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.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about suburbs. I don't really know how the suburbs change things because I don't really pay any attention to areas outside the city. I know when Boston includes their suburbs, it is way denser than D.C.
DC has a significantly smaller urban footprint. It’s like ~30% smaller. It’s literally a similar gap between Philly and Chicago.
DC already had peak density that is tied or denser than Philadelphia in certain parts of the city. We talked about that on here for years using the radius tool for all cities. DC has and continues to add so much density in new areas that the core of DC will actually be denser than Philadelphia apples to apples. Boston too when the dust settles. Philadelphia and Boston have way too many historic structures and rowhomes in the core to build up like DC is doing. A 1-mile radius in that radius tool showed that.
Urban renewal didn’t create a blank slate in those cities. There are census tracts in Navy Yard and NOMA that will surpass 120k-150k people per sq. mile.
It could be more dense than Boston in 20 years. At best 15, possibly never.
If Boston declines some which is unlikely but possible- it could be 15. Still With all the cities touching Boston it’s above DC for a long time. It’s just a different type of metro that’s more centered around a denser urban core and satellite dense urban cities.
In terms of measuring how urban or large an urban core feels municipalities are not super informative especially considering the differences in local government structure in different places.
In day to day QOL it matters a lot. But the debate over which city feels bigger or more urban is totally divorced from real world QOL measures
A good example is Indianapolis has 9 school districts, 9 DPWs. The City of Indianapolis is effectively a police and fire department. That is not true for Chicago which runs the CTA a unified school district, a FD/PD Parks etc.
Last edited by btownboss4; 01-01-2021 at 11:18 AM..
D.C. has more room to build in the urban core of the city limits. I'm talking about the 20 sq. mile urban core of D.C. proper. If you're talking about the suburbs of Boston being included, then no, you're right. I don't usually talk or pay attention to areas outside D.C. city limits though. I know that is common for Boston so I can understand where you're coming from if you're including Cambridge etc.
No Not Camrbidge or anythng else. Cambridge Crossing is in the city limits of Boston lol. Im speaking for the city of Boson proper itself alone.
However, Somerville and Everett have an enormous area to build up equal to the size of South Boston.
No Not Camrbidge or anythng else. Cambridge Crossing is in the city limits of Boston lol. Im speaking for the city of Boson proper itself alone.
However, Somerville and Everett have an enormous area to build up equal to the size of South Boston.
Well, if we use only Boston city limits and go core for core, D.C. will most certainly pass Boston. Boston loses it's urban form very fast compared to D.C. when Boston doesn't include development across the river.
D.C. averages around 18,000 units under construction per year and has for years. Boston doesn't have the infill capacity for 300-500 unit buildings all over the urban core like D.C. It's already built up. They aren't knocking down entire blocks for redevelopment all over the urban core in Boston. If they are, where?
In terms of measuring how urban or large an urban core feels municipalities are not super informative especially considering the differences in local government structure in different places.
In day to day QOL it matters a lot. But the debate over which city feels bigger or more urban is totally divorced from real world QOL measures
A good example is Indianapolis has 9 school districts, 9 DPWs. The City of Indianapolis is effectively a police and fire department. That is not true for Chicago which runs the CTA a unified school district, a FD/PD Parks etc.
We’re talking by about the city of Los Angeles and cities as a whole. Why are you and some others tossing “urban core” in there? That’s a totally different question and thread entirely. Not even that much overlap.
We’re talking by about the city of Los Angeles and cities as a whole. Why are you and some others tossing “urban core” in there? That’s a totally different question and thread entirely. Not even that much overlap.
I don't think so. You can't compare cities that are 50 square miles to cities that are hundreds of square miles. If you do you end up with LA having way more "urban" inside its city limits than every city except NYC and the second most urban city in the country being Hoboken.
Well, if we use only Boston city limits and go core for core, D.C. will most certainly pass Boston. Boston loses it's urban form very fast compared to D.C. when Boston doesn't include development across the river.
D.C. averages around 18,000 units under construction per year and has for years. Boston doesn't have the infill capacity for 300-500 unit buildings all over the urban core like D.C. It's already built up. They aren't knocking down entire blocks for redevelopment all over the urban core in Boston. If they are, where?
Like I’ve said many times before- there are a lot of vacant lots in Boston south of Mass Ave. many are city owned or under litigious contention. This is easy to underestimate simply because we focus so much in developments, the urban core.the number of vacant parcels in Boston would probably surprise you.
I will say the city squandered opportunities for thousands and thousands of units at Harvard Commons and Olmsted Green massive low density suburban divisions meant to ad political clout and homeowners to Mattapan. They began construction back in 2004 and still aren’t done. Not a lot of demand.
Olmsted Greens current construction site (this is fairly dense apartment building by that are under construction as of 2020): https://goo.gl/maps/xftLRQEyh1948oqd7 lotta vacant land that’s lowkey in Boston...
Aside from those two places and a few other very mall early 2000s infill the infill is pretty consistent with existent density and architecture. While it’s not huge apartment complexes, the infill is consistent and was the primary way in which Boston grew its population from 1985-2010.
The city could still add 30k just through inner city infill in residential areas IMO. It’s not like Boston is a sitting duck by any stretch of the imagination. And don’t forget it has the capacity to simply build up.They’re building a 25 story residential tower in Roxbury. We already have residential buildings like that in the city.
I don't think so. You can't compare cities that are 50 square miles to cities that are hundreds of square miles. If you do you end up with LA having way more "urban" inside its city limits than every city except NYC and the second most urban city in the country being Hoboken.
Then stop trying to compare cities that aren’t comparable? Just seems silly and it remind me of when we add to Boston to make it compare to cities that are way bigger. Adjust the expectations and scale and move along. As we know most people in LA don’t live in Central LA. Seems detached from reality and just a data nerd thing we’re doing here...
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.
