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.
I was able to sorta figure it out.
From a combo of actual stats and from measuring on Google Maps:
Upper North: 6.36
Lower: 5.71
CC: 2.07
South: 9.7 Area: 23.84
2010 Population (CC 2018 rounded number): 602,563
Density: 25,275.3/sq mi
I'd be highly shocked if the density is not somewhere around 30k/sq mi in 2020. That population is definitely higher today with tons of infill in neighborhoods since 2010 in places like Old City, Fairmount, Grays Ferry, Point Breeze, Graduate Hospital, Brewerytown, Francisville, Strawberry Mansion, and others.
I can definitely see Philadelphia having those numbers. I just wish there was some easy linkable source to make these delineations. I was pretty happy to find that open data site for Philadelphia--would've been great if it worked!
Looking at the NYT tract tool, I'm not seeing really dense tracts in residential terms anywhere near Downtown Baltimore. Seattle has a few that are denser than anything I'm seeing. Add some multiple of the office crowd, a ton more retail, and way more tourism, and these things are on very different scales.
It has good density all over town, but no places of great density. Seattle has many tracts way below Baltimore's typical levels, but also numerous tracts at those levels and some quite a bit higher, particularly if you use 2019 stats from the state or 2018s from the Census.
That's how apartments help...you can get more density than townhouses by a wide margin.
PS Jesse, here's a tiebreaker: substantially higher average density.
Not disagreeing. However, density=/=urbanity. Those are concepts that get combined, but should not be combined. They play off each other. You need density to be urban, but density does not inherently produce urbanity. There are some very dense places that are not urban. There are no urban places that lack density, though. So basically, urbanity is not defined by density.
Therefore, DC/Baltimore is able to equally as urban as Vancouver/Seattle even though it is not as dense.
The best tiebreaker I can think of for Baltimore v. Seattle is the share of transit ridership in Seattle, plus its increasing usage.
However, if you're going with density being the tiebreaker, are you ready to admit that Vancouver is more urban than Seattle? I doubt many on here would agree. Even I don't think I'd agree with that statement overall. I still find them tied since DC is able to have its urbanity spread further out, while Vancouver's urbanity drops off pretty quickly outside the core areas.
Vancouver: 14,226/sq mi
DC: 11,506/sq mi
I can definitely see Philadelphia having those numbers. I just wish there was some easy linkable source to make these delineations. I was pretty happy to find that open data site for Philadelphia--would've been great if it worked!
South Philly and CC are obviously well-defined. In looking at neighborhood boundaries, I was able to do the measurements on Google Maps. So they may not be exact down to the decimal, but the area for Lower North and Upper North are pretty close.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Not disagreeing. However, density=/=urbanity. Those are concepts that get combined, but should not be combined. They play off each other. You need density to be urban, but density does not inherently produce urbanity. There are some very dense places that are not urban. There are no urban places that lack density, though. So basically, urbanity is not defined by density.
Therefore, DC/Baltimore is able to equally as urban as Vancouver/Seattle even though it is not as dense.
The best tiebreaker I can think of for Baltimore v. Seattle is the share of transit ridership in Seattle, plus its increasing usage.
However, if you're going with density being the tiebreaker, are you ready to admit that Vancouver is more urban than Seattle? I doubt many on here would agree. Even I don't think I'd agree with that statement overall. I still find them tied since DC is able to have its urbanity spread further out, while Vancouver's urbanity drops off pretty quickly outside the core areas. Vancouver: 14,226/sq mi
DC: 11,506/sq mi
If you're using tie breaks for transit usage, that would be another point for DC being ahead of Vancouver. It boasts the 2nd busiest subway system in the US, 5th in North America, and the city's daytime population almost doubles.
With a daytime population of about 1.2 million in DC the city's density for almost 12 hours of the day would be 19,672/sq mi.
If you're using tie breaks for transit usage, that would be another point for DC being ahead of Vancouver. It boasts the 2nd busiest subway system in the US, 5th in North America, and the city's daytime population almost doubles.
With a daytime population of about 1.2 million in DC the city's density for almost 12 hours of the day would be 19,672/sq mi.
If the tiebreaker is density, Vancouver wins. If the tiebreaker is transit ridership, DC wins.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Has anyone done the ~22 sq mi density for DC and Vancouver?
It may have been done either earlier in this thread or in another one, at least for DC compared to some US cities.
With regards to this thread however, I don't think that matters. This is about the urban core overall, and I think the key point is DC's consistent level of density (urban core) expands well further out, and well beyond how far Vancouver's does. Regardless of some dense high rise districts that maybe cover 4 or 5 sq mi.
We can go even further away from Downtown deeper into NW DC and come to blocks like this, miles away from DT.
DC/Baltimore are never going to have the peak residential densities the way Vancouver/Seattle do as they lack the forest of glass apartment/condo towers where you can cram 2000 people in 2-3 acres, nor are they building them (in Baltimore's case) anywhere near fast enough to close the gap.
On the inverse Vancouver/Seattle are never going to have the urban reach or structural density DC/Baltimore have due to their rowhomes, narrower streets & more linear spread/density of urban development which allows them to have uninterrupted intense urban form +3 miles outside there downtowns.
Their apple to oranges cities in terms of built form.
DC/Baltimore are never going to have the peak residential densities the way Vancouver/Seattle do as they lack the forest of glass apartment/condo towers where you can cram 2000 people in 2-3 acres, nor are they building them (in Baltimore's case) anywhere near fast enough to close the gap.
On the inverse Vancouver/Seattle are never going to have the urban reach or structural density DC/Baltimore have due to their rowhomes, narrower streets & more linear spread/density of urban development which allows them to have uninterrupted intense urban form +3 miles outside there downtowns.
Their apple to oranges cities in terms of built form.
Good point. I'd also add that none of these four really seem like they have a reasonable shot for top 7 most urban core in North America.
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.
