SF: the only city that could fit into US's N.E. quadrant?

Is San Francisco unique in its relationship to other US cities?

Personally, I think it is.

If you separate the US into quadrants and look at the northeast quadrant (the New England, Middle Atlantic and Great Lakes region), no other city out of that quadrant shares the urban characteristics of the region as San Francisco.

After the Gold Rush, SF became "The City" in the west. It has developed its long and lusty history over a period of time that no western city can match. SF's late 19th/early 20th century growth paralleled the same growth in eastern and midwestern cities, with immigrant groups from Europe (and, in the case of SF, Asia) adding to the mix.

SF density is unique outside of the northeast quadrant of the country. It is a city that always depended on public transit. Surrounded on three sides by water, the city has never sprawled like other western cities.

The South, of course, is very old. But until after WWII and the introduction of air conditioning, southern cities just didn't grow that fast or felt that densely urban as the cities of the Northeast , Midwest, and SF. Southern cities, like Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas, have come of age far later than San Francisco. And older ones like New Orleans never followed the n.e. quadrant model.

Out west, LA grew using a model completely alien to the Northeast/Midwest/SF model. Seattle's growth has been largely since WWII and it, too, lacks the sense of density that SF has.


Culturally, SF is Far West and is different from the eastern and midwestern cities, but its urbanization, its sense of place, and the way it experienced the course of US history from mid-19th century is similiar.

I can't think that comes close to the eastern/midwestern model than San Francisco.>