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)
 
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,329,827 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
Not true.

Yes, there are some parts of the Outer Boroughs, with high household sizes, but those are the lowest density parts of the Outer Boroughs. The small household sizes are in the densest part of the Outer Boroughs. Northeast Queens has the highest household size in NYC, and is the least dense part of Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx.

And even the high household sizes in a few parts of NYC are nowhere comparable to LA. That's why LA has suburban-looking areas with high densities. You basically have suburban environments, but there are like 20 Salvadorans packed into a house.
Household size
Brooklyn: 2.71
Bronx: 2.84
Queens: 2.85
Manhattan: 2.08

Los Angeles (where the vast majority of the metro's high density areas are located): 2.82

Koreatown/Westlake: 2.80 (rough estimate)
Williamsburg: 3.0
Corona Queens: 3.3

And on and on. Again, I never see anyone docking NYC for high household census tracts, that's yet another LA exclusive. You're just nitpicking now because the numbers don't add up for you. Yes, LA has areas with large household sizes but if you're arguing that it isn't structurally dense and merely overcrowded, then why is the percentage of the multi-unit housing for the city at 52%? A city of 3.8 million mind you, not 600,000. 3.8 million is comparable in size to a mid-sized metro. Do you think Boston, Philly, or DC's MSA have a percentage of multi-unit housing that high? Do they even match the percentage of LA County, which is 42%?

Last edited by nei; 05-03-2014 at 02:51 PM.. Reason: fixed quote
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,579,873 times
Reputation: 3941
[quote=RaymondChandlerLives;34644347]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
Not true.

Yes, there are some parts of the Outer Boroughs, with high household sizes, but those are the lowest density parts of the Outer Boroughs. The small household sizes are in the densest part of the Outer Boroughs. Northeast

Household size
Brooklyn: 2.71
Bronx: 2.84
Queens: 2.85
Manhattan: 2.08

Los Angeles (where the vast majority of the metro's high density areas are located): 2.82

Koreatown/Westlake: 2.80 (rough estimate)
Williamsburg: 3.0
Corona Queens: 3.3

And on and on. Again, I never see anyone docking NYC for high household census tracts, that's yet another LA exclusive. You're just nitpicking now because the numbers don't add up for you. Yes, LA has areas with large household sizes but if you're arguing that it isn't structurally dense and merely overcrowded, then why is the percentage of the housing for the city at 52%? A city of 3.8 million mind you, not 600,000. 3.8 million is comparable in size to a mid-sized metro. Do you think Boston, Philly, or DC's MSA have a percentage of multi-unit housing that high? Do they even match the percentage of the LA County, which is 42%?
But stucco!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,329,827 times
Reputation: 6288
Jobs within 10 miles of CBD 2006
Los Angeles - 1,554,495 (34.8%)
Washington DC - 1,011,162 (55.5%)
Boston - 989,319 (51.4%)
Philadelphia - 909,026 (39.3%)

DC, Boston, and Philly have slight advantages in the number of jobs within 3 miles of downtown, but from that point on LA has a sizable advantage. Keep in kind that this is a 100 sq mile area, not exactly huge in comparison to the massive urban areas these core regions are located in. Maybe we can chalk this up to there being 10 businesses crammed into a house.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:27 PM
 
Location: The City
21,958 posts, read 30,839,883 times
Reputation: 7495
^^^

Philly is about 66% in single dwellings; most are rowhomes at 58%

LA is about 38% single family detached housing

So 92% of Philly is either multi-unit or attached housing; 62% for LA

on multi unit dwellings LA is about 28% with 20 or more units with Philly at 12%

So the biggest differences are LA with more than 1 in 3 in SFH detached and a higher % in 20 plus units (assume a majority of these are two to three story apartment complexes.

On HH Size

LA 3.04
Philly 2.73

Car free households
Philly 33%
LA 14%

American FactFinder - Results *
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,329,827 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
^^^

Philly is about 66% in single dwellings; most are rowhomes at 57%

LA is about 38% single family detached housing

So 92% of Philly is either multi-unit or attached housing; 62% for LA

on multi unit dwellings LA is about 28% with 20 or more units with Philly at 12%

So the biggest differences are LA with more than 1 in 3 in SFH detached and a higher % in 20 plus units (assume a majority of these are two to three story apartment complexes.

