SF: the only city that could fit into US's N.E. quadrant?

[edsg25]

Is San Francisco unique in its relationship to other US cities?

Personally, I think it is.

If you separate the US into quadrants and look at the northeast quadrant (the New England, Middle Atlantic and Great Lakes region), no other city out of that quadrant shares the urban characteristics of the region as San Francisco.

After the Gold Rush, SF became "The City" in the west. It has developed its long and lusty history over a period of time that no western city can match. SF's late 19th/early 20th century growth paralleled the same growth in eastern and midwestern cities, with immigrant groups from Europe (and, in the case of SF, Asia) adding to the mix.

SF density is unique outside of the northeast quadrant of the country. It is a city that always depended on public transit. Surrounded on three sides by water, the city has never sprawled like other western cities.

The South, of course, is very old. But until after WWII and the introduction of air conditioning, southern cities just didn't grow that fast or felt that densely urban as the cities of the Northeast , Midwest, and SF. Southern cities, like Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas, have come of age far later than San Francisco. And older ones like New Orleans never followed the n.e. quadrant model.

Out west, LA grew using a model completely alien to the Northeast/Midwest/SF model. Seattle's growth has been largely since WWII and it, too, lacks the sense of density that SF has.


Culturally, SF is Far West and is different from the eastern and midwestern cities, but its urbanization, its sense of place, and the way it experienced the course of US history from mid-19th century is similiar.

I can't think that comes close to the eastern/midwestern model than San Francisco.

[George_Castanza]

You connote the irresistible. San Francisco, and Michael Savage, are out of place. Best to separate them before moving SF that much more to the right, though. H.P. Lovecraft would have to be consulted about where that would put MS; and he passed. Just trying to be helpful.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by George_Castanza

You connote the irresistible. San Francisco, and Michael Savage, are out of place. Best to separate them before moving SF that much more to the right, though. H.P. Lovecraft would have to be consulted about where that would put MS; and he passed. Just trying to be helpful.

so, George, would you, Jerry, Elaine, and Krammer be comfortable leaving the upper west side and resettling in San Francisco? I'm sure Estelle and Frank could make a comfortable home for themselves in Oakland, if that would be Queens-like enough for them.

[rt_0891]

Other than density, SF lacks very little resemblance with NE cities.

[A42251]

Density is, above all, a function of geography, not region of the country (or quadrant).

What I mean is that the reason why SF is the only western city with Northeast caliber density is because it is the only western city with such severe land restrictions (being at the end of a skinny peninsula, surrounded by water on three sides). The only other Western city I can think of with significant land restrictions is Seattle, and Seattle is one of the densest western cities outside of SF.

[Rail Claimore]

New Orleans is the other big older-city exception to the Northeast/Great Lakes rule... except that it's growth fizzled out after the 1960's in favor of the two Texas metros. Had New Orleans achieved its full potential, it would be like the cities you described.

[samsonyuen]

How does Miami fit in this equation. I agree SF shares many qualities of the Northeast quad, but could Miami be argued to be as much?

[James704]

Some say SF is the most European US city. I agree, it's quite unique and traditional.

[The Mad Hatter!!]

Originally Posted by samsonyuen

How does Miami fit in this equation. I agree SF shares many qualities of the Northeast quad, but could Miami be argued to be as much?

same thing i said,

[sean storm]

Originally Posted by A42251

Density is, above all, a function of geography, not region of the country (or quadrant).

What I mean is that the reason why SF is the only western city with Northeast caliber density is because it is the only western city with such severe land restrictions (being at the end of a skinny peninsula, surrounded by water on three sides). The only other Western city I can think of with significant land restrictions is Seattle, and Seattle is one of the densest western cities outside of SF.

you're wrong.

it's not just geography. it also has everything to do with period of development, economics, and urban planning.

and seattle isn't even that dense. many parts of metro LA are considerably denser than seattle in population - santa ana, long beach, etc.

[expat_marla]

Originally Posted by rt_0891

Other than density, SF lacks very little resemblance with NE cities.

I disagree. I lived in the SF Bay Area for a number of years (early 90's) Having then gone to visit Boston I was convinced that those two cities were sister cities. The similarities between the two seemed overwhelming to me at the time. Perhaps its changed, dunno.

[sean storm]

density is a very BROAD category and has many implications beyond just how many people or things or whatever are crammed within a given space. density also tends to define streetscapes, transit usage, pedestrian activity, land usage, etc etc.

i never thought of SF as being similar to any city in the east coast, let alone the US at large, given its totally unique cityscape and quirky vernacular of pastel victorians. it shares some commonalities with boston, and of course the big apple. more often than not, many people who visit SF and look at downtown comment that SF is like the little manhattan on the west coast. and for obvious reasons.....

[edsg25]

There are some key issues that I don't think have been carefully looked at here that are part of my original post:

• History: industrialization and immigration were key elements of the development of US cities after the Civil War. Cities in the northeast (both New England and Mid-Atlantic) were far older than midwestern cities, but cities in both regions experienced the massive growth after the Civil War concurrently. And, with that growth, came the development of true American culture.

