[eweitz]

> 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...

[siculars]

Everything eweitz mentions is spot on. I'll just note what my sister said not two moments ago when reading some of these comments. "San Francisco is a baby town, a joke, compared to what's going on in Manhattan." And I kinda have to agree. San Francisco's current issues are entirely of their own making. I have no sympathy. I grew up in Queens, lived in Manhattan for 16 years and moved to Dallas a year ago (cause someone paid me.) I've been to SF more times than I can count over the last 10 years for computer related work and conference, etc. You couldn't pay me to live there.

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.

[rsync]

"I grew up in Queens, lived in Manhattan for 16 years and moved to Dallas a year ago (cause someone paid me.) I've been to SF more times than I can count over the last 10 years for computer related work and conference, etc. You couldn't pay me to live there."

Wait, so I could pay you to live in Dallas, but I couldn't pay you to live in SF ?

[siculars]

California's rules, regulations, tone and general outlook on most things irk me, and even more so SF as the epicenter of such things in California. So, no, I don't think one could pay me to live in San Francisco.

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.

[mrgordon]

Ahh I see, you hate regulation, taxes, and don't think a city the size of Dallas really needs mass transit in practice. So this isn't really about San Francisco at all. The only thing that really surprises me now is that you speak highly of New York.

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.

[siculars]

> 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.

[mrgordon]

Yeah Dallas is really the epitome of good urban planning and land use compared to San Francisco. Lets go get in our cars and drive thirty minutes to Chili's so we can have a real cultural experience </sarcasm>

Texas pretty much defines sprawl in my mind. San Francisco could be more dense but it certainly isn't sprawling.

[mvc]

You'd have to pay a lot more.

[hitekker]

"San Francisco is a baby town, a joke, compared to what's going on in Manhattan."

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.

[nzoschke]

I agree about the Manhattan to SF comparison.

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.

[hitekker]

Agreed. That reminds of this old quote (replace france with SF):

>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.

[donretag]

This is the first time that I read Hacker News that I realized who the poster was. Hopefully Dallas is treating you well!

[siculars]

Ha! This is the first time I've been recognized by someone reading something I wrote! Dallas is actually pretty ok. Shhh... don't let my NY friends know that I said that ;)

[swingbridge]

Exactly. SF's problem is not just a lack of sensible zoning but also a lack of adequate infrastructure to handle a modern sensible environment for commerce. Manhattan not just doubles its population size each business day but the vast majority of those people use public transit to get there. SF is still far too linked to the car. In many ways NYC is a 21st century center for commerce while SF is largely stuck with a 20th century way of thinking about things.