On HH Size

LA 3.04
Philly 2.73

Car free households
Philly 33%
LA 14%

American FactFinder - Results *
Nice info. One thing to remember is the difference in population size (3.8 to 1.55 million). Assuming your percentages are correct the total amount of multi-unit and attached housing in LA city is 876,676. Philly, 614,713. Los Angeles also maintains a decent amount of urbanization outside its city limits in places like WeHo, BH, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Glendale, and Pasadena.

According to the census, LA's household size is 2.82. Philly 2.54:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:55 PM
 
Location: The City
21,958 posts, read 30,839,883 times
Reputation: 7495
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Nice info. One thing to remember is the difference in population size (3.8 to 1.55 million). Assuming your percentages are correct the total amount of multi-unit and attached housing in LA city is 876,676. Philly, 614,713. Los Angeles also maintains a decent amount of urbanization outside its city limits in places like WeHo, BH, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Glendale, and Pasadena.

According to the census, LA's household size is 2.82. Philly 2.54:

Los Angeles (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Yeah LA is built dense no doubt

A lot of multi-dwellings in LA (or broader LA area) is sort of the 4-10 unit block apt dwellings or compact garden style I believe based on my experience (these are not as common in the NE in the core) Garden style would be more common in the burbs here without the concentration.

Outside the city here its dense older cores and more suburban surrounding them - there are many rowhouse towns in the burbs here too - Philly and the surroundings are sort of the center of rowhome development for better or worse - even more so than Baltimore which is prob second

DC, NYC, Richmond etc have a lot as well

Boston has a lot of double and triple deckers which I think are technically not considered single dwellings where rowhouses are - though one could argue are equally urban - one by floor and wider and one taller etc.

Most rowhouse streets would be like 15-20 attached actually

LA has the most consistent spread footprint anywhere in the US - its just different hard to compare in many ways - dense yes, compact yes but in a different way

I like LA a lot for what it is but it is a different urban experience in many ways - not sure how to best describe

I like it though, but is a different animal - walking the streets mostly feels different to me even in the more concentrated in LA. I never get a feeling like say a Bella Vista here anywhere there (some areas of SF feel a lot more similar)

neither good nor bad - just different
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 03:11 PM
 
112 posts, read 102,317 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Yeah LA is built dense no doubt

A lot of multi-dwellings in LA (or broader LA area) is sort of the 4-10 unit block apt dwellings or compact garden style I believe based on my experience (these are not as common in the NE in the core) Garden style would be more common in the burbs here without the concentration.

Outside the city here its dense older cores and more suburban surrounding them - there are many rowhouse towns in the burbs here too - Philly and the surroundings are sort of the center of rowhome development for better or worse - even more so than Baltimore which is prob second

DC, NYC, Richmond etc have a lot as well

Boston has a lot of double and triple deckers which I think are technically not considered single dwellings where rowhouses are - though one could argue are equally urban - one by floor and wider and one taller etc.

Most rowhouse streets would be like 15-20 attached actually

LA has the most consistent spread footprint anywhere in the US - its just different hard to compare in many ways - dense yes, compact yes but in a different way

I like LA a lot for what it is but it is a different urban experience in many ways - not sure how to best describe

I like it though, but is a different animal - walking the streets mostly feels different to me even in the more concentrated in LA. I never get a feeling like say a Bella Vista here anywhere there (some areas of SF feel a lot more similar)

neither good nor bad - just different
What area are you speaking of?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,726,682 times
Reputation: 7299
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Boston.

Smaller areas of hyper-density are more important to me.
I understand, so when will you be moving to Barcelona? It's not a megacity but it's hyper-dense. If that doesn't cut it for you, I'd also recommend Busan and Nagoya too. Both are medium sized cities (meaning not megacities but very large) with hyper-density. That should satisfy a Walrus of your caliber and standards, no?

Hyper-density doesn't really describe anywhere except New York, in the United States. One of my old cities that I lived in the middle 1990's is the third densest urban area on the planet, my neighborhood alone (the most first world part of Mumbai, or one of the most) had an excess of 160,000 people per square mile over a pretty good area. That's hyper-density, to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Please show me a picture of LA that makes it look more claustrophobic.
Santee Alley, Los Angeles, California, United States. Granted the Santee Alley is very small, you had pretty minimalistic requirements for a commercial zone in the first place.

In addition to the picture above, two more follow up pictures. One and two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
(Then) I will take you seriously.
I've met your most minimal of requirements, this is the least you, a humble Walrus, can do for me.

