Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could you please tell me what citizens actually know the population density of their neighborhood? What can citizens of a city see? If you are a citizen of D.C. and then move to L.A., and be honest please, which neighborhood would you THINK is more dense? Pretend you and I are not city-data geeks for a second with this random population density information the rest of the billions of people on this earth could care less about. Please be honest. Which is denser?
Now when it comes to Skyscrapers, D.C. can't compete, but neither city has enough to make a difference. That is why I have said Center City is more urban than downtown D.C., but D.C. has a more urban core from a structural density standpoint.
Sorry, but this statement comes off as extremely contradictory. How can one downtown be more urban than another, but the city with the less urban downtown has a more urban core?
I think I understand what you're getting at in terms of DC have the more "sprawling" downtown, with block upon block of mid-rise buildings that spans out farther than Philly's Center City.
However, as you know, high-rises clearly trump this pattern in terms of density. Insofar as Center City is Philly's core, then, by default, Philly's core is more urban than DC's core (when discussing comparable land area).
Additionally, I think you're sorely underestimating the potential for redevelopment in Philly, and to a lesser extent, Boston (downtown Boston is much more land-constrained). This is not to say that Philly is on par with the breakneck pace of apartment development in DC. However, the projects that are breaking ground in Philly are adding significant density in an already dense environment. Several of these projects are large, high-rise replacements/additions to already developed spaces. This trend is definitely expected to continue as the economy moves along in its recovery. There is also a significant amount of underutilized land immediately surrounding Philadelphia's CBD. In time, these areas will conceivably host many more mid/high-rises.
Certainly there is much more a human-scaled, row-house nature to Center City than downtown DC, but I just want to emphasize that downtowns across the US are "densifying" and that no city is static.
Essentially, unless DC lifts its height limits, I'd place my bets on SF, LA, Philly and Boston all having more urban downtowns over time.
I don't know, it's two random streetviews. In that section, I find DC's to be more urban. However I could easily flip the street views and show a great LA view and a lackluster DC view. I'm not as obsessed with population density as some others on this forum are - I prefer "feet-on-the-street". Los Angeles does really well in this, way better than it did in the past and way better than outsiders could imagine (I understand it is hard to juxtapose a Shell station and a strip center with a ton of pedestrians, but it absolutely happens and in great volumes). It's why I was less-than-impressed with the Upper West Side by the park in NYC. Beautiful buildings, but where are the people? I would find a happening-but-low-rise street in Brooklyn (like the street my uncle lives off of) to be vastly more urban.*
And anyways, like a broken record I have said that I find DC's core to be more cohesive and yes, more urban than Los Angeles'. However Los Angeles has a larger core (stretches from Boyle Heights-DTLA-Westlake-Koreatown-East Hollywood-Hollywood) and then many different urban neighborhoods outside of this core (which I mentioned in a previous post).
Yes many of these areas are built more like street-car suburbs (Highland Park, Echo Park, Silverlake, Palms, Atwater Village) while others are not (Westwood, Venice, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena). Outside of DC's core, there are those urban TOD nodes but everything else is straight up rural-feeling.
*I'd like to note that this is comparatively, I certainly didn't find the UWS to be lacking in pedestrians, just not to the level of other parts of NYC. Still blows most parts of all five of these cities away.
Sorry, but this statement comes off as extremely contradictory. How can one downtown be more urban than another, but the city with the less urban downtown has a more urban core?
I think I understand what you're getting at in terms of DC have the more "sprawling" downtown, with block upon block of mid-rise buildings that spans out farther than Philly's Center City.
However, as you know, high-rises clearly trump this pattern in terms of density. Insofar as Center City is Philly's core, then, by default, Philly's core is more urban than DC's core (when discussing comparable land area).
Additionally, I think you're sorely underestimating the potential for redevelopment in Philly, and to a lesser extent, Boston (downtown Boston is much more land-constrained). This is not to say that Philly is on par with the breakneck pace of apartment development in DC. However, the projects that are breaking ground in Philly are adding significant density in an already dense environment. Several of these projects are large, high-rise replacements/additions to already developed spaces. This trend is definitely expected to continue as the economy moves along in its recovery. There is also a significant amount of underutilized land immediately surrounding Philadelphia's CBD. In time, these areas will conceivably host many more mid/high-rises.
Certainly there is much more a human-scaled, row-house nature to Center City than downtown DC, but I just want to emphasize that downtowns across the US are "densifying" and that no city is static.
Essentially, unless DC lifts its height limits, I'd place my bets on SF, LA, Philly and Boston all having more urban downtowns over time.
