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.
So if 2000 people are added to that tract, then the density will jump to about 50,000 per sq mile. It's a nice jump in density for sure.
Well, I don't know about that at least on the Census Tract Level. That tract ranks 17th highest in DC. If it were in Chicago it would be 67th. While that's a sizable difference, it's not immense. Though looking at Census Blocks is where the disparity comes even more.
Chicago is dense but NYC is another animal. I actually live in the densest census tract in Chicago (other than this one up north at 500,000 per sq mile which covers only two high rises) which is 92,000 per sq mile. Though a high rise is currently being built in the tract that will deliver another 367 units by next spring. Once full, the density will probably jump to 105,000 per sq mile, but still. 105,000 per sq mile in NYC would rank around 170th if that gives you any indication of how dense NYC truly is.
I guess I thought there was more concentration of construction of housing units in certain area's.
"How integrated sports arenas and stadiums are into the urban fabric. So on."
and you have gone on for 11 pages arguing about it.
From an urban planning perspective, I think soldier field is the best (well in Chicago, I can't speak for the other cities).
It's in a park like setting right on the outskirts of downtown, close to the museums and other cultural points of interest.
It is accessible to everyone in the city, and the suburbs, it fits in with the character and aesthetic of the area. drivers do not have to navigate city neighborhoods to get there, You can also take public transportation there quite easily.
It is integrated into the city and planned well, not an eyesore or a major cause of gridlock, it is also culturally well known and a well known building in the city, again near major musuems and other attractions.
Wrigleyville is of course integrated into the cultural fabric of the city, and the historic ball field is an icon. It's not as well integrated with the rest of the city, it is as noted in an urban area near bars and restaurants.
I don't think being among high rises or other buildings has anything to do with being integrated into the city.
But its really up for the op to decide what it means to him and which is most important...and I think the various opinions here should help with that, particularly with the cities he is less familiar with.
I guess I thought there was more concentration of construction of housing units in certain area's.
According to my data there were about 50 residential high rises completed in Chicago 2008-2010 downtown. So out of those that were counted in the census, those buildings probably have a lot more residents now than they did in 2009 or 2010 when the census numbers were taken. I was even thinking about my tract and I remembered there were two high rises completed in 2009 or 2010 but didn't have many people in them when the census was taken. Now they do and he density of my tract is probably truly closer to 110K/sq mi. In a few years with that new high rise it'll probably be closer to 120K/sq mi
Of course the ones in D.C. What other city would be building ugly buildings in America?
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but are you saying that D.C. is popping up with ugly buildings? Are you also saying that's it's the only city to have ugly buildings?
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but are you saying that D.C. is popping up with ugly buildings? Are you also saying that's it's the only city to have ugly buildings?
there are ugly buildings everywhere IMHO
this is a new residential tower that is pretty blah to me
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but are you saying that D.C. is popping up with ugly buildings? Are you also saying that's it's the only city to have ugly buildings?
I personally don't feel that way. I'm sure many people in Washington D.C. don't feel that way either. It's the other 50 states, well at least this website would have you believe, that think that.
I personally don't feel that way. I'm sure many people in Washington D.C. don't feel that way either. It's the other 50 states, well at least this website would have you believe, that think that.
I think D.C. has some of the nicest architecture in the U.S. Much better than a lot of the Generica crap that's seen a lot in America.
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.
