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.
1. I would call those alleyways more than "streets" and
2. You can't find those in as great of abundance in any other US city as you can in Philly, but yes, you can certainly find alleys such as those, as well as narrow streets, in most of the cities being mentioned, SF included
3) Structural density is a function of surface area and height. Sure you can find a city with tighter surface area coverage, like Philly has, but with very little height (1-2 stories on average, in some parts 3). The height variable is low. You can find a city like Atlanta that plops down 50 story buildings but has seas of surface parking surrounding such buildings. The surface area variable is low.
4) Just pointing out that Philly posters in as great of abundance as the alleyways that permeate their city have actually argued that Philly is more urban (arguably implying greater structure density) than Manhattan before, using this same argument. I guess it's all or nothing.
Just to point out that SF does indeed have some narrow streets:
just am curous where exactly the 1 story buildings are or an average between 1-2? have you really spent time in philly?
in the core would say non taller are 3-5, next set are 2-4 with many three even the newest rowhome nabes would be between 2 and 3 on average and these are well outside the core
average between 1-2? where in Burlholme in the far far far far NE, like saying redwood city averages 1-2 I really dont think you have soent time in the neighborhoods TBH
1. I would call those alleyways more than "streets" and
2. You can't find those in as great of abundance in any other US city as you can in Philly, but yes, you can certainly find alleys such as those, as well as narrow streets, in most of the cities being mentioned, SF included
3) Structural density is a function of surface area and height. Sure you can find a city with tighter surface area coverage, like Philly has, but with very little height (1-2 stories on average, in some parts 3). The height variable is low. You can find a city like Atlanta that plops down 50 story buildings but has seas of surface parking surrounding such buildings. The surface area variable is low.
4) Just pointing out that Philly posters in as great of abundance as the alleyways that permeate their city have actually argued that Philly is more urban (arguably implying greater structure density) than Manhattan before, using this same argument. I guess it's all or nothing.
Just to point out that SF does indeed have some narrow streets:
Uh.... where are these 1-2 story buildings you are talking about? Most of the rowhomes and townhomes in Center City are 4 or 5 floors. Most of the rowhomes and townhomes surrounding Center City for miles in each direction are 3 or 4 floors. Very rare you see a 1 or 2 story structure, and these are definitely the exception, not the norm.
Also, correct that SOME of those images posted are alleys, but some are actually streets. An alley is basically used for the rear of a structure - for garage entrances, trash collection and utilities. A street is one that actually has front doors facing it.
Philly has as many seas of 1-2 story buildings as Atlanta has 50 story buildings surrounded by seas of surface parking lots. That is to say very very few to none. The point was not well executed. The point still stands, though, that structural density isn't just about coverage, or Philly would have greater structural density than much of New York City. Granted, "structural density" has been substituted on this board before with "urbanity" and it has been argued by Philly posters that because of this, Philly is more "urban" than Manhattan. My point is that height is a factor, too - they are both factors. Perhaps use, too, since "industrial" uses were brought up. I think non-contributory uses should be excluded.
Philly has as many seas of 1-2 story buildings as Atlanta has 50 story buildings surrounded by seas of surface parking lots. That is to say very very few to none. The point was not well executed. The point still stands, though, that structural density isn't just about coverage, or Philly would have greater structural density than much of New York City. Granted, "structural density" has been substituted on this board before with "urbanity" and it has been argued by Philly posters that because of this, Philly is more "urban" than Manhattan. My point is that height is a factor, too - they are both factors. Perhaps use, too, since "industrial" uses were brought up. I think non-contributory uses should be excluded.
You are talking out of your ass. You know nothing about the city of Philadephia. Where are these imaginary "1 story" residence buildings inside the core of Philly? Not one Philly poster has argued that Philly is more urban than Manhattan. And none of the streets that I posted of Philly were alleys, they were all streets. Alleys have no front side entrances. Also if you look at my ranking, I put number 1 NYC and number 2 Philly, so obviously height was taken into consideration when it comes to structure density considering Philly has narrower and more narrow streets than NYC too. Difference between the height of the average residences between NYC and Philly is much greater than the difference between Philly and San Francisco. There are plenty of 2 story buildings with front side garages in San Francisco not too far from the core btw.
You are talking out of your ass. You know nothing about the city of Philadephia. Where are these imaginary "1 story" residence buildings inside the core of Philly? Not one Philly poster has argued that Philly is more urban than Manhattan. And none of the streets that I posted of Philly were alleys, they were all streets. Alleys have no front side entrances. Also if you look at my ranking, I put number 1 NYC and number 2 Philly, so obviously height was taken into consideration when it comes to structure density considering Philly has narrower and more narrow streets than NYC too. Difference between the height of the average residences between NYC and Philly is much greater than the difference between Philly and San Francisco. There are plenty of 2 story buildings with front side garages in San Francisco not too far from the core btw.
Uh, ok. There was a whole thread where it was argued that Philly was technically more urban than Manhattan because it had narrower streets - just because you're unfamiliar with the thread or threads I am referring to does not mean they do not exist. And you are definitely not going to convince everyone that in 2015 some of what you posted as a common "street" is in fact a street and not a functional alley. There's a pretty big difference between your 2nd and 3rd example, you might want to go back and check. Otherwise I agree with you and I never said anything to the contrary.
I'm personally advocating the overall square footage argument, along with Revitalizer, and potentially some others.
