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 didn't pick it. Nineties Flava did. I just explored the area that he or she selected for a few blocks.
Yes, but I thought the point of including Oakland and the like is to compare how far out density radiates from the respective downtowns of SF and Philadelphia since SF only has 46 square miles?
In that sense, Nineties Flava is right on because Laurel is a dense, vibrant neighborhood people actually want to live in, 15 miles from DT as Laurel has 11,492 persons per square mile and is highly sought after by working class and middle management types alike, upwardly mobile minorities, young families and the like.
Its also very diverse:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2002/05/10/ba_laurelmap.jpg (broken link)
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2002/05/10/ba_laurelmap.jpg (broken link)
No. I just think (as most people would) that buildings that are connected create a more urban environment than buildings or houses that are detached. I mean, the very definition of "suburbia" is detached housing, driveways, and yards.
Coming from Philly, Oakland looks suburban to me. I can't say whether it looks suburban compared to an "actual west coast suburb" because I haven't spent that much time on the West Coast. I can say that it looks like some of the denser East Coast burbs, though. Take a look at Somerville, Mass, for example.
But I digress... obviously we have two different definitions of urbanity.
Dude, these houses have driveways and yards. People built driveways so they could have cars. Cars generally mean that neighborhoods are less walkable. Less walkability usually translates into less urbanity.
These neighborhoods are similar to some of the older, working-class inner suburbs of East Coast cities...before the advent of the McMansion, walk-in closets, and home theaters.
Your position keeps changing. The first time it was "there's nowhere in Oakland where there's continuous storefronts". I show you multiple places with continuous storefronts. Then it turns into "I meant that there's no neighborhoods in Oakland as densely built as Philly's neighborhoods". Montclair's Oakland neighborhood statistics contradict that. Basically, for some reason you refuse to believe that west coast style urbanity is actually urban.
And forget SF, Laurel is further away from Downtown Oakland than your example was from Downtown Philly. If you want to look at examples closer into Downtown Oakland, be my guest:
and To Montclairs point on further out. Not one of these areas pictured are included in the core 47 miles I did as the comparator to the SF footprint. You are skewing things a bit on the comparative footprint. To get to your most dense 135sq miles you went across the Bay and along the bay - so yes these places you consider in the core for SF are further because you selectively picked the densest places to extend
Here is a place the same continuous distance from DT SF to the images we showed at 10 miles - now granted they are not all like this but the continuity in Philly is far greater in all directions
Dude, these houses have driveways and yards. People built driveways so they could have cars. Cars generally mean that neighborhoods are less walkable. Less walkability usually translates into less urbanity.
These neighborhoods are similar to some of the older, working-class inner suburbs of East Coast cities...before the advent of the McMansion, walk-in closets, and home theaters.
So by your logic, LA is not a dense, urban city, because 99.9% of homes in LA have driveways and yards.
Oakland easily has the 2nd best bus system in the Bay after SF... I'll give you that you're not from here though so there's no reason you'd know that. A ton of people commute on the bus and use the bus system to go out.
Density is one of the few ways of quantifying urbanity, and the average Oakland neighborhood does as well as the average Philly neighborhood. Nobody claimed Oakland was rowhouse land.
Yes, but I thought the point of including Oakland and the like is to compare how far out density radiates from the respective downtowns of SF and Philadelphia since SF only has 46 square miles?
You're discounting the fact that you're including a whole lot of water and non-dense areas in your calculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
In that sense, Nineties Flava is right on because Laurel is a dense, vibrant neighborhood people actually want to live in, 15 miles from DT as Laurel has 11,492 persons per square mile and is highly sought after by working class and middle management types alike, upwardly mobile minorities, young families and the like.
Laurel is not nearly as dense as Torresdale, Cobbs Creek, Germantown or the myriad other residential neighborhoods in Philly, as I've just demonstrated by simply moving a block or two away from cherry-picked neighborhoods on Google Maps. Just walking a block away from MacArthur Boulevard, you get some fairly decent sized homes with small yards and drive ways. A block off 52nd Street, you get very tightly clustered homes. You could go two miles in either direction and see the same thing pretty much. The density is very consistent in Philly.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 08-01-2011 at 09:57 AM..
So by your logic, LA is not a dense, urban city, because 99.9% of homes in LA have driveways and yards.
Who thinks of LA as being a dense, urban city? Most people think of Los Angeles as being sprawled out. Is LA sprawled out compared to Atlanta or Houston? No. But if you're coming from Philly, then yes, it seems very sprawled out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
Density is one of the few ways of quantifying urbanity, and the average Oakland neighborhood does as well as the average Philly neighborhood. Nobody claimed Oakland was rowhouse land.
Oakland is not that dense. The city's population density is only around 7,000. It's not all forests and hills that bring the city's population density down. Philadelphia has a gigantic forest called Fairmount Park, two huge airports, three sports stadiums, docks, shipyards, and huge swaths of warehouse and industrial districts. Yet the population density is nearly 12,000 persons per sq. mile. Then there are also suburban-type neighborhoods like Andorra, Chestnut Hill, Wynnefield and Overbrook Park that bring that number down even more.
Your position keeps changing. The first time it was "there's nowhere in Oakland where there's continuous storefronts". I show you multiple places with continuous storefronts. Then it turns into "I meant that there's no neighborhoods in Oakland as densely built as Philly's neighborhoods". Montclair's Oakland neighborhood statistics contradict that. Basically, for some reason you refuse to believe that west coast style urbanity is actually urban.
No, you didn't. I completely exposed that by using Google maps to walk just a few blocks up MacArthur. I mean, you're not going to walk three blocks up 52nd Street and then all of a sudden see it transform into suburbia. Every city has clusters of storefront property. Just look at how dense and urban Atlanta is!
And forget SF, Laurel is further away from Downtown Oakland than your example was from Downtown Philly. If you want to look at examples closer into Downtown Oakland, be my guest:
I provided two links. The first link is probably just south of the word "West" in West Philadelphia. The second link was way far out in the Northeast...beyond Cottman Avenue. This is considered the "boonies" of Philadelphia. Again, unless Oakland is bigger than Philly, or the city is just oddly-shaped so that it's very long, Laurel is not farther from Downtown Oakland than Cottman Ave is from Center City.
Looking for neighborhoods 15 miles from Downtown Philadelphia that are equivalent to Laurel is very difficult.
10,000+ppsm & desirable 15+ miles from Downtown.
Looking at Google, I see lots of nice areas, but not dense and the areas that are dense are not very desirable.
Is that your only response?
The bottom line is this: There is more "city" to Philadelphia than there is to San Francisco.
San Francisco is a dense, urban mass of 47 square miles.
Oakland is a mass of dense, suburban style neighborhoods.
San Jose is a huge glob of suburban style neighborhoods.
Philadelphia is 137 square miles, most of which is very urban.
Detached housing, yards, and driveways do not an urban area make.
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.
