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.
When people from LA do the central core LA comparison of 47sq miles it hardly includes ANY park or green space and it's still less dense than SF which is 19pct green park space. According to LA.Curbed.com the densest part of LA 47 sq miles is: "But Rhodes proposed a different central core, called Central LA, which he draws himself, with boundaries stretching east-west from Fairfax to the LA River, and north-south from the hills down to Jefferson" and even then SF is still denser
Also since were costumizing choice areas of 47 cohesive sq miles to compare density, why dont we drop golden gate park and presidio and add parts of Daly City to fill the void because daly city is cohesive with SF and almost as urban with several tracts over 50k ppsm in daly city that connect with a swath of SF
When people from LA do the central core LA comparison of 47sq miles it hardly includes ANY park or green space and it's still less dense than SF which is 19pct green park space. According to LA.Curbed.com the densest part of LA 47 sq miles is: "But Rhodes proposed a different central core, called Central LA, which he draws himself, with boundaries stretching east-west from Fairfax to the LA River, and north-south from the hills down to Jefferson" and even then SF is still denser
Beyond the numbers the eyeball test clearly tells you that SF is and feels much more urban than LA's 47 mile central core. That area has some dense, urban districts, but nothing like the consistent, cohesive urban fabric SF has throughout the vast majority of the city.
Yes, Toronto does now have the second highest weighted density among U.S. and Canadian cities.
The Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa urban area is also the densest urban area is the U.S. and Canada.
And Toronto has the Toronto Islands, the former Downsview air base, the gigantic Rouge Park and a vast ravine system within its borders. Take all those undeveloped areas away and Toronto and Montreal's urban density are pretty much identical.
The only reason Vancouver has higher density within its municipal boundaries is because it's a city of only 44 square miles! Toronto is 243 square miles and includes large areas of post war development. Toronto's inner 44 square miles is a lot older and considerably more densely populated than Vancouver proper, same with Montreal's inner 44 square miles.
The original Old City of Toronto at 37 square miles was second only to NYC in population density prior to the 1998 amalgamation of the Old City with its 5 surrounding boroughs (York, East York, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough).
Chicago
LA
Philly
Boston
SanFran
DC
Miami
Baltimore
Oakland
IDK
Some smaller East coast cities thats are hubs or can stand alone could fit this list:
Newark
Jersey City
Providence
Bridgeport
It looks like you're sticking with US cities in your list - you'd really put Miami and Oakland above Seattle in terms of urbanity? I think Seattle has those beat - outside of the big 6, Baltimore, and maybe LA, I think you can make a strong case for Seattle being #8 or #9 (again, if we're only including US cities).
It looks like you're sticking with US cities in your list - you'd really put Miami and Oakland above Seattle in terms of urbanity? I think Seattle has those beat - outside of the big 6, Baltimore, and maybe LA, I think you can make a strong case for Seattle being #8 or #9 (again, if we're only including US cities).
Oh my bad I’d out Seattle top ten but yea probably after Oakland and Miami.
Miami because of the contiguous concentrated population cluster . It’s huge.... Dade into Broward and north.. Seattle isn’t quite like that. Miami is also much more densely populated than Seattle.
Oakland just feels super ‘urban’ in a way Seattle doesn’t.
I’ve never been to Canada but I guess Montreal or Toronto would knock out Oakland
Outside of NYC and D.F. which cities would you consider the most urban on the continent? How you define Urban is obviously subjective, but built environment, density, vibrancy both day and night are some factors to consider.
Every city in North America is up for discussion, not only the US and Canada
I'll take a rough crack at it as this was similar to previous topics about top 10 most urban cities in North America. This one's essentially asking top 12 with the top two spots already ceded to NYC and Mexico City.
Given:
- NYC
- CDMX
Possible contenders for the next 10 are Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Havana, Santo Domingo, Port-au-Prince, Guadalajara, Monterey, Guatemala City and Panama City. That's 17 cities for 10 slots. Of those, the ones I think are shoe-ins are Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, San Francisco, Havana, and Santo Domingo which leaves 4 more slots for 11 contenders.
