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 would say that people in the West just have a different view of what urban is, than people in the northeast. Most of the neighborhoods outside of downtown Seattle shown here might be considered mildly urban to a northeasterner, whereas to almost anyone from the west they are quite urban. There is going to be constant disagreement because of that difference in mental image of "urban". I don't think density statistics by census tract matter much in this regard.
San Francisco is structurally (and residentially) denser than Boston. Los Angeles kinda is, too but it's built in a rather different way. But some of detached house neighborhoods in the outer parts of Seattle or Portland reminded more of a suburbs I'm used to than typical city neighborhoods.
Some of the posters here seem to think Pittsburgh is composed of mostly row homes. It isn't. I suspect at street level, Capitol Hill is at least as busy as Southside Flats. One positive of Seattle is the several of the more urban neighborhoods are adjacent and an easy walk from downtown (to the north and east, south of downtown is kinda empty). Besides making it easier to explore the city on foot, it also means that stuff the downtown is missing can be easily found in the nearby residential neighborhoods. For Pittsburgh, haven't been there, but it looks like next to downtown is rather empty.
Yeah. As I said most people in Pittsburgh live in what could broadly be classified as "streetcar suburbs" - not the earlier vintage mixed-use rowhouse neighborhoods.
Pittsburgh's has an amazingly intact downtown with few surface parking lots, but it is surrounded by a lot of nothing, as the mid-century period was cruel to the residential areas which surrounded downtown. To briefly recap.
1. There used to be an Irish neighborhood at "The Doint" Downtown , which was a mixed-use mixture of rowhouses and old rowhomes. It was demolished in the late 1940s as part of an urban renewal project which ultimately resulted in Point State Park and Gateway Center. Nothing remains of the old neighborhood but the Catholic church.
2. The North Shore (the area directly across the Allegheny) used to be a mixed-use working-class neighborhood called "the Ward". The residential fabric began to erode during the 1920s, but mid-century urban renewal cleared out the remaining rowhouses to make way for sports venues. Nearby Schwietzer Lock also went into terminal decline, although there are two or three rowhouses left there, surrounded by a sea of parking lots (and ironically only blocks away from the now desirable Heinz Lofts. Although a bit further from downtown, Old Allegheny City was demolished in the late 1950s to make Allegheny Center, which was probably the single biggest urban renewal mistake Pittsburgh made (similar to what happened to Boston's West End - an entire neighborhood destroyed except for the churches and a few other historic structures).
3. The Strip District lies to Downtown's Northeast. The lower portion was once called "Northern Liberties" and the first residential area built up outside of downtown. Starting in the 1920s the area became a popular warehouse district, and the older buildings began to get destroyed - a process that accelerated in the mid century as much of the neighborhood became a wasteland of single-story warehouses and parking lots. Only a few old commercial storefronts survive near downtown. There are some rowhouses left, but you need to go far away from downtown to find them. It's become a trendy place for people to live again due to both residential conversions and new construction of apartments, but the old urban fabric was largely lost.
4. The center of Pittsburgh's black culture historically has been the Hill District, which at one point was the number two spot on the Jazz circuit. In the 1950s, however, the city decided to clear out the Lower Hill (which it was claimed was filled with "tenement housing.") in order to place what became known as the Civic Arena. 8,000 residents were displaced through eminent domain, the majority of them black, and their exodus to other parts of the city set off racial panics which ultimately caused the decline of several other areas. The arena (which mostly functioned as a place for hockey games in recent history) was demolished in 2011, and it remains to be seen what will be built there. Further up the hill, the Hill District went into terrible decline. Much of it was trashed during the riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, and what remained didn't fare well during the crack epidemic. Although the portion of the Lower Hill now called Crawford Roberts has largely been rebuilt, the infill isn't particularly urban at its best, and is downright suburban in places. This shot shows a good contrast between what was lost and what has replaced it.
