The metro area density is mostly a measure of whether the suburbs are more or less urbanized. E.g. the LA/OC metro CSA is substantially more dense than the SF/Oakland/Fremont CSA, but nobody would say that LA is denser than SF. Rather, LA is surrounded by urban sprawl while SF is surrounded by suburbs.
Comments
You've got to be kidding me.
This is what "plenty of new construction" looks like: http://rwrant.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/S%C3%A3o-Paul...
Sure, it's ugly. Sure, you don't want SF to look like that. But don't try to pretend that SF is addressing the issue.
SF would be a much much better city if it looked like that.
I think it looks great. Also, Sao Paulo is about the same density as San Francisco, it's just built more vertical.
Not even close.
SF Bay Area: 395/sqkm
Sao Paolo Metro: 2,469/sqkm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_S%C3%A3o_Paulo
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
I'm talking about San Francisco, not the 5,500+ square miles of faceless suburbs surrounding the city.
Sao Paulo (city proper): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo (18,690/sq mi).
San Francisco (city proper): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco (17,620/sq mi).
The metro area density is mostly a measure of whether the suburbs are more or less urbanized. E.g. the LA/OC metro CSA is substantially more dense than the SF/Oakland/Fremont CSA, but nobody would say that LA is denser than SF. Rather, LA is surrounded by urban sprawl while SF is surrounded by suburbs.
Agreed. This is what the SF bay should look like:
http://photovide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/028.jpg