I stated the core as 5 miles by 5 miles. If you refer to this post, it breaks down the core's for you. That is more than double the size of what you are referring too:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Here is a legit comparison of the size of intense urbanity and the expanse of intense urban development possible in these cities? Not one of these cities will be built out as much as D.C. over these distances. D.C.'s core as I have shown will be more developed with high-rise and low-rise apartments and condo's more than all of these cities. D.C. will not have the highest population density though. We have way more jobs and way more dedicated monuments not to mention height limits that obviously detract from population density as a whole, but at the neighborhood level, D.C. will be pretty dense as the development happens.
This is the point I have been trying to make. I know what can be done in all these cities and if you study these maps, it will shed some light on what I have been saying about the other cities not developing over such a large area compared to D.C. Their core's bump up into single family homes and full rowhome neighborhoods much earlier than D.C. does contrary to popular belief. Like I have said, The area I show below for D.C. will be fully saturated with apartment high-rises and tons of jobs. Which of these other cities will develop over that large an area?
Like I have been saying, D.C.'s height limits are the only reason high-rises are swallowing the city. It will give D.C. a different feel but we have to go urban when you have height limits. You have to build somewhere.
**If anyone would like proof the area's I have shown will be covered with high-rises across the whole core in D.C., I would be happy to show you.**
That is actually how large D.C.'s highrise and midrise development is going to be as projects finish up over the next 8 years. It's really not close and I can show you all the approved projects for proof if you would like.
How many apartments would you say are under construction or planned in the same amount of land as D.C.'s core in L.A.?
This is a good question / point. It sounds to me like no city is booming as much as DC, so I doubt Los Angeles has as much going on in a 5 square mile area. And I get that it makes it more exciting to see these projects going up all in one small area, tons of cranes all in one area. And yes the change is more evident in a smaller city like DC. That picture you posted once from your roof was pretty amazing.
However, as a counter point, imagine walking around DTLA, which is in the beginning stages of a full-fledged building boom (again take a look at these projects under construction and approved). You then take the subway and get out at Koreatown, and there are 5 or so projects with cranes going on in that area. Again you hop on the subway and get off at Hollywood, where another 5 or so projects are going up, also with a bunch of cranes. Personally I find the multi-nodality of this kind of boom to be more exciting, something that screams "mega-city". Like that picture you took, climbing to the top of Runyon Canyon or the Griffith Observatory you would see these patches of heavy-redevelopment, which is very exciting in its own way.
I don't know, it's two random streetviews. In that section, I find DC's to be more urban. However I could easily flip the street views and show a great LA view and a lackluster DC view. I'm not as obsessed with population density as some others on this forum are - I prefer "feet-on-the-street". Los Angeles does really well in this, way better than it did in the past and way better than outsiders could imagine (I understand it is hard to juxtapose a Shell station and a strip center with a ton of pedestrians, but it absolutely happens and in great volumes). It's why I was less-than-impressed with the Upper West Side by the park in NYC. Beautiful buildings, but where are the people? I would find a happening-but-low-rise street in Brooklyn (like the street my uncle lives off of) to be vastly more urban.*
And anyways, like a broken record I have said that I find DC's core to be more cohesive and yes, more urban than Los Angeles'. However Los Angeles has a larger core (stretches from Boyle Heights-DTLA-Westlake-Koreatown-East Hollywood-Hollywood) and then many different urban neighborhoods outside of this core (which I mentioned in a previous post).
Yes many of these areas are built more like street-car suburbs (Highland Park, Echo Park, Silverlake, Palms, Atwater Village) while others are not (Westwood, Venice, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena). Outside of DC's core, there are those urban TOD nodes but everything else is straight up rural-feeling.
*I'd like to note that this is comparatively, I certainly didn't find the UWS to be lacking in pedestrians, just not to the level of other parts of NYC. Still blows most parts of all five of these cities away.
That area in L.A. hovers around 90,000 people per square mile. Yet you see what it looks like. D.C. is no where near there. That is what I mean. I don't know what you consider the core area? I used a five mile by five mile line and everything inside of it is what I looked at. If you refer to the post I have continually reposted, all those cities fall below D.C. from end to end. Did you look at what I posted? It's above this post. Let me know what you think? I will repost it for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Here is a legit comparison of the size of intense urbanity and the expanse of intense urban development possible in these cities? Not one of these cities will be built out as much as D.C. over these distances. D.C.'s core as I have shown will be more developed with high-rise and low-rise apartments and condo's more than all of these cities. D.C. will not have the highest population density though. We have way more jobs and way more dedicated monuments not to mention height limits that obviously detract from population density as a whole, but at the neighborhood level, D.C. will be pretty dense as the development happens.