5. To the south of the Hill District is a neighborhood called Uptown. Unlike most of the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, rowhouses survive here in some numbers, although often in poor condition, although admittedly due to the location of Duquense University and Mercy Hospital they are some blocks away from the action. Many in Pittsburgh want the neighborhood to be redeveloped before its too late, because a high number of demolitions of historic homes and commercial storefronts is still taking place. Sadly, much of the neighborhood is now owned by a single family, who is generally seen as being slumlords who are all-too happy to demolish more houses if it means they can create another surface parking lot to rent out to downtown commuters and/or people attending hockey games at the new Consol Arena. There has been the recent conversion of a historic high school into lofts, but it's unclear if the blighted rowhouses (which are directly between Oakland and Downtown, and thus have in theory the most desirable location in the city) will actually ever end up in the hands of homeowners.
6. The "South Shore" immediately across the river from Downtown was never residential as far as I know. In the 1970s the old railway station there was remade into Station Square, which is now sort of a weird, dated mall thing with a few popular clubs and restaurants, which is surrounded by a sea of parking. In theory it's a great location - not only because it's within walking distance of downtown, but because it actually has a light rail stop which goes directly into downtown. But it was redone in a period before anyone thought about mixed-use and downtown living, and thus has no residents at all. Word is they might begin building apartments there, which would be a great step forward.
There you have it. Basically, Pittsburgh systematically destroyed all residential areas immediately adjacent to downtown in between 1920 and 1970. While halting steps forward have been made to densify most or all of these, in reality there are now three "urban pockets" in Pittsburgh (the lower North Side, South Side Flats, and the bulk in the East End) which formed the second ring of neighborhoods which remained intact. They are wonderful, but you can't help wondering what the city would have been like if a few of the immediately adjacent neighborhood survived.
San Francisco is structurally (and residentially) denser than Boston. Los Angeles kinda is, too but it's built in a rather different way. But some of detached house neighborhoods in the outer parts of Seattle or Portland reminded more of a suburbs I'm used to than typical city neighborhoods.
I never understand the "people from the West have a different idea of urban" theory. People from out here travel to the east coast often, and many of us have lived on the east coast (and as mentioned before SF is very structurally dense, and Los Angeles is uniquely/non-traditionally structurally dense to a lesser degree). As someone from the west coast, the outer parts ( the sort of bungalow belt) of Seattle do look to be something between mildly urban and suburban.
As seen below, some posters are exaggerating the size and scope of the urban parts of Pitt and pretending as if the entire city limits of Seattle outside of downtown are detached bungalow neighborhoods. They cling to a couple very structurally dense neighborhoods which are quite impressive, but scattered and fairly small. That is why I think Seattle and Pittsburgh are about even with Seattle pulling ahead in the next few decades.
Huh? New York City had the first zoning code back in 1916 for what we would call zoning. Cities were definitely building their neighborhoods in a comprehensive way for thousands of years. Does that mean a comprehensive plan was on the books in the 2013 "sense" of the word? No, however, cities were still planned based on the principles of the time. I have been saying that since I started responding to this thread. I think you are under the assumption that planning done in 2013 is how it has always been done. Cities have been planned for thousands of years. Babylon before Christ was planned before every city in Europe existed that we know of today and it was planned. The entire city was built to certain specifications.
And look how much NYC was already built by 1916. You seem to be ignoring how organic development was back then and not recognizing the reason a lot of cities look and feel like they do is primarily a result of when they grew and developed.
You claimed Seattle is the way as a result of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code and it didn't have planning 100 years ago. And now you're saying something different. Do you not see how your argument keeps changing?
And look how much NYC was already built by 1916. You seem to be ignoring how organic development was back then and not recognizing the reason a lot of cities look and feel like they do is primarily a result of when they grew and developed.
NYC had the 1811 grid plan which had a major impact on the style and scale of residential neighbohroods. Overly wide streets in spots and too small blocks as well incredibly how demand for housing led to apartment blocks that had a 3 foot wide airshaft rather than a courtyard. A comparison with European cities of the same era [NYC had the densest neighborhoods in the world at the time], would show the effects of NYC's "planning".
