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 02-02-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
201 posts, read 251,948 times
Reputation: 232

Advertisements

In the course of looking at a few Vancouver vs SF threads, I saw that Vancouver's West End has a population density of 55,000 ppsm. These are two of the most crowded places in North America outside of New York. So, I was wondering, which city, Vancouver or San Francisco, benefits more from its density?
I'm thinking in terms of
Residential Highrises ()
Downtown Crowds
Residential Streets (Are they alive? People outside?)
Architectural Density
Overall maintenance (Buildings are maintained well, used, not vacant)
Overall coherence (Easy transition from one neighborhood to another, not packed neighborhoods next to empty warehouses)
Also, which city better utilizes its limited land? Which city's planning department has better long-term plans for its city's growth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2014, 04:50 PM
 
215 posts, read 307,590 times
Reputation: 151
I have heard myths of Vancouver being extremely super dense in areas but have not found this to be true on paper. I don't know where people get these claims from. I would say SF has more neighborhoods with high density and SF is denser as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
201 posts, read 251,948 times
Reputation: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lunatic & A Therapist View Post
I have heard myths of Vancouver being extremely super dense in areas but have not found this to be true on paper. I don't know where people get these claims from. I would say SF has more neighborhoods with high density and SF is denser as a whole.
Huh, I guess all those luxury condo towers take away from the actual "dense" feel of the city. You know, less people in the streets and whatnot. Would be interesting to see what percentage of Vancouverites live in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:16 PM
 
215 posts, read 307,590 times
Reputation: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyjohnyang View Post
Huh, I guess all those luxury condo towers take away from the actual "dense" feel of the city. You know, less people in the streets and whatnot. Would be interesting to see what percentage of Vancouverites live in them.
Everyone rambles about the density of Vancouver and it has x density. After researching these claims there was not any evidence showing it's true. I want people to post the name of the neighborhood, the population of the neighborhood and the square miles of that neighborhood. I'm just sick of these myths about the magical Vancouver density, yet nobody posts facts.

Last edited by The Lunatic & A Therapist; 02-02-2014 at 07:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:19 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,932,214 times
Reputation: 867
SF, definitely. SF has great human-scaled neighborhoods and very strong local character.

Vancouver is filled with anonymous condo-podium towers that are so generic you could be anywhere in the world. Singapore? Oslo? Guadalajara? I got that sort of feeling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:53 PM
 
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
9,411 posts, read 18,259,283 times
Reputation: 11886
San Francisco has better density. Vancouver is a bunch of glass boxes, albeit with beautiful surroundings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
201 posts, read 251,948 times
Reputation: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lunatic & A Therapist View Post
Everyone rambles about the density of Vancouver and it has x density. After researching these claims there was not any evidence showing it's true. I want people to post the name of the neighborhood, the population of the neighborhood and the square miles of that neighborhood. I'm just sick of these myths about the magical Vancouver density, yet nobody posts facts.
http://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress...ensity2011.jpg
Found this map from 2011. I think it should help us better gauge density in Vancouver in relation to neighborhoods and their size. Note that 100 people per hectare translates to 25,900 people per square mile.

Last edited by garyjohnyang; 02-02-2014 at 08:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 08:33 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,509,808 times
Reputation: 5657
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyjohnyang View Post
http://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress...ensity2011.jpg
Found this map from 2011. I think it should help us better gauge density in Vancouver in relation to neighborhoods and their size. Note that 100 people per hectare translates to 25,900 people per square mile.
He means the total square miles of the area. PPSM means nothing if not included the square miles at that density. Census tracts are sometimes only singular buildings.

BTW that is one of the most worthless maps I have ever seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 08:43 PM
 
215 posts, read 307,590 times
Reputation: 151
Exactly, I think these claims ppl make of Vancouver being 40,000-50,000 ppsm is in small areas of only 0.1-0.2 sq miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 09:02 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: Long Island / NYC
45,980 posts, read 41,810,577 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
He means the total square miles of the area. PPSM means nothing if not included the square miles at that density. Census tracts are sometimes only singular buildings.

BTW that is one of the most worthless maps I have ever seen.
what's wrong with the map? Overall density numbers are misleading; I like it broken it down by census tract so you can see how the population is distributed. Census tracts are usually 2000-6000 people. Only annoying thing is the red category is too broad. Here's a similar map of San Francisco:



San Francisco's population looks less evenly distributed than Vancouver's, which isn't surprising: outside of the high rise areas, Vancouver is a lot of detached homes on small lots with some apartment buildings mixed in. The brown to the south of the penisula is the most "traditional" urban neighborhood in Vancouver, as in dense, but less reliant on new high rises for its high density. The brown color for Vancouver, the densest category on the map, is equivalent to the three darkest colors on the San Francisco map.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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