This is the point I have been trying to make. I know what can be done in all these cities and if you study these maps, it will shed some light on what I have been saying about the other cities not developing over such a large area compared to D.C. Their core's bump up into single family homes and full rowhome neighborhoods much earlier than D.C. does contrary to popular belief. Like I have said, The area I show below for D.C. will be fully saturated with apartment high-rises and tons of jobs. Which of these other cities will develop over that large an area?
Like I have been saying, D.C.'s height limits are the only reason high-rises are swallowing the city. It will give D.C. a different feel but we have to go urban when you have height limits. You have to build somewhere.
I stated the core as 5 miles by 5 miles. If you refer to this post, it breaks down the core's for you. That is more than double the size of what you are referring too:
That is actually how large D.C.'s highrise and midrise development is going to be as projects finish up over the next 8 years. It's really not close and I can show you all the approved projects for proof if you would like.
So what is going to happen to all of the rowhouse neighborhoods that are within those boundaries?
I could sit here all day and post examples on non-high-rise or mid-rise neighborhoods that fall within that area you posted. And don't get me wrong, these areas appear to be quite urban to me, but certainly not what I was expecting.
What is really cool about these cities is that they are all very urban yet soooo different in their development styles. Even Philly / Boston and SF / Los Angeles, which are probably the cities that are closest to each other, are still vastly different.
This is a good question / point. It sounds to me like no city is booming as much as DC, so I doubt Los Angeles has as much going on in a 5 square mile area. And I get that it makes it more exciting to see these projects going up all in one small area, tons of cranes all in one area. And yes the change is more evident in a smaller city like DC. That picture you posted once from your roof was pretty amazing.
However, as a counter point, imagine walking around DTLA, which is in the beginning stages of a full-fledged building boom (again take a look at these projects under construction and approved). You then take the subway and get out at Koreatown, and there are 5 or so projects with cranes going on in that area. Again you hop on the subway and get off at Hollywood, where another 5 or so projects are going up, also with a bunch of cranes. Personally I find the multi-nodality of this kind of boom to be more exciting, something that screams "mega-city". Like that picture you took, climbing to the top of Runyon Canyon or the Griffith Observatory you would see these patches of heavy-redevelopment, which is very exciting in its own way.
I can see that too. I beleive downtown L.A. has the potential to be the second best downtown in the nation if all those warehouses and buildings are built on. The city is definetly in position to grow into an urban giant if all that construction can somehow happen downtown and right outside of it.
As for multi-nodes, I don't know if any place is as impressive as the D.C. metro area when it comes to construction around metro station's. That might not be close in all honesty. I was just focusing on the city propers but D.C. is on a different level when it comes to construction around the entire region's metro station's. That is not even worth debating.
I think L.A. is infilling nice and will see huge benefits. I just wish the construction would focus more on a specific area then spill out after full build out.
This is a good question / point. It sounds to me like no city is booming as much as DC, so I doubt Los Angeles has as much going on in a 5 square mile area. And I get that it makes it more exciting to see these projects going up all in one small area, tons of cranes all in one area. And yes the change is more evident in a smaller city like DC. That picture you posted once from your roof was pretty amazing.
However, as a counter point, imagine walking around DTLA, which is in the beginning stages of a full-fledged building boom (again take a look at these projects under construction and approved). You then take the subway and get out at Koreatown, and there are 5 or so projects with cranes going on in that area. Again you hop on the subway and get off at Hollywood, where another 5 or so projects are going up, also with a bunch of cranes. Personally I find the multi-nodality of this kind of boom to be more exciting, something that screams "mega-city". Like that picture you took, climbing to the top of Runyon Canyon or the Griffith Observatory you would see these patches of heavy-redevelopment, which is very exciting in its own way.
Also, it's the walking across the city that really gives the feel. My only gripe with LA is the drop off and pick up.
It's why I was less-than-impressed with the Upper West Side by the park in NYC. Beautiful buildings, but where are the people? I would find a happening-but-low-rise street in Brooklyn (like the street my uncle lives off of) to be vastly more urban.*
*I'd like to note that this is comparatively, I certainly didn't find the UWS to be lacking in pedestrians, just not to the level of other parts of NYC. Still blows most parts of all five of these cities away.
Well, the appeal of Central Park West is that it's quiet, right? It's supposed to be that way. If you wanted to see more people, you would just walk about 450 feet over to Columbus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
