More urban LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston? (live, state, map)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fairmount Park in Philly's city limits 4,100 acres?

Fairmount Park

the 4,100 acres is the part specifically called Fairmont park. The overall Fairmont Park system is more than twice the size of that (all within the city limits) and directly connects to Wissohicken Park equally as large as the Fairmont named specific section.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Batman Ark

I'm curious which feels larger Boston or Philly? Been to both and Philly felt larger but is it because of the skyscrapers or is Philly actually built denser?

They are fairly close on feel but Philly has a larger developed footprint by probably 50 sq miles or so. In their cores they feel pretty comparable with maybe Philly being a tad bigger. On developed space in a city sense Philly may be as much as 35-40% larger. On population density Boston has some slightly higher tracts in the immediate core but overall through comparable space Philly is a tad denser (negligiable) and covers the larger footprint.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Okay, I added the East and Southeast portions around DT LA and came out with this:

264.6 sq miles
pop: 3,062,738
psm: 11,575

Virtually identical density to Philly. Again, no cherry-picking. This area of land is completely connected, and it includes lightly populated hill-sides communities like Santa Fe Springs (2,000 psm), the downtown factories east of the historic core (which are virtually population free) the cities of Vernon and Commerce, which are almost almost completely industrial and cover 13 square miles, the LA river, etc, etc.

Assuming all things are equal, LA is equal in density to Philly, but maintains it over a considerably larger area of land.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Btw, does anyone know offhand how many square miles of land SF loses due to parks, the Presidio, the port, etc, etc? Because I can definitely see these two cities going toe to toe in density if all things are equal.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Okay, I added the East and Southeast portions around DT LA and came out with this:

264.6 sq miles
pop: 3,062,738
psm: 11,575

Virtually identical density to Philly. Again, no cherry-picking. This area of land is completely connected, and it includes lightly populated hill-sides communities like Santa Fe Springs (2,000 psm), the downtown factories east of the historic core (which are virtually population free) the cities of Vernon and Commerce, which are almost almost completely industrial and cover 13 square miles, the LA river, etc, etc.

Assuming all things are equal, LA is equal in density to Philly, but maintains it over a considerably larger area of land.

Very impressive but I am still not sure it truly addresses the built environment and to me population is not the sole determiner

Does that include LAX and Burbank airports? regardless these stats continue to bear out that LA is truly not an undense city regardless. To me the amzing aspect of broader LA is the continuity of build out, even all the way down into OC, no other city (including NYC) has anywhere this coaverage and continuity.

On urbanity and again maybe it is a personal perspective but have spent a lot in LA it feels very urban but somehow less urban as a city (Understanding the footprint is far larger) as there seems to be an intangible that cant be quantified with pure statistics. LA never really feels as tightly developed with continuity if that makes any sense (obviously there are exceptions on both fronts)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Btw, does anyone know offhand how many square miles of land SF loses due to parks, the Presidio, the port, etc, etc? Because I can definitely see these two cities going toe to toe in density if all things are equal.

I believe I have read that it is about 18% of land or about 8 sq miles.

Having put together some stats SF is in the same range with LA and Philly when reduced to the the 47 sq miles, it actually trails both Philly and LA when looking at the core areas. Think LA has been shown to come in at 1.1 million with Philly at 1.05 million in these 47 sq miles. For Philly that include a comparable amount of parkland to the ~8 sq miles (or the inner portions of Fairmont). Boston was a tad below SF based on recollection but very close as well. (It should be noted though Boston is the only of these 4 where their airport is in that space)

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Very impressive but I am still not sure it truly addresses the built environment and to me population is not the sole determiner

Does that include LAX and Burbank airports? regardless these stats continue to bear out that LA is truly not an undense city regardless. To me the amzing aspect of broader LA is the continuity of build out, even all the way down into OC, no other city (including NYC) has anywhere this coaverage and continuity.

On urbanity and again maybe it is a personal perspective but have spent a lot in LA it feels very urban but somehow less urban as a city (Understanding the footprint is far larger) as there seems to be an intangible that cant be quantified with pure statistics. LA never really feels as tightly developed with continuity if that makes any sense (obviously there are exceptions on both fronts)

No, LAX is near the South Bay portion of the city, but it's roughly the size of Vernon, around 6 square miles. I guess we could throw it in, but I'm not even trying to argue that LA is more urban anymore to be honest. I just want to the "LA is big suburb" myth to die already, lol.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Batman Ark

Would that indicate that NY and Chicago lead the pack? NY by far and Chicago by a little?

Oddly I believe in the core 47 sq miles Chicago was hair below both LA and Philly (Above SF) - I think the next 100 sq miles for Chicago are what seperates it. Much of the Dense North coast neighborhoods are outside of that radiating footprint.

NYC blows them all away. Even just Brooklyn makes the rest pale not to mention Manhattan

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

No, LAX is near the South Bay portion of the city, but it's roughly the size of Vernon, around 6 square miles. I guess we could throw it in, but I'm not even trying to argue that LA is more urban anymore to be honest. I just want to the "LA is big suburb" myth to die already, lol.

I do not believe this. i think an issue with LA is many visitors may traverse from Santa Monica up to the Hollywood strip, along that path areas like Brentwood can come off as looking like dense suburbs but that is a false postive in that aspect when viewing what the actual city of LA is really like. Not everyone lives like OJ and Kato...

And on the LAX point it is splitting hairs regardless those 230+ sq miles at 11-12K ppms are very impressive - in the realm of Chicago actually moreso than Philly (and oddly or not oddly there is a an urban camp that believes Philly may feel more urban than Chicago - some of this is in the density of development, even if the structures may not be as tall, there is something to the wider streets which Chicago definately has).

[rah]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Btw, does anyone know offhand how many square miles of land SF loses due to parks, the Presidio, the port, etc, etc? Because I can definitely see these two cities going toe to toe in density if all things are equal.

San Francisco has 12.8 square miles of parkland/beaches/marinas, 2 square miles or so of sparsely populated industrial areas, and i would guess all the port facilities take up 1 square mile in total. Take those away and you're left with 30.9 square miles and a population of 805,235 people. That makes a population density of 26,059 pp/sq. mi.