No city but San Francisco experienced that type of development from the mid-19th century through the beginning of the twentieth. The Civil War ended a the South's ability to build its economy on the backs of slaves; the New South didn't emerge until well after WWII; even a very old and urban like city like New Orleans didn't experience the type of growth that was taking place in what we referred to as "The North" (northeast, Midwest) during the Civil War, as well as in San Francisco . In the west, no city challenged SF's dominance during the later part of the 19th century and into the 20th. LA's rise to promenience was built on a model vastly different from that of NY, Chgo, SF. Meanwhile, even cities like Seattle didn't truly come of age until after WWII.

• Georgraphy: San Francisco's geography is unique in the west, and was best suited in creating an eastern style density and urbanization. No US city is as issolated in location as SF. Water surrounds it on three sides (and that water is not the rivers that separate Manhattan from the rest of NYC and from NJ). A 7x7 sq mi peninsula confined SF at a time when no Bay Bridge or GG connected the citgy with Marin and East Bay. Even the hastily built street grid (put on a city that was experiencing massive growth during the Gold Rush), while disregarding the hills, created an urbanization characteristic akin to the east and the midwest.

Again, San Francisco is west. It faces the Pacific and Asia. And despite its claims otherwise, it still is California. Of course there are cultural differences between it and cities across the continent. But as to its urban development, it still has far more in common with places north of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi than any other city. At least IMHO>

[*Sweetkisses*]

Only because of its density. I think Chicago would fit much better though.

[schreiwalker]

Originally Posted by sean storm

you're wrong.

it's not just geography. it also has everything to do with period of development, economics, and urban planning.

and seattle isn't even that dense. many parts of metro LA are considerably denser than seattle in population - santa ana, long beach, etc.

I agree. it all comes down to ease of transportation and cutural preferences. geography can only sometimes force density (like manhattan, once it grew large enough, or hong kong). but it is laughable to think that cities in the midwest became dense cities because of geographical constraints.

[TheKansan]

I wonder what LA's density would be if it was 49 square miles centered at it's current downtown. I'm pretty sure it would be over 15,00ppsm.

My point is that LA has some northeastern style density in it too. My real point is that density is meaningless without the correct built enviroinment.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by schreiwalker

I agree. it all comes down to ease of transportation and cutural preferences. geography can only sometimes force density (like manhattan, once it grew large enough, or hong kong). but it is laughable to think that cities in the midwest became dense cities because of geographical constraints.

cultural preference, geography, lol. One explanation is always too simple. Age or simply the time when the city was built up most is the biggest density reason. If a city developed before cars, it will simply have to be dense for the sake of walkers, buggy riders, and horse riders. There wasn't some cultural superiority in NY, London or SF. They simply had to do this. Once this happens, then geography comes into play. This is especially true for cities today that were dense before the automobile. Where else can you build in Manhattan, Chicago or Hong Kong. You build up. The density has also caused high land prices that make a development like Legacy impossible, as well as cities only being able to zone for building up because they are landlocked and need tax base. Midwest cities became dense because people couldn't hit the freeway out to the burbs at 60-70 mph. Most walked or rode horses. Same for the coasts. Once these places with geographical constraints filled up, they had to build up. No room, high land prices.

New Sunbelt cities like Atlanta or Dallas are a different story. Their current urban booms are the result of demand, land prices/need for tax base. There are no physical barriers to make them build up or dense. Both boomed with the automobile. In other words, in SF I have to build up and close. In Dallas I could build out, but its cooler and more useful to the taxbase to cram a lot in the innercity.

[George_Castanza]

as regards the COstanzas moving to SFO: "so, George, would you, Jerry, Elaine, and Krammer be comfortable leaving the upper west side and resettling in San Francisco? I'm sure Estelle and Frank could make a comfortable home for themselves in Oakland, if that would be Queens-like enough for them."

Elaine has already moved to Oakland (at Michael Savages alma) where she is studying computer programming, but she can't seem to make her mind up about which language to concentrate on: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, [Sanskrit], Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, or Urdu, (ouch my tongue! it bit my teeth there.)

Jerry just did a one man show about a 2 minute walk from my apartment, and it was well-received by all reports. I thought there should have been more jokes about the moral failure of rap music though. "What's up with all this rap music stuff...what is that all about" [mimes rap 'song' to much recognition-based laughter] He is not freaking out lately. Which is a good thing.

Kramer has moved. He is at Creedmore, where he is a head of Psychopathology.

My parents are going into city planning and I feel inaqueduct about that. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I want to discuss that. Architect is the only architectonic titular profession there is ... OK, interior space designer and decorator included -- if that helps you. -- Oh yah, I'm marrying my former secretary, Vicki Lewis, perhaps the greatest (super important) second banana comedienne since Vivian Vance.

Thank you for asking. I've been offered a job hawking Yankee yearbooks in the stands at the New Yankee Stadium very soon.

[philadweller]

I agree that San Francisco is set up much like a Northeastern city. After living in Boston, NYC, SF and Philly I can see the connection. Parts of Philly seem very SF in character especially South Philly with all its corner markets and West Philly with its hills, Victorians and streetcars. In Boston Beacon Hill is the sister hill of Nob Hill.

One thing that remains very different though is the palette. SF is a white city whereas cities in the East are built with brick or granite. The trees and landscape are so different too. Another difference is the people. SF is full of migrating flocks that come and go. The eastern cities are less transient.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by *Sweetkisses*

Only because of its density. I think Chicago would fit much better though.

Chicago is in the n.e. quadrant already!