In an equivalent area (~50 sq mi) Philly has less office space than several cities, less retail than several cities, fewer hotel rooms than many cities, and a population density today that matches San Francisco's at best but is less than that of the core of Chicago's and possibly LA's. For this reason, no matter how narrow the streets or how many alleyways, you can't convince me that Philly is structurally #2 most dense city behind New York.
Philly has as many seas of 1-2 story buildings as Atlanta has 50 story buildings surrounded by seas of surface parking lots. That is to say very very few to none. The point was not well executed. The point still stands, though, that structural density isn't just about coverage, or Philly would have greater structural density than much of New York City. Granted, "structural density" has been substituted on this board before with "urbanity" and it has been argued by Philly posters that because of this, Philly is more "urban" than Manhattan. My point is that height is a factor, too - they are both factors. Perhaps use, too, since "industrial" uses were brought up. I think non-contributory uses should be excluded.
not sure what the OP wanted, Philly is built very dense and has much currently unused structures that were built very dense
also built environment does not mean density (which Philly is actually very dense especially by US standards still even with only 70-75% of the population and workforce of its peak
I dont think anyone I read said it was more densly built than NYC, and especially Manhattan or even a BK or Bx to be honest
also rowhome neighborhoods can be very dense, many close to the core range from 20-50K ppsm actually, rmember that Philly has close to 50 sq miles of uninhabited land whan you add ports, airports, industrial, refining and parks but much is very developed just not populated and also not always pleasing in these areas FWIW but I am hard pressed to say its not structually dense as I would be hard pressed to say SF is not structually dense, they are but have different builds.
personally I find NYC to be the clear #1 in intensity and scale and coverage, probably Chicago 2 with the breadth and probably Philly next mostly due to breadth though I think an argument can be made that SF is today slightly (again I say slightly as its much closer to the likes of Philly or Boston in this regard than to NYC) more intense in the core though both Philly and SF have similar population densisty in their 50sq miles or so but SF does not have the structual footprint for as large an area especially consisdering the industrial spaces but that is me
Maybe the OP can clarify whether built and unused qualifies
Philly has as many seas of 1-2 story buildings as Atlanta has 50 story buildings surrounded by seas of surface parking lots. That is to say very very few to none. The point was not well executed. The point still stands, though, that structural density isn't just about coverage, or Philly would have greater structural density than much of New York City. Granted, "structural density" has been substituted on this board before with "urbanity" and it has been argued by Philly posters that because of this, Philly is more "urban" than Manhattan. My point is that height is a factor, too - they are both factors. Perhaps use, too, since "industrial" uses were brought up. I think non-contributory uses should be excluded.
Ahh gotcha. I understand what you mean now, thanks for the clarification.
I don't think anyone was saying Philadelphia is more intensely developed than Manhattan, just that the streets a tighter. If Philadelphia was fully built out in the core (i.e. no parking lots, empty lots, 1 or 2 story structures) I bet the core population density would easily be ~20-25K per square mile. It's just the fact that a lot of buildable land still exists even within Center City itself.
In an equivalent area (~50 sq mi) Philly has less office space than several cities, less retail than several cities, fewer hotel rooms than many cities, and a population density today that matches San Francisco's at best but is less than that of the core of Chicago's and possibly LA's. For this reason, no matter how narrow the streets or how many alleyways, you can't convince me that Philly is structurally #2 most dense city behind New York.
Well, I think the office space has a lot to do with Pennsylvania's and Philadelphia's antiquated business tax structure. A lot of jobs are located outside of the city. Even so, there is about ~350K jobs within the core of the city alone with about 280K in Center City and ~75K in University City. This is not including the Navy Yard, or Temple University area, etc.
That is ALOT of jobs for a core area and in about 5 square miles total and that definitely rivals San Francisco and Boston. I'm not sure why Philadelphia lacks in office space, so I do not have an answer, but the jobs are definitely there. Are Philadelphia companies just taking less space than companies in Boston or San Francisco? Do companies in Philadelphia have less square footage per employee than in San Francisco and Boston? Is there more medical facilities and university facilities in Philadelphia's core than the other cities that don't count towards office space square footage? I think this may be the case, but I don't know. Even so, there is a couple million square feet of office space currently under construction in Philadelphia's core.
On the hotel front, as others have already stated, this is currently being addressed. There are at least a dozen hotels under construction or in the planning stages in Center City and University City alone. I would wager a couple thousands rooms under construction at least. This is one area where Philadelphia is definitely making up for.
Also, less retail? Huh? Behind San Francisco and Chicago maybe, but that's probably it. Practically every street in Center City is lined with retail. I don't think Philadelphia has less retail than many cities at all.
With all of that said, I definitely don't think Philadelphia comes in at #2 behind Manhattan. I think it is solidly #4 behind NYC, Chicago and San Francisco though. It is in no way behind LA, Boston or DC. It is definitely ahead of those cities as the built environment in most cases is greater than these cities or extends much further than these cities.
All your numbers are swell and all, but, at street level, none of that matters. Baltimore simply packs more buildings in the same area than DC does. Baltimore is also doing this with rowhouses (single family/and apartment rowhouses) compared to DC's 7-story glass boxes. Narrower streets also come in to play when comparing the two. DC has no equivalent to the structural density found in many parts of Baltimore. DC is a city of superblocks.
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.
