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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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).
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.
Agree they are all urban, disagree that LA feels most urban, Most expansive and largest urban development yes, most urban, not to me, apparently others as well.
10,000 acres is the acreage in the Fairmont park system as a reference to the earlier post qouted stating that the LA areas had 5K acres of parkland included.
the 42 sq miles is the combined area that includes
Philadelphia International Airport
Northeast Philadelphia Airport
Navy Yard
Sunoco Refinery (Remember that philadelphia is the largest refiner of oil after Houston and the Port of Louisianna in the US)
The largest Phenol and Acetone chemical facility in North Amercia
Valero Refinery
Allied Chemical
The Port of Philadelphia
Kaverner Shipyard
Produce Distribution Center
Three of these are being moved or reporposed to actually allow for residential development (Navy Yard, Port (Part of the Delaware River Redevelopment plan), and the Producte Distribution center, being moved to make larger and free up space around the stadium complex and also residential development)
So yes quite a considerable space and complex devoted to such things, all of which is developed in quite an urban fashion even if no one actually lives there.
And on your assertion of skewed, go ahead and prove that assertion or dont make it at all. I am 100% convinced you know VERY little about phildelphia outside of potentially one or two visits to center city.
Its just silly to list every industrial facility, airport, and 7-11. Every city is composed of these elements. I dont think you can prove 42 square miles. Rah, just posted for San Francisco, and although I think that could be a fascinating way to look at cities, I dont know how it could be accurate.
Just checking a few facts from your posts; Fairmount park system is closer to 9000 acres than 10000. I consider that skewed because its rounded up from 9200. Why not just put 9200?
Fairmount Park (http://www.fairmountpark.org/ParkSystemOverview.asp - broken link)
Refineries; how'd you come with that. Sounded odd to me, so a quick fact check.....Texas, Louisiana and California refines over 50% of the nations oil. Sunoco is very large, but ranks #10 in the US in capacity. Of the top 140 refineries in the US, 5 are in Pennsylvania. Top U.S. Refineries - Energy Information Administration. Energy Rankings
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.
