i surrender SF is the most beautiful us city

[edale]

I love Boston, but I think San Francisco is much prettier and more majestic. Boston's famed triple-deckers aren't very attractive imo, and that's a pretty dominant form outside of the core. Outside of the premier core areas like Back Bay, Beacon Hill, etc. Boston seems to have more wooden housing than brick.

SF's topography and geography is just hard to beat, and when combined with the architecture and density of the city (#2 in the US behind NYC), it's just a very special and beautiful place. The sunlight, fog, unique vegetation and microclimates also contribute to SF's interesting environment.

[Steely Dan]

Beauty is subjective and can be about different things, which seem to be getting crossed here.


Does SF have the most spectacular and scenic setting for a major US city with the hills, the bay, the bridges, the golden gate, etc.?

I would say yes.


Does SF, on balance, have the most beautiful residential vernacular and streetscapes in the US?

I would say no. It's not bad on that score , but probably behind the bos-wash biggies IMO.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Does SF, on balance, have the most beautiful residential vernacular and streetscapes in the US?

I would say no. It's not bad on that score , but probably behind the bos-wash biggies IMO.

Yeah, I'm very partial to this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FhNUdYW8AiHg64U46

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

The charm would be lost if it was just a bunch of blue modern skyscrapers.

What does that have anything to do with San Francisco being a small city in both population and expanse?

[Crawford]

I mean, SF is not that small. I'd say it's the fourth largest urban core in the U.S., behind only NYC, Chi and DC. Philly and Boston are slightly smaller. It has a large metro population and huge metro economy.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Beauty is subjective and can be about different things, which seem to be getting crossed here.


Does SF have the most spectacular and scenic setting for a major US city with the hills, the bay, the bridges, the golden gate, etc.?

I would say yes.


Does SF, on balance, have the most beautiful residential vernacular and streetscapes in the US?

I would say no. It's not bad on that score , but probably behind the bos-wash biggies IMO.

Fair enough, this is certainly an inherently subjective topic. I also love the residential vernacular of DC, Brooklyn, and Boston. DC in particular has some absolutely gorgeous residential-- from Logan Circle over to Georgetown, that whole swath of the city is just stunning. I still find the combination of natural scenery + cityscape in SF more spectacular, but I can certainly see how people could argue otherwise.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

What does that have anything to do with San Francisco being a small city in both population and expanse?

Your statement was " When coming from a mega city San Francisco although pretty just feels too small, that's my only knock against it." Which I took as you meant it's not full of skyscrapers. Perhaps you can clarify.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by edale

Boston's famed triple-deckers aren't very attractive imo, and that's a pretty dominant form outside of the core.

The urban environment of the outer neighborhoods is wildly underrated. These houses are tall, colorful, and dense, often towering over the streets on hills, for many miles on end. The lack of any meaningful grid also goes a long way to creating a maze-like atmosphere, very magical at street level.

DJI_0193-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

DJI_0449-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

"Southie" in the foreground, considered our most "SF looking" neighborhood.

IMG_0853 by Phil, on Flickr

[JManc]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

What does that have anything to do with San Francisco being a small city in both population and expanse?

It's small if you just moved there from Shanghai but I never got that impression about it at all.

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Your statement was " When coming from a mega city San Francisco although pretty just feels too small, that's my only knock against it." Which I took as you meant it's not full of skyscrapers. Perhaps you can clarify.

Perhaps you need to get out more, Mexico City is not full of skyscrapers, makes most American cities look like small towns in comparison. Don't overthink it.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's small if you just moved there from Shanghai but I never got that impression about it at all.

yeah, it's a core city that happens to be separated from its next ring out suburbs and satellites by geography..

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yeah, it's a core city that happens to be separated from its next ring out suburbs and satellites by geography..

You hit the nail, if San Francisco was not separated from Berkeley and Oakland it would give off a much more impressive experience from a large city POV, however it would lose a lot of it's famous views that it's known for. Hence my original comment.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

Perhaps you need to get out more, Mexico City is not full of skyscrapers, makes most American cities look like small towns in comparison. Don't overthink it.

I've been to Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Bogota, and many more of the world's mega cities. Thanks for the lesson though.

[edale]

Originally Posted by DZH22

The urban environment of the outer neighborhoods is wildly underrated. These houses are tall, colorful, and dense, often towering over the streets on hills, for many miles on end. The lack of any meaningful grid also goes a long way to creating a maze-like atmosphere, very magical at street level.

DJI_0193-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

DJI_0449-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

"Southie" in the foreground, considered our most "SF looking" neighborhood.

IMG_0853 by Phil, on Flickr

Honestly looks like Cleveland

[PhilliesPhan]

I visited SF for the first time back in June 2023. To this day, I have not been able to stop dreaming about it. I'm a native Philadelphian who still lives in the city, loves it, and thinks that it is one of the most beautiful US cities, but SF is on another level. The Victorian homes, streetcars and trolleys, the bay, and the hills made me fall deeply in love with SF. To this day, the best run I've ever completed was between the Ferry Building and Sausalito via the Golden Gate Bridge. It wasn't my fastest run (I kept on stopping to take pics), but it was the most breathtaking by far. The only part that wasn't gorgeous was riding the bus down International Boulevard in Oakland lmao.

As someone who works in the transit industry and is a transit nerd on the side, the Bay Area's multiple transit systems were also a great part of my trip. I had fun taking BART into the city from SFO, riding on the side of streetcars, taking the N line to the Pacific Ocean at the end of Judah, and spotting the PRT, PTC, and Red Arrow trolleys along Market Street that used to grace the streets of the Philadelphia area. It was also exciting to see catenary up over CalTrain's tracks!

SF is my third favorite US city, only behind Philly and NYC. I would move there in a heartbeat if I had to live on the West Coast.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by edale

SF's topography and geography is just hard to beat, and when combined with the architecture and density of the city (#2 in the US behind NYC), it's just a very special and beautiful place. The sunlight, fog, unique vegetation and microclimates also contribute to SF's interesting environment.

Agreed. To expand on this, I also like that it has a good amount of publicly accessible green space with great views throughout the city. Obviously there are the big well known ones like Golden Gate, Mission Dolores, Alamo Square, Alta Plaza, and Lafayette, but even small pocket parks embedded in the various neighborhoods offers a slice of tranquility for rest and reflection. One of my personal favorites is Ina Coolbrith, just northwest of Chinatown. Most people in the area gravitate towards Washington Square, but Ina Coolbrith offers better views and is far less crowded, so it's a nice little urban oasis. Coupled with the topography, you're pretty much guaranteed S tier views no matter where you turn, since you get really nice vantage points that are publicly accessible.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Whatever its failings, SF is a pearl.

agreed. My second-favorite city in the USA (After NYC, and just before Chicago. Boston is fourth.)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I mean, SF is not that small. I'd say it's the fourth largest urban core in the U.S., behind only NYC, Chi and DC. Philly and Boston are slightly smaller. It has a large metro population and huge metro economy.

Philly is definitely a bigger urban footprint than San Francisco. It might even be as much as twice as big as SF.

[craigs]

The fact that the only pics in this thread are from a Boston homer is so very forum-like.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Philly is definitely a bigger urban footprint than San Francisco. It might even be as much as twice as big as SF.

Agreed, but urban footprint is basically a function of population up to about 1920. DC has a pretty small urban footprint, but a huge core. Even Baltimore has a bigger urban footprint than DC.

SF has a much bigger urban footprint than DC, but somewhat smaller core.