and run down.

The idea of run-down areas is really in your face in places like NY or Philly or Baltimore or any large NJ city. Crappy neighborhoods (the ones full of crime or colloquially known as "the hood") in LA look quite pleasant compared to the Northeast counterparts.

[The North One]

This is a total strawman, and it just looks childish on badrunner's part (however consistent with his other strawmans). Even if that street doesn't look the most pleasant (I think it generally looks decent) it is without a doubt more pedestrian friendly than anything on the West Coast, so you've already lost the argument and make yourself look like a fool. Your attempt to belittle "cobblestone streets" with a bad example as evidence isn't fooling anybody.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7230...2!8i6656?hl=en

Oh! Would you look at that! Narrow streets, wall to wall buildings up to the sidewalk, no garages, no curb cuts. Checks all the boxes for good urban form in America's most important city not to mention one of the powerhouses of the world. It can be done!

Let's take a look at one of the best urban neighborhoods in Philly: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9482...2!8i6656?hl=en

From the perspective of somebody who appreciates traditional urbanism, this looks a thousand times more pleasant than anything California has to offer. I would definitely choose this location.

I also find it ironic that Philly's neighborhoods are being portrayed as depressed and uncomfortable when San Francisco is filled with vagrants at every turn, homeless camps, and stabbing/shootings in the city center. The idea that the urbanism in SF is more "comfortable" than Philly is laughable.

[Segun]

If we're going off aesthetics alone as a whole. I'd put Boston and DC above NYC even.

Boston (Boston has a lot of variety for such a small physical area)
https://goo.gl/maps/r3zqxUxzb442

https://goo.gl/maps/kkcQcx7CL5L2 - this bears an odd resemblance to SF

https://goo.gl/maps/KhFgu6qD5K22

DC
https://goo.gl/maps/7oEDUAszAoS2

https://goo.gl/maps/HUYGndMR4J42

https://goo.gl/maps/LYFJFRu12jD2

You can see how the tree canopy really adds to the charm of DC

[badrunner]

Why would you post a picture of NY when I was specifically addressing Quixote's statement that "In terms of pure urban design, Philly is clearly #1 in my eyes." I already agreed with him about NY.

As for Spruce st. in Philly, lol, that exact same streetview was already posted by Crawford earlier. What a coincidence huh? Must be the one nice street in Philly, but we both know that the streetview I posted is far more representative of the housing stock in the city. It wasn't even a particularly bad neighborhood. I was actually being very fair. It's not that hard to find third world looking bombed-out sections of the city if I really wanted to cherrypick.

[Segun]

IMO, I prefer this area of Philly over by University City:

https://goo.gl/maps/4A3RaTpNTG62

Much of Philly looks like this though:

https://goo.gl/maps/ct5nRQ7HiTP2

Here's an area of South Philly that's in better shape:

https://goo.gl/maps/eVeJjCdeCZG2

Germantown Area:

https://goo.gl/maps/jZc7racWJuq

Square bay windows are iconic to Philly

https://goo.gl/maps/sGg7Z177Q8A2

I don't know what would make someone think that a city of 150+ square miles would have one type of look throughout its borders. Philly is a vast, complex city. It lost a lot of people, but it has bones other cities would kill for.

[dc_denizen]

yeah sunset and richmond are indeed a bit bleak..the endless stucco and garage doors...probably has more to do with the weather and lower property values near the fog/ocean.

the rest of SF proper is too built up for the kind of nice eastern style (or denver or KC style) rowhouse/small lot historic home neighborhood to exist.

Maybe you have to go to the east and south bay for this typology?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by badrunner

As for Spruce st. in Philly, lol, that exact same streetview was already posted by Crawford earlier. What a coincidence huh? Must be the one nice street in Philly

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Why would you post a picture of NY when I was specifically addressing Quixote's statement that "In terms of pure urban design, Philly is clearly #1 in my eyes." I already agreed with him about NY.

As for Spruce st. in Philly, lol, that exact same streetview was already posted by Crawford earlier. What a coincidence huh? Must be the one nice street in Philly, but we both know that the streetview I posted is far more representative of the housing stock in the city. It wasn't even a particularly bad neighborhood. I was actually being very fair. It's not that hard to find third world looking bombed-out sections of the city if I really wanted to cherrypick.

Where's the disconnect?

