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 04-30-2014, 09:20 PM
 
437 posts, read 470,936 times
Reputation: 255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Bwahahaha



I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally, I wouldn't take a place like LA or Managua or Phoenix or San Jose to be more urban than San Fran or Boston. When talking about urbanity, smaller areas of hyper-density are more important to me than massive areas of "consistent" density.

You are welcome to your opinion.
Since when has Boston had hyper density, if anything LA has denser tracts than anywhere in Boston and for a much larger area
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:33 PM
 
6,797 posts, read 6,625,315 times
Reputation: 5416
The only city with true hyper-density in the states is NYC. I mean, when a 26 square mile island averages 72k ppsm, then you know it has to have some extremely high densities rivaled only by a few cities in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:39 PM
 
437 posts, read 470,936 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
The only city with true hyper-density in the states is NYC. I mean, when a 26 square mile island averages 72k ppsm, then you know it has to have some extremely high densities rivaled only by a few cities in the world.
Exactly my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 11:33 PM
 
317 posts, read 271,413 times
Reputation: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Personally, I wouldn't take a place like LA or Managua or Phoenix or San Jose to be more urban than San Fran or Boston. When talking about urbanity, smaller areas of hyper-density are more important to me than massive areas of "consistent" density.


You are welcome to your opinion.
Most people feel the same but I think you are using poor logic by limiting urbanity to just density. Sure it's one of the criteria but it's hardly the only one. Look at Houston and New Orleans for example, the latter is less way less dense on standard density, they are almost at the same level on weighted density yet anybody who has been to both can tell you New Orleans feels considerably more urban pound for pound. You can be dense and suburban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,355,875 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityguy7 View Post
Most people feel the same but I think you are using poor logic by limiting urbanity to just density. Sure it's one of the criteria but it's hardly the only one. Look at Houston and New Orleans for example, the latter is less way less dense on standard density, they are almost at the same level on weighted density yet anybody who has been to both can tell you New Orleans feels considerably more urban pound for pound. You can be dense and suburban.
Density statistics (standard and weighted) are objective. Your opinion isn't.

Advantage: Density, far and away the most effective way to gauge urbanity among cities in the industrialized world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 11:59 PM
 
317 posts, read 271,413 times
Reputation: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Density statistics (standard and weighted) are objective. Your opinion isn't.

Advantage: Density, far and away the most effective way to gauge urbanity among cities in the industrialized world.

Oh sweet sweet irony.

Sure it is. I mean what else can give you the opportunity to fanboy about how urban LA is day and night. Your sleep at night depends on it I would assume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2014, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,355,875 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityguy7 View Post
Oh sweet sweet irony.

Sure it is. I mean what else can give you the opportunity to fanboy about how urban LA is day and night. Your sleep at night depends on it I would assume.
The difference is, I can easily prove that density an urbanity are joined almost completely at the hip.

Last edited by CaseyB; 05-01-2014 at 05:01 AM.. Reason: off topic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2014, 02:51 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,355,875 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
I always just assume that in these threads we are always looking at the greater area as a whole. I cant speak for everyone but speaking for myself, city limits are pretty meaningless overall. Some cities like Miami are 35 square miles while others are over 400 square miles. Some on paper have densities above 11,000 people per square mile over an area of 225 square miles while others bring in 13,000 people per square mile for only an area of 46 square miles.

Here is my very first post in this thread, I've bolded my intentions from the start.


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.
Great posts, Red. Totally agree with everything, and I see no argument for Boston over Guadalajara in urbanity.

Demographia 2014 estimate
Boston: 2056 sq miles, 4,499,000 million 2,200ppm
Guadalajara: 290 sq miles, 4,413,000 15,200ppsm

That is a MASSIVE difference and I'm sure if you broke it down by census tracts it would be more of the same--Guadalajara probably ranks #3 in high density census tracts after NYC and MC.

I'm a big believer that population density and urbanity are joined at the hip, particularly for cities in the developed world.

Last edited by Yac; 05-08-2014 at 07:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2014, 03:55 AM
 
Location: SoCal
460 posts, read 698,806 times
Reputation: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityguy7 View Post
Hmm... is continuous urbanity a criteria at all? Because I'm not sure if a puny CBD and then a countless array of suburban neighborhoods with single family homes, motel look alike apartment, strip malls, parking lots etc and some 50K vibrant neighborhoods in between them all over the place exactly serves the purpose.
Yawn. LA is urban, get over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Bwahahaha

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally, I wouldn't take a place like LA or Managua or Phoenix or San Jose to be more urban than San Fran or Boston. When talking about urbanity, smaller areas of hyper-density are more important to me than massive areas of "consistent" density.

You are welcome to your opinion.
My opinion is that of the opposite - an area of consistent density (built and population) over a large area is far more impressive (because it's harder to maintain) than a smaller area with only core density. Urban Area (UA) is really the best representation of the true size of a city, and LA is the nation's densest urban area. What's so impressive about Boston's density dropping off dramatically after 5-6 miles or so from its core? LA also has core density and the density (along with urban amenities) continues on far beyond the core. Here's a visual using population-weighted density: Metro Area Density Moving Outward From City Hall
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2014, 04:47 AM
 
437 posts, read 470,936 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmykem View Post
Yawn. LA is urban, get over it.



My opinion is that of the opposite - an area of consistent density (built and population) over a large area is far more impressive (because it's harder to maintain) than a smaller area with only core density. Urban Area (UA) is really the best representation of the true size of a city, and LA is the nation's densest urban area. What's so impressive about Boston's density dropping off dramatically after 5-6 miles or so from its core? LA also has core density and the density (along with urban amenities) continues on far beyond the core. Here's a visual using population-weighted density: Metro Area Density Moving Outward From City Hall
Not only are Boston's highest density tracts far from hyper, they're less than LA's highest density tracts
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