In a previous topic, at the urging of another poster, I started creating roughly Manhattan-sized urban cores from existing contiguous divisions within various cities/metropolitan areas and listing out their population sizes within that area as a rough proxy for calculating of an apples to apples comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
So an update for a Manhattan-sized core with Montreal now (taking the option with Outrement as it's closer in size):
City | Divisions
Land Area
Population (Year)
New York City | Manhattan
22.83 sq mi
1,628,701 people (2018)
Habana | Plaza de la Revolución, Centro Habana, La Habana Vieja, Regla, Diez de Octubre, Cerro
21.6 sq mi | 5 + 2 + 2 + 3.6 + 5 + 4
821,841 people | 61,631 + 158,151 + 97,984 + 44,431 + 227,293 + 132,351 (2004)
Chicago | Near North Side, Loop, Lake View, Lincoln Park, Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, Lincoln Square, North Center, Near South Side
22.7428 sq mi | 2.6948 + 1.555 + 3.12 + 3.097 + 2.319 + 1.721 + 1.845 + 2.555 + 2.044 + 1.792
568,965 people | 89,995 + 37,647 + 100,547 + 68,697 + 58,424 + 57,022 + 54,872 + 41,713 + 35,705 + 24,343 (2018)
Montreal | Ville-Marie, Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie, Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension, Outrement
23.5 sq mi | 6.4 + 3.1 + 6.1 + 6.4 + 1.5
500,567 people | 89,170 + 104,000 + 139,590 + 143,853 + 23,954
Panama City | Bella Vista, Betania, Calidonia, Curundú, El Chorrillo, Parque Lefevre, Pueblo Nuevo, Rio Abajo, San Felipe, San Francisco, Santa Ana; Amelia Denis de Icaza, Belisario Porras, Mateo Iturralde, Victoriano Lorenzo, Belisario FrÃas
22.2 sq mi | 16.4 + 5.8
471,040 people | 290997 (2016) + 180043 (2018)
Chicago | Near North Side, Loop, Near South Side, Lake View, Lincoln Park, West Town, Near West Side
22.72 sq mi | 2.72 + 1.58 + 1.75 + 3.16 + 3.19 + 4.57 + 5.75
463,947 people | 88,893 + 35,880 + 23,620 + 100,470 + 67,710 + 84,502 + 62,872 (2017)
Also, in case anyone is looking to do so, here are some some potential avenues for making ~22-23 square mile areas contiguous with the CBD for other cities:
Other cities that might be decent top 7 contenders are Guadalajara, Monterrey, Port-au-Prince, San Francisco, Boston, DC and Los Angeles. I think New York City, Mexico City, Havana, Chicago, and Santo Domingo are essentially shoe-ins. I haven't run more granular stats on Santo Domingo, but just how densely the city as a whole is built out and its function as a national capital makes it pretty likely. I might give another go at Chicago, because I think there might be a middle ground between the two up there which would include keeping the Near West Side. The Near West Side is massive and has a lot of not very dense parts of it, but it also includes a lot of fairly key institutions of the city.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-22-2020 at 11:43 AM..
San Francisco core 47 is denser than LA fore 47 by a substantial amount. Just look up recent numbers. Also to be even more fair, why dont you calculate the large green areas in SF that have nothing built on it. SF is the only city outside NYC that has census tracts over 100k ppsm. Nothing in LA comes close. Weighted density makes the lead for SF even more insane. LA is a suburban city which is why I love it. We have front yards, back yards, side yards, aren't built to the curb and dont have loud public transportation everywhere. We certainly donr feel like a small town but we feel like a big one. SF feels insane to me with its density like NYC makes me feel while LA has big town vibe
Speak for yourself down there in Redondo Beach. I live here too and it doesn't feel like a small town at all imo, especially where I live. I will say a city of 500 square miles is going to have a far wider variety of different types of neighborhoods over something like San Francisco.
San Francisco core 47 is denser than LA fore 47 by a substantial amount. Just look up recent numbers. Also to be even more fair, why dont you calculate the large green areas in SF that have nothing built on it. SF is the only city outside NYC that has census tracts over 100k ppsm. Nothing in LA comes close. Weighted density makes the lead for SF even more insane. LA is a suburban city which is why I love it. We have front yards, back yards, side yards, aren't built to the curb and dont have loud public transportation everywhere. We certainly donr feel like a small town but we feel like a big one. SF feels insane to me with its density like NYC makes me feel while LA has big town vibe
Quote:
Originally Posted by tion91
When people from LA do the central core LA comparison of 47sq miles it hardly includes ANY park or green space and it's still less dense than SF which is 19pct green park space. According to LA.Curbed.com the densest part of LA 47 sq miles is: "But Rhodes proposed a different central core, called Central LA, which he draws himself, with boundaries stretching east-west from Fairfax to the LA River, and north-south from the hills down to Jefferson" and even then SF is still denser
Quote:
Originally Posted by tion91
Also since were costumizing choice areas of 47 cohesive sq miles to compare density, why dont we drop golden gate park and presidio and add parts of Daly City to fill the void because daly city is cohesive with SF and almost as urban with several tracts over 50k ppsm in daly city that connect with a swath of SF
It depends on the person, I guess. What I'm specifically talking about is taking 47 square miles of contiguous area that includes having about 19% of it as greenspace. I've made this boundary out in other posts before for central Los Angeles and it essentially means including not just the smaller parks in the area, but also Griffith Park in its entirety and Griffith Park is much larger than Golden Gate Park and the Presidio combined--and keep in mind, a significant portion of the Presidio is actually residential and access roads for them and *not* public greenspace. LA is massive and what's considered LA by people is often more than official municipal boundaries, and so you're going to have both suburban and urban parts of it as well. Your posts to me sound like you're coming from a possibly limited understanding of LA which would make sense since your descriptions of LA do match some parts of it, but are also inaccurate for other parts.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-22-2020 at 12:50 PM..
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.
