Most Urban Cities (living, best, state, better)

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Not equal footprint though. For example, Boston density per square mile would drop in half if you assign the same footprint as NYC. Those numbers would only work if city limits were exactly the same size.

I see the argument/appeal of equal footprints, but city limits are still important--it's how cities are literally defined. We could always hypothetically increase Boston square miles to match NYC, or decrease them to compare with SF, but then that wouldn't be Boston. City limits are there for a reason, due to historical and social patterns of development--trying to create equal footprints to compare cities with disparate city limits is noble, but will ultimately be flawed. What to include, what not to include, where to start, etc...these questions will vary and be skewed in favor of the argument trying to be made. So a footprint radius of 10 miles from a downtown will inevitably favor one city over another due to different patterns of development. Not to mention parkland, airports, water, etc. will lower one city over another.

So yea, we can get rough density estimates of what a Boston that has NYCs square mileage would look like, or a Tokyo with NYCs--but it would inevitably be an inaccurate comparison. There's too many variables for a truly fair comparison.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by tspoon91

This isnt a debate... This is an actual statistic...research the most densely populated cities.. It goes like this...

1. New York, N.Y.: 27,012.4
2. San Francisco, Calif.: 17,179.2
3. Boston, Mass.: 12,792.7
4. Chicago, Ill.: 11,841.8
5. Philadelphia, Pa.: 11,379.5

I think there are basically 3 issues with using average density:
1) It doesn't account for the scale of the urban area. Would you argue that small, but densely populated cities like Somerville, MA or Cicero, Il are more urban than Boston and Chicago?


2) It doesn't account for the "peak density". When people think of Bos, SF, Chi, Philly they tend to think of the dense urban cores which have peak densities well above the city wide average. These cities really aren't that dense on average. If the population of Philly were evenly distributed it would basically look like Everett, MA or Upper Darby, Pa. Basically a leafy streetcar suburb, but not a major inner-city neighborhood. No Rittenhouse or Old City lofts/apartments/dense row houses, etc.

3) It doesn't account for how clustered the peak density is. Take 2 cities with 100k people living in areas above 30k people per square miles. The first city has all of the people living in a centralized urban core with most of the region's premiere office, retail and cultural venues located in an urban downtown. The 2nd city has 5 separate high density residential zones spread across the city, the region's economic and cultural amenities are also distributed across several disconnected nodes, with lower density uses between them. Almost everyone is going to say the 1st city is more urban.

IMO, the best way to measure how urban a place is would be the amount of people living above a certain density threshold in a contiguous area. Even that is still vulnerable to what is the appropriate density threshold and what about the presence of non-residential urban amenities (offices, retail, hotels, museums, public squares, transit, etc).


It seems like 20-30k ppsm is when urban neighborhoods start getting lots a walkable amenities and the more classically urban built environments.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

I think there are basically 3 issues with using average density:
1) It doesn't account for the scale of the urban area. Would you argue that small, but densely populated cities like Somerville, MA or Cicero, Il are more urban than Boston and Chicago?


2) It doesn't account for the "peak density". When people think of Bos, SF, Chi, Philly they tend to think of the dense urban cores which have peak densities well above the city wide average. These cities really aren't that dense on average. If the population of Philly were evenly distributed it would basically look like Everett, MA or Upper Darby, Pa. Basically a leafy streetcar suburb, but not a major inner-city neighborhood. No Rittenhouse or Old City lofts/apartments/dense row houses, etc.

3) It doesn't account for how clustered the peak density is. Take 2 cities with 100k people living in areas above 30k people per square miles. The first city has all of the people living in a centralized urban core with most of the region's premiere office, retail and cultural venues located in an urban downtown. The 2nd city has 5 separate high density residential zones spread across the city, the region's economic and cultural amenities are also distributed across several disconnected nodes, with lower density uses between them. Almost everyone is going to say the 1st city is more urban.

IMO, the best way to measure how urban a place is would be the amount of people living above a certain density threshold in a contiguous area. Even that is still vulnerable to what is the appropriate density threshold and what about the presence of non-residential urban amenities (offices, retail, hotels, museums, public squares, transit, etc).