The point is that minus Broad, Market, and a few other major crosstown arterials, the overwhelming majority of Philly's streets are less than 5 lanes wide total. Which other big urban city can say the same? Even Boston has some comparatively wide streets in prime residential areas such as Back Bay and the South End.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Segun

I don't know what would make someone think that a city of 150+ square miles would have one type of look throughout its borders. Philly is a vast, complex city. It lost a lot of people, but it has bones other cities would kill for.

Philly has some nice leafy suburbs to be sure, but the housing shown earlier is very typical of the housing stock in central Philly (I never said it was the only type of housing in the whole city). Also, if we're comparing apples to apples, keep in mind that San Francisco is a much smaller city with an area somewhat equivalent to central Philly. You'd have to go to Berkeley or Sausalito to find equivalent suburbs.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

the overwhelming majority of Philly's streets are less than 5 lanes wide total. Which other big urban city can say the same?

We don't disagree on the facts. I just find it strange that people use such narrow and limited criteria for evaluating urban design.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by The North One

This is a total strawman, and it just looks childish on badrunner's part (however consistent with his other strawmans). Even if that street doesn't look the most pleasant (I think it generally looks decent) it is without a doubt more pedestrian friendly than anything on the West Coast, so you've already lost the argument and make yourself look like a fool. Your attempt to belittle "cobblestone streets" with a bad example as evidence isn't fooling anybody.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7230...2!8i6656?hl=en

Oh! Would you look at that! Narrow streets, wall to wall buildings up to the sidewalk, no garages, no curb cuts. Checks all the boxes for good urban form in America's most important city not to mention one of the powerhouses of the world. It can be done!

Let's take a look at one of the best urban neighborhoods in Philly: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9482...2!8i6656?hl=en

From the perspective of somebody who appreciates traditional urbanism, this looks a thousand times more pleasant than anything California has to offer. I would definitely choose this location.

I also find it ironic that Philly's neighborhoods are being portrayed as depressed and uncomfortable when San Francisco is filled with vagrants at every turn, homeless camps, and stabbing/shootings in the city center. The idea that the urbanism in SF is more "comfortable" than Philly is laughable.

While I am not going to defend BadRunner's odd stance against east-coast style urbanism, it's also clear you don't know California very well. Or much of the country for that matter. The absurdity of your sweeping generalizations detract from your overall arguments.

There are great examples of urbanism in every part of the U.S., it just comes in different flavors.

[Cory]

Do people here really feel like the Richmond and Sunset in SF are developed similarly? I genuinely do not see it. The Richmond maintains a density similar to more central parts of SF that is compromised of apartment buildings and flats for more than half of its area and we are talking about one of the largest neighborhoods in the city. I moved to the Richmond about three months ago around Geary and 23rd and the population density is not too far off from where I used live in the Haight which has a density a little under 40,000 people per square mile.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/ric...francisco.html

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

yeah sunset and richmond are indeed a bit bleak..the endless stucco and garage doors...probably has more to do with the weather and lower property values near the fog/ocean.

the rest of SF proper is too built up for the kind of nice eastern style (or denver or KC style) rowhouse/small lot historic home neighborhood to exist.

Maybe you have to go to the east and south bay for this typology?

The most surprising thing about San Francisco is all the above ground telephone poles & electric lines, even in the "better" neighborhoods. L.A. is far ahead in burying them. Spruce up the L.A. River, add some water in the dry season, develop the remaining parking lots, and give the homeless a place to sleep, and in a decade or two core L.A. could be right up there with S.F. The population density, museums, concert halls, theaters, central markets, old historic office buildings etc. are already there. Add a bit more beauty & walkability & improved transit & voila! San Francisco with (usually) better weather & not nearly as much smog as decades ago (but alas no bay but maybe a river walk and park). San Francisco is the easier city to love I admit, but core L.A. is gaining. Beautification makes economic sense. Property values rise.

And did I mention, San Diego has a San Francisco at it's heart too? And they have a bay.

[CaliNative]

1. The Mt. Lowe railway. I never saw it, but the old pics are spectacular.

2. The Richfield Tower. Spectacular. I remember it as a kid.

3. Bunker Hill neighborhood with the old victorians. Thankfully, the grand old 1910s-1920s office buildings & theaters survive east of Hill. The boom didn't reach over there until they were saved & appreciated. The Eastern Columbia Tower is wonderful.

4. The old Pacific Ocean Park ("POP"), L.A.'s Coney Island (along with the Long Beach Pike).