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 05-03-2014, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,447,159 times
Reputation: 3716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
All other large Mexican cities probably have higher weighted density than second highest in the US/Canada (Toronto) but lower than New York City.
Toronto - the second highest weighted density in Canada and the U.S after NYC.. I'm just waiting for the canon balls to fire with that statement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2014, 01:04 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,152 posts, read 21,760,655 times
Reputation: 10231
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
LA looks different, so will probably feel different.

When was the last time you were in LA? That dense core got a lot denser in the past few years so it make sense to discuss that. Circa 2014 LA and 2013 Philadelphia (haven't gone this year) can be pretty similar in its downtown parts in terms of bustling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 08:46 AM
 
Location: The City
21,952 posts, read 30,828,588 times
Reputation: 7489
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
LA looks different, so will probably feel different.

When was the last time you were in LA? That dense core got a lot denser in the past few years so it make sense to discuss that. Circa 2014 LA and 2013 Philadelphia (haven't gone this year) can be pretty similar in its downtown parts in terms of bustling.
November 2013 was my last time in LA, is changing esp DT - I am thinking those next and next set of ares moreso - LA has dense core and agree there are aspect that feel similar in thee two. Though LA is a little rougher actually, not many would say that for actually.

I like LA though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,619 posts, read 24,821,143 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Meh. The Outer Boroughs have tons of census tracts with large household sizes, and neither is particularly affluent, yet I don't see anyone trying to dock them points for that.
I wouldn't "dock" them points as if it were a competition. But it's obvious that household sizes will often account for differences in population density. In Tract 531 (Williamsburg), the population density is 112,646 people per square mile, but the average household size is 5.34 persons per unit (Hasidic Jews tend to have large families). Household sizes in sections of Queens tend to be on the larger size as well ranging from 4.05 to 2.97. These neighborhoods have Manhattan-type density (Tract 269.02 has 147,392 ppsm), but obviously look and feel nothing like Manhattan from a built-density perspective. I don't know anyone who would argue that Corona is more urban than Harlem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
The entire neighborhoods of Westlake and Koreatown have an average household size of around 2.85, not far from the household size of Brooklyn as a whole. The density of the two neighborhoods is roughly 40,000 ppsm.
That's not a low number for a central city, apartment-dominated neighborhood. As I said before, the densest neighborhoods in central cities often have very low household sizes. In Back Bay, the average household has 1.4 persons per unit. In Logan Circle (DC), the average household size is 1.33 persons per unit. In Center City Philadelphia's densest tract, the average household size is 1.44 persons per unit. These neighborhoods were much denser in the 1930s and 40s when household sizes were much larger (some Manhattan tracts, I believe, exceeded 400,000 ppsm), but have declined in population density now that they are dominated by childless yupsters. Not sure if anyone would say that these areas are any less urban now or that they were more urban then.

Household sizes grow larger as one moves to areas with more SFHs or larger units (or as poverty increases). The average household size in Chevy Chase, MD is 2.8 persons. In Bowie, MD (McMansion central), it's 2.7 persons. My brother's neighborhood in pollen-covered suburban Atlanta has 2.6 persons per household. The national average is 2.55.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,619 posts, read 24,821,143 times
Reputation: 11185
In 1920, Philadelphia had 908,000 people in 21.4 sq. miles for a population density of 42,429 people per square mile. That may have been the densest area of any city in the U.S. outside of New York City. It was certainly one of the densest places on earth at that time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities (StP)
3,007 posts, read 1,711,261 times
Reputation: 2293
Detroit. They have at least 6 million rats per square mile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 01:34 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
45,749 posts, read 39,666,164 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I wouldn't "dock" them points as if it were a competition. But it's obvious that household sizes will often account for differences in population density. In Tract 531 (Williamsburg), the population density is 112,646 people per square mile, but the average household size is 5.34 persons per unit (Hasidic Jews tend to have large families). Household sizes in sections of Queens tend to be on the larger size as well ranging from 4.05 to 2.97. These neighborhoods have Manhattan-type density (Tract 269.02 has 147,392 ppsm), but obviously look and feel nothing like Manhattan from a built-density perspective. I don't know anyone who would argue that Corona is more urban than Harlem.
Places with a similar housing stock but higher household size and population density generally feel busier on the street. Sunset Park and Park Slope might be a good comparison. Park Slope feels a bit more urban due to bigger buildings, but Sunset Park (mainly 5th, maybe 8th) feels very crowded. In the other direction, a low density neighborhood with otherwise dense looking housing stock will feel sleepier and less urban. St. Louis and some rust belt cities might be good examples.Maybe not Corona, but Forest Hills immediately by Queens Blvd has nearly identically sized housing stock:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fores...69.17,,0,-8.95

Census tracts are around 90,000 per square mile. But go a few blocks and it's either detached homes or rowhouses.


Quote:
These neighborhoods were much denser in the 1930s and 40s when household sizes were much larger (some Manhattan tracts, I believe, exceeded 400,000 ppsm), but have declined in population density now that they are dominated by childless yupsters. Not sure if anyone would say that these areas are any less urban now or that they were more urban then.
The very high density tracts in Manhattan were mostly in the East Village or Lower East Side (though other parts of Manhattan were also very dense, including the Yorkville section of the Upper East Side). Someone of the high household sizes was from the fact that families had more children and it was the norm for children to share a room. But the Lower East Side/East Village didn't just decline from changing demographics, the apartments were also changed into 1 bedrooms / studios. And some buildings were demolished by the government to create more air and light passing through.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ref=realestate


For example, in 1910, 66 people lived on the four residential floors of 94 Orchard Street. Today, the buildilng houses 15 people.


I might say the Lower East Side was more urban back then. With four times more people, there would obviously be more people out. There's nothing this crowded today:



Note the middle of the street was used by pedestrians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,257 posts, read 12,568,975 times
Reputation: 5094
Areas like Logan Circle and Back Bay are much wealthier than L.A.'s Westlake/Macarthur Park and Koreatown areas. So of course there are less people per household. Koreatown in particular has over 125,000 people living in its boundaries. It has two very busy subway stations, highrises, midrises, sfhs, townhomes and all of this in 2 square miles I think that 2.8 is pretty good. And believe me, if you really think Koreatown is a bunch of illegal aliens 7 per apt you are sadly mistaken. Logan Cirlce, mostly white, wealthy, around 8000 residents in probably less than a quarter of a square mile. Not a good comparison imo.

Last edited by pwright1; 05-04-2014 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,447,159 times
Reputation: 3716
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post

I might say the Lower East Side was more urban back then. With four times more people, there would obviously be more people out. There's nothing this crowded today:

Note the middle of the street was used by pedestrians.
Love that pic! Pretty handy back then if you wanted to go and and buy some veggies for the soup! Literally you just had to walk out the front door lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:50 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,112 posts, read 5,130,868 times
Reputation: 898
LA is certainly dense, but doesn't meet most of my criteria for "urban" in the way a whole host of other US/Canadian cities do.

Someone in another thread mentioned Guadalajara and Monterey as two large urban Mexican cities. The first I can understand, not as much the second. My list would probably go:

Chicago
Guadalajara
San Francisco
Toronto
Montreal
Boston
Philadelphia
Washington DC
Vancouver
Seattle
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