It seems like 20-30k ppsm is when urban neighborhoods start getting lots a walkable amenities and the more classically urban built environments.

good post

also the other issue with straight density is that different sized places can have other things that bring down density. Philadelphia has an area sq mileage wise with no population larger than all of SF (actually believe both Boston and DC proper as well and is only 134 sq miles to begin with) because of refineries, ports, parks, and airports while all places have them these aspects, they are not always consistent in percentages

Boston has Logan; SF does not have SFO as an example

I always wondered if anyone had or did weighted density in cities, while still flawed maybe better as it better adjusts to the density people actually live in

in the end it's really us geeks that even care to discuss it

most people just walk outside and make an assessment if at all

[pwright1]

I still say and think San Francisco is the 2nd most dense after NY. Chicago and Philadelphia are dense, they just don't seem or feel as dense as San Francisco at all.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Keep in mind that the area you carved out for Tokyo doesn't include any parks (besides the Imperial Palace and a couple of minor parks). And the NYC area you're comparing to consists of like 1/4 of uninhabitable parkland. In reality, like I mentioned before, outside the Yamanote loop Tokyo feels like Queens at street level. And even inside the loop Tokyo doesn't have long stretches of urbanity like Manhattan, its more like separate hubs around train stations. Literally 3 blocks away from Shibuya it gets pretty dead as far as pedestrian activity, especially when you compare it to Manhattan.

It does include parks within the 23 special wards--it just that the special wards don't have nearly as high a percentage set aside. If you take NYC's density and accounts for the fact 1/4 (I thought it was a 1/5?) isn't inhabited and make the leap that Tokyo is completely without parkland (which isn't true, but let's fudge the numbers), then you're going with 14300 ppskm for NYC versus 14485 ppskm for the 23 special wards which is close enough.

I say Tokyo in parts of the special wards outside the Yamanote loop does feel like Queens--but it feels like Western Queens where it's mostly low and mid-rise but still very densely packed (where you also have some of the densest parts of the city such as Jackson Heights). I spent some time in Setagaya near-ish Gotokuji station which is definitely way out from the Yamanote line and it was fairly busy. So yea.

Not sure I agree with 3 blocks away from Shibuya station being pretty dead as far as pedestrian activity is accurate though. I mean, there are tiny service lane sort of streets which are quieter and there is generally little commercial activity, but it definitely isn't the same as "pretty dead" to me. Really quiet compared to the relative human swarm of Shibuya crossing, yes, but that's not the same as "pretty dead."

Anyways, both of these cities are relatively similar tiers for this--which is a tier apart from the ones that come after in the US such as Chicago, Philly, and SF which are pretty similar to each other but a world apart from Tokyo and NYC.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

There's no way 20-25% of NYC's land mass is set aside for parks. That's roughly 60 sq miles, equal in size to Staten Island. No way.

According to NYC Parks, 14% of the city is covered in green spaces. That still comes out to a whopping 45 sq miles, equal in size to The Bronx. I personally don't see it, but if thats their figure, so be it:

About Parks : NYC Parks

[nei]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

I see the argument/appeal of equal footprints, but city limits are still important--it's how cities are literally defined. We could always hypothetically increase Boston square miles to match NYC, or decrease them to compare with SF, but then that wouldn't be Boston. City limits are there for a reason, due to historical and social patterns of development--trying to create equal footprints to compare cities with disparate city limits is noble, but will ultimately be flawed.

Boston's city limits have less to do with development and more to do with that it annexed mostly on the south side of the Charles River and the cities immediately to the north were too independent to annex by the time Boston got large enough. For a density comparison, there's no rational reason to include West Roxbury but not say Central Square environs of Cambridge.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by nei

Boston's city limits have less to do with development and more to do with that it annexed mostly on the south side of the Charles River and the cities immediately to the north were too independent to annex by the time Boston got large enough. For a density comparison, there's no rational reason to include West Roxbury but not say Central Square environs of Cambridge.

But where do you draw the line? What is the rational criteria/cutoff for inclusion or exclusion of surrounding areas?

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by pwright1

I still say and think San Francisco is the 2nd most dense after NY. Chicago and Philadelphia are dense, they just don't seem or feel as dense as San Francisco at all.

if you talk about the core few sq miles maybe after that is where the others have their staying power based on my experience

[tspoon91]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

but not an equal footprint

comparing an area that covers 49 sq miles versus 135 versus 250 etc.

the foot print doesn't matter its about what more urban as a city