It's more of a testament to the city's anti-development attitude. Manhattan has twice the people with half the land area, on an island.
Manhattan has twice the residents based on U.S. Census population data, but actual daytime population is more than just residents. A more important statistic is commuter-adjusted population [1], i.e. number of people in an area during normal business hours, including workers. That's where Manhattan and San Francisco really diverge.
The commuter-adjusted population of Manhattan is 3.1 M [2], compared to 1.6 M residents [3]. San Francisco has a commuter-adjusted population of 1.0 M [4, 5], compared to 0.8 M residents [5]. In other words, Manhattan's population booms almost 200% during normal business hours, while San Francisco's increases a modest 25%. Manhattan may have 2x more residents, but it has 3x more daytime population than San Francisco.
Given it has about half the land area, Manhattan's daytime population density is thus 6x that of San Francisco.
Attitudes on development -- namely transportation infrastructure and building construction -- certainly contribute to that difference.
1. http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/data/daytimepop.html
2. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/most-important-popula...
3. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36061.html
4. http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/10/how-city-populations-...
5. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/p...
No other place in the country has the kind of network effect that NYC does. It is entirely due to density and density is a direct result of NYC's subway system. As much as New Yorkers love to complain about the subway, and believe me it's a sport out here, we would not be able to accommodate the masses we accommodate without it. Transportation and, of course, vertical space is the way we do it. I really don't know why this is such a mystery to so many not from here. It's kind of glaringly obvious to the most casual of observers.
San Franciscans need to stop navel gazing and look up to the sky. Go up, my friends, go up.
Wait, so I could pay you to live in Dallas, but I couldn't pay you to live in SF ?
It doesn't need to be said here but I'll go ahead and say it anyway - Texas has no state income tax. Sure, they have no mass transit to speak of, but then again, in truth, they don't need it. (Outside of the philosophical view that all metropoli need mass transit, which I agree with.)
Edit: the fact that SF, a city with arguably a third the population of NYC has rents more than NYC is exactly the kind of "thing" that irks me about SF. It's the kind of social dysfunction that's intolerable - for me.
Another is the Bay Bridge. When standing in Marin north of the Golden Gate, there are a number of plaques describing the building of the GGB. A picturesque view with the BB in the background. Guess what? It turns out the GGB was built ahead of schedule and under budget - with no computers! I don't even need to go into the failings of the BB. You get my point.
I could describe how much more "social dysfunction" there is in Texas than California at length but I sense its going to be an uphill battle. Suffice it to say that my friends just got back from Austin where they witnessed a "mock shooting" at the university in support of the new open carry gun laws. When your legislators spend time expanding gun rights after repeated mass shootings, you're looking at social dysfunction. These same legislators also found the time to carefully craft anti-abortion legislation recently in an attempt to force all abortion clinics to close until the Supreme Court can overturn the decision. Meanwhile they don't seem to mind all the fake clinics being set up which use tax money and tax benefits to confuse and lie to desperate women who are under extreme stress already. You can have your 0% income tax rate "paradise" and try to remember that Texas has among the highest property tax rates in the country to make up for it.
Coming from NY, those property taxes don't really make me even flinch. When you combine lower cost of living, lower real estate and no income tax higher property tax doesn't even move the needle.
Texas pretty much defines sprawl in my mind. San Francisco could be more dense but it certainly isn't sprawling.
I don't particularly have a soft spot for either city, but I agree with you on the note of maturity. Manhattan has a far better idea of what it's doing compared to SF.
But if you take a less cynical view, doesn't this mean that SF represents a remarkable opportunity?
At some point the population has to get it together, elect better reps, reject the nimbyism and build more towers and trains.
It's actually happening as we speak. New bay bridge, extensions of muni, transbay tower, Salesforce tower, ...
I'm biased living in SF, just getting married, and avoiding the current market rate rents. but I see tremendous opportunities in SF.
Which is crazy to think given all the advantages - nature, water, work, weather - SF has over most other places.
>God just finished creating the world. He looks his creation and see France.
>"This country is to beautiful. It's unfair for the others countries."
>And so, God created the French.
On a side note, congratulations on getting married. Hope all goes well.
...that is tightly connected to 10 times that land area as the boroughs of New York City. Everybody leaves that part out. It's more convenient to live in Queens and commute to Manhattan than it is to live in the Outer Richmond and commute to SOMA.
This matters, because the part of San Francisco that people conventionally see as "San Francisco" in has little overlap with the parts of the city that are actually low density. The city north of Market and east of Divisadero is fairly high-density development, by any standard: most buildings are at least six stories, and often taller than that. But to make the other 2/3rds of San Francisco viable as high-density development, you'd need to build a ton of new mass transit. It's car country over there.
There's immense hypocrisy on both sides of this discussion. I think height limits in SOMA and the Financial district and Mission Bay should be higher. But it's hard to stomach density criticisms from people who want to live in cute, victorian, single-family housing in Noe valley themselves, and re-develop the places where poor brown people live. And that's happening a lot around here.
Moreover, New York has been one of the world's largest cities for over a century. It's had a while to get good at things. San Francisco was a cow-town until the 1980s.
I realize it's self-satisfying to blame NIMBYs for everything, but the facts are more complicated.
New York has sprawling suburbs that go into nearby states.
The SF equivalent of a lot of those areas are mountain ranges and oceans. To be sure, SF has suburbs (or suburb equivalents): SV, Oakland, etc. But a lot of prime area for suburbs can't support one.
Draw a 30 miles radius circle from manhattan and SF, and I bet NYC has more livable land.
That said, that is all the more reason for strong development in SF. Or else you are going to end up with SF just being a rich neighborhood for millionaires in a Bay Area megacity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
If you want to work in Manhattan, you need to live near mass transit (bus, train) because 30 miles in/out of the island is too painful. That greatly limits where you can live.
[0] New York City is comprised of five boroughs (aka. counties): 1. Manhattan (officially known as New York County) 2. The Bronx (yes, "The Bronx." No one says "Bronx.") 3. Queens 4. Brooklyn (officially known as Kings County) 5. Staten Island
Manhattan is increasingly a financial services company town, and many parts of that industry are drifting to Jersey.
But maybe you could prove me wrong... I'm not sure, just noting what I see.
Those corporate HQs used to come with thousands of workers -- now more likely a couple floors of folks supporting the CEO. A lot of residential construction is funded by capital flight and shady political lobbying that helped get 2/3 top state leaders convicted of corruption charges.
Still a great city, but not the economic behemoth that it was.
The issue is entirely politics not engineering.
As an example the Metropolitan Life North Building right next to Madison Square Park was originally designed in the 20s to beat the Empire State for height (but sadly, the Depression happened), and that plot of land is firmly on the "soft" ground "unsuitable" for tall skyscrapers.
Not only do we not need the bedrock now, it appears we never needed it - and the engineers of the early 20th century knew this as well as we do.
Also, I think, but, I'm not sure, that they built this extremely large, heavy structure right over the bay itself a few years back, something about helping cars get from Oakland to SF and back. I don't know how much bedrock they found underneath the supports for that thing, whatever it's called. Can't seem to remember its name ...
True, but that's because of comparatively recent developments in geotechnical engineering. They needed it during the first wave of skyscraper development.