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.
Downtown NYC has HUGE population density. They're just mostly office workers rather than residents. Population doesn't always mean resident population.
That’s my point. The OP said population density which equates to residential population density meaning people who live there. If the OP uses daytime population density, then it would be more accurate. Nobody goes to a neighborhood at night to see how vibrant it is. Vibrancy has nothing to do with people living in a neighborhood. It has to do with how many people “come” to that neighborhood at a given time.
That’s my point. The OP said population density which equates to residential population density meaning people who live there. If the OP uses daytime population density, then it would be more accurate. Nobody goes to a neighborhood at night to see how vibrant it is. Vibrancy has nothing to do with people living in a neighborhood. It has to do with how many people “come” to that neighborhood at a given time.
I don't see where he said it was only residential population density.
I don't see where he said it was only residential population density.
Daytime population density isn’t measured. What is the daytime population density of a census tract? You won’t find it searching the census bureau’s website. The amount of workers in a downtown area may be counted, but we don’t count people based on where they work, we count them based on where they live when it comes to census tracts which is the universal measurement for population density. That’s why it’s a very poor choice when comparing urbanity. The built environment is a much better indicator for defining the urban environment.
It would be very hard to measure, yes. But nobody counts the built environment in a parallel way either.
But daytime population, nighttime hotel occupancy, bar crowds, and other factors all play big roles.
The result is that urbanity discussions need to be subjective.
I disagree. I think they need to be factual and objective backed by real data. Also, clear definitions need to be used so people are using the same criteria. How do you ask someone a question if the definition isn’t clear?
What’s the best music genre? Well, the answer you get will have a lot to do with the culture and race of the person you’re talking to.
I think people would agree that an urban core should cover an area that has buildings rising at least 6 stories or higher and is built using zero lot development with first floor retail and very few surface parking lots if any. If the surface lot is spoken for and about to be developed, that’s fine. Yes, a few areas with buildings smaller than 6 stories can be mixed in, but most of the area should appear to be very urban with residential, office, hotels, etc.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
So you are asking about population density, not the built environment? An area with 1-story buildings that have 5 people per bedroom would be the highest level of urbanity based on your definition when compared to an area that’s mixed use with highrise’s and retail with extreme vibrancy, but a lower population density because the people per bedroom max is lower?
Downtown NYC, for instance, is very urban, but has much lower population density than other lower intensity parts of Manhattan because there isn’t as much residential development and some other places are almost all residential.
That last part is very true. Lower Manhattan is very much an urban office district like most posters are "claiming" DT DC to be. I've walked lower MH in "non-business hours" and it's just buildings, not much mix use or anything else. Definitely people walking around, but still overwhelmingly an office district.
That last part is very true. Lower Manhattan is very much an urban office district like most posters are "claiming" DT DC to be. I've walked lower MH in "non-business hours" and it's just buildings, not much mix use or anything else. Definitely people walking around, but still overwhelmingly an office district.
I agree and it’s changing, I work in LM, after business hours it’s busier than years ago due to the influx of retail, restaurants and new apartment buildouts. On late days I will sometimes stay at a hotel near the ferry and there are many places to eat and drink.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koji7
I agree and it’s changing, I work in LM, after business hours it’s busier than years ago due to the influx of retail, restaurants and new apartment buildouts. On late days I will sometimes stay at a hotel near the ferry and there are many places to eat and drink.
Yea, don't get me wrong though. I love Battery Park, and the Oculous and Eataly.
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.