NYC had the 1811 grid plan which had a major impact on the style and scale of residential neighbohroods. Overly wide streets in spots and too small blocks as well incredibly how demand for housing led to apartment blocks that had a 3 foot wide airshaft rather than a courtyard. A comparison with European cities of the same era [NYC had the densest neighborhoods in the world at the time], would show the effects of NYC's "planning".
I do think that poster mentioned "other than laying out streets" or something to that effect.
IThere is going to be constant disagreement because of that difference in mental image of "urban". I don't think density statistics by census tract matter much in this regard.
By tract, will post stats later, in core:
San Francisco is about the same or slightly higher than Los Angeles, both of which are a bit denser than Boston. Seattle is much less dense than either of the three, Pittsburgh is significantly less dense than Seattle. Just outside of downtown Seattle:
The patchiness of Pittsburgh gives the impression of several dense small towns plopped together making a big city. The topography increases the separation.
The polls are right
Seattle
Pitsburgh
Minneapolis
Denver
I'd say this is pretty accurate, but I think they're all very very close. Pittsburgh has the oldest infrastructure, followed by Minneapolis and then Seattle and Denver. Minny was a bigger city longer ago than Seattle or Denver were, which may mean that is has more older "characteristic" U.S. urbanism, but Seattle today has more modern urbanism, even considering all four cities' recent urban renaissance.
If we went by population density, these would be the ranks:
1. Seattle
2. Minneapolis
3. Pittsburgh
4. Denver
If we went by infrastructure density, these would be the ranks:
1. Pittsburgh
2. Seattle
3. Minneapolis
4. Denver
If we combined those two concepts, and if the cities' ranks were also their point tallies, the list with the lowest total points would be:
I, however, would not assign points that way, as I think all four cities are much closer than that. If Pittsburgh were a "1" infrastructurally then Denver or Minneapolis might be a "2", with Seattle as a "1.5". Density-wise, it'd be Seattle as "1", Minneapolis as "1.25", Pittsburgh as "2", and Denver as "2".
Recalculating the values with those metrics gives us:
Then to say that Seattle is the most urban and Denver was the least urban would be in a more appropriate context: Seattle certainly isn't three times more urban than Denver, for example. So even though the results are ordered the same, the difference from 1st to 4th is much smaller and makes more sense IMO.
It might even make sense to add other factors, such as walkability and transit.
I'd say this is pretty accurate, but I think they're all very very close. Pittsburgh has the oldest infrastructure, followed by Minneapolis and then Seattle and Denver. Minny was a bigger city longer ago than Seattle or Denver were, which may mean that is has more older "characteristic" U.S. urbanism, but Seattle today has more modern urbanism, even considering all four cities' recent urban renaissance.
If we went by population density, these would be the ranks:
1. Seattle
2. Minneapolis
3. Pittsburgh
4. Denver
If we went by infrastructure density, these would be the ranks:
1. Pittsburgh
2. Seattle
3. Minneapolis
4. Denver
If we combined those two concepts, and if the cities' ranks were also their point tallies, the list with the lowest total points would be:
I, however, would not assign points that way, as I think all four cities are much closer than that. If Pittsburgh were a "1" infrastructurally then Denver or Minneapolis might be a "2", with Seattle as a "1.5". Density-wise, it'd be Seattle as "1", Minneapolis as "1.25", Pittsburgh as "2", and Denver as "2".
Recalculating the values with those metrics gives us:
Then to say that Seattle is the most urban and Denver was the least urban would be in a more appropriate context: Seattle certainly isn't three times more urban than Denver, for example. So even though the results are ordered the same, the difference from 1st to 4th is much smaller and makes more sense IMO.
It might even make sense to add other factors, such as walkability and transit.
Nice analysis.
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.
A comparison with European cities of the same era [NYC had the densest neighborhoods in the world at the time], would show the effects of NYC's "planning".