Last edited by Facts Kill Rhetoric; 05-03-2014 at 04:43 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,579,873 times
Reputation: 3941
Most of the Fashion District is compact like that too. Granted, there isn't residential in the area (for now).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 06:45 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
45,751 posts, read 39,686,242 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
Yes, Greater Boston would be more urban in my eyes if it transitioned exactly the way you described it.

Boston the city is good, it's compact, it's small, and for all intents and purposes, one of the fewer places in the country where you can enjoy some very urban areas with good levels of density. This is also the case for immediate suburbs like Cambridge. Beyond that inner ring though, is some scattershot sort of development, I believe New England has a term for it (NECTA). In this development, small towns have these "town centers" (which are very tiny) that were established before the age of the automobile but between them to the next small town is some of the leafiest and lowest density suburbia on the planet, with some of the largest plot estates and isn't on a grid so they are even more scattershot than they should be.

This right here (your post), would perfectly summarize what I think.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed, which uses the same standard for every city on the planet, for places above 3 million people, Greater Boston is stopped only by Greater Atlanta and exceeded in low density suburbia. Both lead the planet, as numbers one and two, in low density. Difference is, Boston the city has an urban core, a dense, tightly-knit, and structurally dense with adequate transit and indrastructure, whereas Atlanta does not.

The reason I penalized Greater Boston is not because it has suburbs but because Greater Boston's suburbs are the lowest of densities and that's something that the other American cities I listed don't share to the same degree as Greater Boston. Here is the weighted density chart from the year 2000, I know it's outdated but that doesn't matter to Greater Boston as it's growth in the last 14 years hasn't been much to change it as it is. Even if it did, every city in the country actually became less dense in terms of weighted density by 2010.

A few things from it, Chicago has a weighted density that exceeds 10,000 people per square mile and has nearly twice the population and twice the "standard density" of Greater Boston. This is why I gave Chicagoland a pass. In theory, Greater Boston's weighted density is on the level of that of only the city proper of Los Angeles and similar in population too (even with it's mountain range going through it).

Greater Boston does not have the size going for it, in my opinion. It does not have the density going for it, in my opinion. It does not have the consistency in structural density going for it, even to a small degree, in my opinion.

This is why I wont give Greater Boston a pass and add it to the list of potential candidates for top ten in North America. It's weighted density and population is closer to that of Greater Miami than it is to Greater Chicago, which adequately punches in as it was expected for a large city and metropolis, in terms of urbanity for both.
I wouldn't really use Boston's suburbs to count against it, I just don't think they add much to its urbanity. I think of Boston as a rather urban city of 1.5-2 million, with the rest of its suburbs just not counting, they don't really add to the size of the city. Some of Boston's suburbs are low density, but the ones within the I-95/SR-128 loop mostly aren't, and that region is what locals mainly think of as Boston. The fact that say, Chicago's newer suburbs are denser doesn't matter that much IMO. Does Schaumberg add much to Chicago's urbanity? Having places like Lowell, Haverhill, and the scattered walkable small towns add at least as much if not more. Few newer American suburbs add much in "urbanity" to me, except maybe Californian ones (and Canadian ones, which are similar density-wise). There are not many other North American that surpass Boston in urbanity:

1) New York City
2) Chicago
3) Montreal
4) Toronto
5) Philadelphia
6) San Francisco
7) Los Angeles

DC has a similar sized metro as Boston, but its densest 1.5-2 million live at lower densities than Boston, it's quite a bit lower in the core. Yes, it has denser newer development, but enough to make a difference yet. Vancouver has a high weighted and standard density, but it's half the size of Boston's metro. The immediate core feels less urban than Boston and patchier, and if you took the denser contiguous area holding 1 million people, it would again be less dense. I don't think Miami is anywhere near as urban as Boston. The weighted density numbers can be a bit odd for comparing urbanity: San Jose has nearly the same weighted density as Boston, but it's umm... San Jose.

Every large Mexican or Central American city will have a higher standard density than every large American/Canadian city. Household sizes are large, living spaces small, buildings are packed together even if not always traditionally urban. If you're doing a metro-wide overall density comparison, it's Mexico City without question. By weighted density, New York City roughly ties Mexico City, as its density distribution is much more uneven and peaked than Mexico City (which will lead to a higher weighted density and lower standard density). All other large Mexican cities probably have higher weighted density than second highest in the US/Canada (Toronto) but lower than New York City.

Last edited by Yac; 05-08-2014 at 06:09 AM..
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.


 
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