What if you expand the size of your city (Boston/San Francisco/DC vs any city with larger land area)

[anonelitist]

I don't like to agree with 18montclair, but in both LA's and Bay Area's case, the topography is one of the main drivers of metro area density in CA/western cities in general. As well as water rights, progressive planning/politics, etc.

I know your point, and looking at a map one might draw that conclusion, but Oakland is just as tied into SF as Brooklyn is to Manhattan. Length of bridges/tunnels aside, if you lived in either place you would not be saying that SF is a tiny little bubble completely shielded from the East Bay. Well actually, you might say both Manhattan and SF are tiny bubbles, but both exist in their form because of their connections to a much greater surrounding area.

Even the densest part of Philly is "disconnected" from U City and certainly from NJ by water. In South Philly you aren't looking around and seeing over the Schuylkill or the Delaware and saying, "wow, look at that continued urbanity". In the middle of Manhattan you're not seeing over into Jersey or Queens. In any super dense environment, to get from Point A over a distance to Point B, you're taking a train underground. And this holds true for SF. You can get from the Mission in SF to Berkeley in a few minutes and for you there's no "break" in urbanity even though you traveled 15 miles including ~5 or so under water.

In terms of sustained density, metro SJ's wtd density is higher than metro Philly's, and is 2 million people strong. There are a million people x 2 living in even denser areas stretching north along either side of the Bay before you even get to SF or Oakland, and then in Oakland's case, there's another million people on the other side going north, and a million people just on the other side of the mountains going east. It's an area that feels infinitely more massive/intense than metro Philly. Anyone who has been to either LA or the Bay Area would know that the development is intense and unrelentless, aside from a few very short/small stops in SF's case.

[speagles84]

If Pittsburgh had XXXXX 's area, its population would be: (Done by adding adjacent cities/boroughs/towns to get area)

City compared to (Sq milage of city) - Pittsburgh Population at that area (+/- from Pittsburghs population, Density)

Pittsburgh (54.5 mi) - 305,704 (+0, Density 6,000 ppsm)



New York City (303 mi) - 942,758 (+637,054, Density 3,111.4 ppsm) < 7.2 million behind NYC
Los Angeles (469 mi) - 1,152,503 (+846,799, Density 2,457.4 ppsm) < 2.7 million behind LA
Chicago (228 mi) - 841,665 (+535,961, Density 3,691.5 ppsm) < 1.8 million behind Chicago
Philadelphia (135 mi) - 641,363 (+335,659, Density 4,750.8 ppsm) < Nearly 900k behind Philly
Houston (600 mi) - 1,280,802 (+975,098, Density 2,134.7 ppsm) < 819k behind Houston

Phoenix (517 mi) - 1,204,921 (+899,217, Density 2,330.6 ppsm) < Only 240k behind Phoenix
Dallas (341 mi) - 1,012,990 (+707,286, Density 3,010.6 ppsm) < Only 184k behind Dallas
Jacksonville, FL (747 mi) - 1,403,701 (+1,097,997, Density 2,002.2 ppsm) < Nearly double Jacksonville
Indianapolis (361 mi) - 1,031,101 (+725,397, Density 2,856.2 ppsm)< Over 200k more than Indy
San Francisco (47 mi) - 261,238(-44,466, Density 5,558.3 ppsm) < One of the few cities than have less area than Pittsburgh
Austin (298 mi) - 925,993 (+620,289, Density 3,107.4 ppsm) < 135k more than Austin
Columbus, OH (218 mi) - 809,352 (+503,648, Density 3,712 ppsm) < 22k more than Columbus
Boston (48 mi) - 266,797 (-38,907, Density 5,558.3 ppsm) < Also smaller in area than Pittsburgh
Seattle (84 mi) - 470,853 (+165,149, Density 5,605.4 ppsm) < 137k behind Seattle
Nashville (475 mi) - 1,154,565 (+848,861, Density 2,430.7 ppsm) < 554k ahead of Nashville
Denver (153 mi) - 682,202 (+376,498, Density 4,458.8 ppsm) < 82k ahead of Denver
Kansas City (316 mi) - 963,308 (+657,604, Density 3,048.4 ppsm) < 503k ahead of KC
Portland OR (135 mi) - 641,363 (+335,659, Density 4,750.8 ppsm) < 58 more than Portland
Las Vegas (135 mi) - 641,363 (+335,659, Density 4,750.8 ppsm) < 58k more than Las Vegas
Charlotte (298 mi) - 925,993 (+620,289, Density 3,107.4 ppsm) < 194k more than Charlotte
Atlanta (135 mi)- 641,363 (+335,659, Density 4,750.8 ppsm) < 221k more than Atlanta
Colorado Springs (195 mi) - 757,657 (+451,953, Density 3,885.4 ppsm) < 341k more than CO Springs
Raliegh (143 mi)- 670,462 (+364,758, Density 4,688.5 ppsm) < 266k more than Raliegh
Miami (36 mi) - 266,797 (-105,607, Density 5,558.3 ppsm) < Also smaller in area than Pittsburgh
Cleveland (78 mi)- 444,997 (+139,293, Density 5,705.1 ppsm) < 48k more than Cleveland
Minneapolis (55 mi) - 305,704 (+0, Density - 6,000 ppsm) Same area as Pittsburgh

