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.
NYC - 2nd to none.
San Francisco - Easily comes in second. It's hella crowded here in the Bay Area.
Philly -It's pretty dense, but having lived in both SF and Philly, Philly doesn't have near the density of SF.
Chicago - Lot's people, but over a huge area.
LA - Sprawled out over a massive area.
That poster only posts on City V City to make smug remarks about Rust belt cities, particularly Pittsburgh.
Well, TBH, I have lived in Pittsburgh and it's really not very dense in or outside of downtown. It's not really a smug remark, because you're comparing it to cities like SF and Philly, which are 2 other places I've had the privilege to live. I currently reside in Oakland, CA and because the entire Bay Area is dense the small city of Oakland is much more dense than Pittsburgh as well.
1)New York
2)Philly
3)Miami
4)Baltimore
5)Chicago
6)DC
As for a structural density comparison between DC and Baltimore, DC has a more densely built environment than Baltimore.
I did a calculation of each city's total square footage in the following categories using data from 2014: housing unit space (vacant and occupied), office space (private-owned and government-owned), industrial space (vacant and occupied), hotel room space, meeting/convention/event space, and retail space (vacant and occupied).
I then averaged each city's total square footage of development in the above categories over the respective land area. DC has about 650 million square feet of total development in 61 square miles, compared to Baltimore's 668 million square feet of total development in 81 square miles.
DC is adding many more square feet of development than Baltimore with each passing year, so DC will soon have more total square footage (in a smaller land area) than Baltimore in addition to its already being more densely packed in.
Based on my calculation, DC holds about 10.6 million square feet of development per square mile in the above categories compared to about 8.2 million square feet of development per square mile in Baltimore in the above categories.
I acknowledge there are other categories, such as prison/jail space, recreation center space, and utilities space (electric, gas, and water generation companies, etc), that were not included, but I included the categories I thought were the most meaningful for the purpose of this calculation.
It would be interesting to see similar calculations done for other cities.
Last edited by revitalizer; 11-27-2015 at 06:18 AM..
And fine, Crenshaw line will go through South Central LA. Would they consider building it without it connecting to LAX (and the Expo line, which is westside/DTLA endpoints...aka tourists and business travelers)? I obviously don't know much about transit in LA, but I know enough to make the original comment I did. Crenshaw is connecting the system to LAX and LAX's new/future people mover. Do you think board room meetings on this project emphasized more need to connect neglected areas with higher unemployment, or do you think they saw a future of "young professionals" shuttling back and forth from high rise districts in DTLA, spreading north and west, down to LAX on clean, modern, rail cars? Puh-leaze.
Yes, they would have built it without the connection to LAX. There were already shovels in the dirt on the Crenshaw Line project before LAWA finally came around and decided that yes, they'd work with Metro on a people mover to LAX. If they had not, the Crenshaw line would still be under construction. The connection to LAX was always just a bonus, and is a completely separate project with its own seperate budget and separate timeline (LAX people mover starts in 2017 and finishes in 2023, versus the Crenshaw line which started in 2014 and will be finished in 2019.)
As for the other half of your question- would they have built it without connecting it to the Expo Line-- what other line could they possibly have connected it to on the north end, given its geography? Its literally the only option for a connection.
Last edited by DistrictDirt; 11-29-2015 at 08:52 AM..
In order
NYC
Philly
San Francisco/Boston tied
Chicago
SF is denser than philly, both structurally and in terms of poulation, as has been proven many times on this website over the years. It's not a huge difference but it's obvious to anyone looking at things fairly and objectively.
SF is denser than philly, both structurally and in terms of poulation, as has been proven many times on this website over the years. It's not a huge difference but it's obvious to anyone looking at things fairly and objectively.
What is Philly's inner 42 square mile density? I'd wager is around the 17k-19k mark as well. The fact that Philly is only 5k ppsm less than SF's density over 3 times the land area is pretty impressive. Naturally, densities closer to the center are higher than those farther away.
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.
My top 5 in order.
