ugg style boots uk How can anyone argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco
So far, none of the Philadelphia posters for why Philly offers a more compelling urban experience than San Francisco. The arguments have revolved around urban footprints, which while somewhat interesting as factoids do not make for interesting city comparisons. Using the logic that KidPhilly uses (SF’s urban footprint is interspaced by the Bay so it doesn’t really count), you could literally use the exact same argument against Manhattan as you cannot go to Brooklyn, NJ or Queens without crossing water. On the same token, however,
nobody is going to be stupid enough to make any sort of post that elevates Philly’s urban experience over Manhattan or NYC because of this.
I ask you: What about the urban experience in Philly elevates it over SF other than that it’s bigger?
I then said that his main argument thus far has been saying that the core 47 miles of Philly is denser than San Francisco, when the question of this thread is whether Philly is more urban as a whole than San Francisco as a whole. Urbanity is more than density.
Agree, overall both cities have decent PT, some aspects are better in one versus another. Patco is good for where it covers but does require and seperate pay to transfer to Septa subways at either 8th (MFL) or Walnut (BSL). Philly has better subway lines in the city but are still far too limited. BART is kind of hybrid and has aspects of a subway and regional rail service. Where BART serivices the city of SF it does a great job similar to Septa, but both could be better. There are parts of both that are as good as anywhere. I rode the BSL to the Phils last night and back to Rittenhouse, the ride was 6 minutes on an express from the ballpark which was great,
but I rarely use Septa as many parts of the city are painful to get to. Patco for what it serves is great but again is one line with a limited coverage area.