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

I don't like to agree with 18montclair, but in both LA's and Bay Area's case, the topography is one of the main drivers of metro area density in CA/western cities in general. As well as water rights, progressive planning/politics, etc.

I know your point, and looking at a map one might draw that conclusion, but Oakland is just as tied into SF as Brooklyn is to Manhattan. Length of bridges/tunnels aside, if you lived in either place you would not be saying that SF is a tiny little bubble completely shielded from the East Bay. Well actually, you might say both Manhattan and SF are tiny bubbles, but both exist in their form because of their connections to a much greater surrounding area.

Even the densest part of Philly is "disconnected" from U City and certainly from NJ by water. In South Philly you aren't looking around and seeing over the Schuylkill or the Delaware and saying, "wow, look at that continued urbanity". In the middle of Manhattan you're not seeing over into Jersey or Queens. In any super dense environment, to get from Point A over a distance to Point B, you're taking a train underground. And this holds true for SF. You can get from the Mission in SF to Berkeley in a few minutes and for you there's no "break" in urbanity even though you traveled 15 miles including ~5 or so under water.

In terms of sustained density, metro SJ's wtd density is higher than metro Philly's, and is 2 million people strong. There are a million people x 2 living in even denser areas stretching north along either side of the Bay before you even get to SF or Oakland, and then in Oakland's case, there's another million people on the other side going north, and a million people just on the other side of the mountains going east. It's an area that feels infinitely more massive/intense than metro Philly. Anyone who has been to either LA or the Bay Area would know that the development is intense and unrelentless, aside from a few very short/small stops in SF's case.

I know the bay and LA very well

Also yes the development pattern especially the burbs is higher in CA (bay or LA) even Houston has more dense outer burbs than many EC cities. I don't agree that the Bay feels more massive (LA sure does though) - the non city are developed consistently more dense though do agree

You say SJ, yes is high on weighted but its the last million or 1.5 million that kill the density for Philly. It gets its first 2 million in continuous 200 sq miles with a higher absolute density (weighted would be much higher) when compared to SJ

Also you are really comparing the schuylkill to the bay in separation, you realize the walk across the river is less than 60 seconds right?

Now the Delaware is a much bigger river more akin to the Hudson

Inner bay including SJ is compact and about 5-5.5 million I believe

the real core of Philly is about 5 Million (it actually gets cut on continuity at Trenton so would be larger)

the last 1-1.5 million kill Philly density but again the building patterns are different

Also another thing is land is preserved here in different, even farms. And the rolling hills break density with gaps nit the sharp developed non developed dynamic in the West with the geography

Now is burlingame more dense than say Haddonfield NJ, yes are either very dense, no and both would have active DTs and lots of close in housing etc and both pretty close to the core city etc. Could go on. The burbs there are like a Redwood city are denser than say a West Chester here on the whole (not at their respective cores which would be the opposite) but here its more old town core and less dense surroundings continually repeated

I actually love the bay was just there right before Labor day on my way to Hawaii - had the best Burmese ever in Burlingame (maybe why is top of mind)

I like both areas but to me SF does not feel more massive, mostly it feels like it has more compact development outside the core, which it does. Optically the valleys afford seeing further too, less trees and hills (more mountains though)


In terms of the core 49, 135, or 200 square miles SF (Bay) and Philly are very close actually - same relative tier on this aspect IMHO with Boston generalized. NYC, LA, and Chicago are ll larger DC a little smaller on these metrics

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yeah, I also asked what the population of cities would be if they had SFs population density.

Boston would have over 1 million and Philly would have 2.2 million.

LA would have 7.9 million.

Boston would only have 865,000 if it had SF's density.

[Calisonn]

Originally Posted by nei

There was a similar thread but in reverse: shrinking your city (unless it's a rather small city) till you reach the densest contigous area the same size of San Francisco.

What density would your cities density be if it was the size of San Francisco?

NYC came in at 2.7 million or so. Then very close to each other, Chicago then Philadelphia and then Los Angeles.

Not to be nit picky but LA came out ahead of Chicago in density if I remember correctly.