U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:46 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,252 posts, read 2,453,992 times
Reputation: 1554

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Don't compare Miami with Philly. Philly stretches for miles in all directions from the center, north,west, and south (a bit less towards the north) with neighborhoods that reach or exceed Little Havana's density. Going south, it holds that density almost exactly to the border. Few cities except maybe Chicago and obviously NYC do this. (Maybe San Francisco, but either way Philly does very well).
I wasn't comparing them, but merely stating that Miami has a higher population density (according to Wiki at least) - which is amazing - yet doesn't feel like it at all. Which is the topic of this thread.

What is it that you disagree with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:53 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,750 posts, read 39,666,164 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
I wasn't comparing them, but merely stating that Miami has a higher population density (according to Wiki at least) - which is amazing - yet doesn't feel like it at all. Which is the topic of this thread.

What is it that you disagree with?
I didn't mean to be arguementative, I was trying to point out the overall numbers don't really give a good picture on what the density is (Philly limits also include land where few live and it just covers more area).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,252 posts, read 2,453,992 times
Reputation: 1554
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I didn't mean to be arguementative, I was trying to point out the overall numbers don't really give a good picture on what the density is (Philly limits also include land where few live and it just covers more area).
Yes, which is why Philly feels more dense -- even though overall it isn't. That's exactly the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:16 PM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
897 posts, read 890,430 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm123 View Post
LA certainly is dense, but it also has sprawl. I think what some people refer to is concentrated density. Using one measure I like (perceived density of the MSA divided by actual density of the MSA), LA is the 8th most concentrated MSA (measuring only the top 15). It's slightly less concentrated than Washington and slightly more than Seattle (Miami is 12th, btw, between Dallas and Houston).
LOL given 134 sq miles around the core of los angeles it is denser than Philly, so LA is not all sprawl like you think it is buddy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Shaw.
2,226 posts, read 2,998,957 times
Reputation: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliSon View Post
LOL given 134 sq miles around the core of los angeles it is denser than Philly, so LA is not all sprawl like you think it is buddy
I'm not sure how much sprawl you think I think LA has. Also, sprawl can be very dense. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Edit: To clarify what I mean, I'll say that a place can be spread out, have stripmalls, be very car dependent and other things typically associated with sprawl while still being very densely populated. I won't use LA as an example, because I don't know it well, but Miami (and especially Miami-Dade as a whole) is a clear example. There's a lot of people here and a lot of sprawl.

Edit 2: When I talk about concentrated populations, it's my term for what Eric Eidlin, a community planner, talks about this study. Also, despite the stigmas attached to "sprawl" and the positives associated with "density," I'm not using these as value terms. Sprawl has advantages and concentration has disadvantages.

Last edited by pgm123; 07-05-2012 at 10:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:56 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,506,850 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliSon View Post
LOL given 134 sq miles around the core of los angeles it is denser than Philly, so LA is not all sprawl like you think it is buddy
You can cut 227 sq miles out the core of Los Angeles and be denser than Chicago, or the core 46 square miles and be denser than San Francisco. However, those areas still will not be as walkable or urban as Philly, Chicago or San Francisco due to LA's poor urban layout due to its auto-centric attributes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:15 PM
 
11,016 posts, read 21,584,696 times
Reputation: 10646
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
You can cut 227 sq miles out the core of Los Angeles and be denser than Chicago, or the core 46 square miles and be denser than San Francisco. However, those areas still will not be as walkable or urban as Philly, Chicago or San Francisco due to LA's poor urban layout due to its auto-centric attributes.
Actually I think this was brought up before and it isn't true. Regardless, you can go back and forth when comparing sizes (haha), and it always changes. For instance, if you're sizing up the top 227 square miles of LA - then you're taking the densest areas of that city and comparing it to Chicago where you're including O'hare and the areas around Wolf Lake, etc. that have 20+ square miles and no people. yadda yadda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:16 PM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
897 posts, read 890,430 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
You can cut 227 sq miles out the core of Los Angeles and be denser than Chicago, or the core 46 square miles and be denser than San Francisco. However, those areas still will not be as walkable or urban as Philly, Chicago or San Francisco due to LA's poor urban layout due to its auto-centric attributes.
That's true however LA still has plenty of pedestrian activity within those square miles, that was my whole point from the very begining of this thread when someone used LA as an example, though I agree that in their respective square miles of each of the cities you listed above they are more walkable and have higher pedestrian activity none of them is head and shoulders above LA, in other words LA is no slouch in that department eventhough as the second largest city in the nation it should be higher
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 12:29 AM
 
443 posts, read 691,342 times
Reputation: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliSon View Post
That's true however LA still has plenty of pedestrian activity within those square miles, that was my whole point from the very begining of this thread when someone used LA as an example, though I agree that in their respective square miles of each of the cities you listed above they are more walkable and have higher pedestrian activity none of them is head and shoulders above LA, in other words LA is no slouch in that department eventhough as the second largest city in the nation it should be higher
LA has quite a few dense nodes with a good amount of pedestrian activity. But the city also has a ton of areas that are technically dense, but have very little pedestrian activity. And I'm talking some pretty large swaths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 12:40 AM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
897 posts, read 890,430 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relegate View Post
LA has quite a few dense nodes with a good amount of pedestrian activity. But the city also has a ton of areas that are technically dense, but have very little pedestrian activity. And I'm talking some pretty large swaths.
those large swaths you talk about are nowhere near the core which was what I was talking about
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top