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.
SF and Philly crushes both. SF for core extremely dense. Philly for a long stretch of land heavily urban. I personally think both outdo Chicago on desity, and I there border were the same as Chi's they would all the same pop.
Philly is not as developed as D.C.'s core still having a ton of vacant or low density structures, but it is definetly developed for a much larger area than D.C. SF on the other hand is way more developed than all of them. Urban canyon's go on pretty far at extreme intensity.
SF and Philly crushes both. SF for core extremely dense. Philly for a long stretch of land heavily urban. I personally think both outdo Chicago on desity, and I there border were the same as Chi's they would all the same pop.
Is there really that big of a difference between SF and Boston? Boston's peak density was pretty much the same as SF's density today. I don't feel that one is really more active than the other. Of all these cities, Boston has always felt the most urban to me.
Is there really that big of a difference between SF and Boston? Boston's peak density was pretty much the same as SF's density today. I don't feel that one is really more active than the other. Of all these cities, Boston has always felt the most urban to me.
I always wondered how people can expect to gauge urban form based on population density. If you visit these cities at 3:00 a.m., how would you gauge their density when you would have no idea who lives there? The streets would be empty. When it's pouring down outside at 9:00 p.m. on a Monday, how would you gauge their density when the streets are empty. Urbanity is measured by buildings and their relationship to the street.
I always wondered how people can expect to gauge urban form based on population density. If you visit these cities at 3:00 a.m., how would you gauge their density when you would have no idea who lives there. The streets would be empty. Urbanity is measured by buildings and their relationship to the street.
I think that's largely true. I think the built environment typically stands in as a proxy for high population density in the minds of most people. I mean, if you see a neighborhood full of wall to wall six story apartment buildings, most people would just assume that it's high density. The difference in population density is only discernible, imo, when you're talking about a MAJOR discrepancy between two cities. Otherwise, it's difficult to eyeball a street or a neighborhood and say that population density really makes a difference.
Depending on where you are in Manhattan, the streets can be fairly tranquil during most times of day, particularly on weekends. Brooklyn in general has more of a calmness to it and is not that distinguishable in feel from, say, Dupont Circle. The big difference, I think, is a streetwall that's consistently taller than what you see in DC. Brooklyn also has more storefronts, which I think makes quite a difference to the naked eye.
Philly is not as developed as D.C.'s core still having a ton of vacant or low density structures, but it is definetly developed for a much larger area than D.C. SF on the other hand is way more developed than all of them. Urban canyon's go on pretty far at extreme intensity.
Are you trying to tell me D.C. is more urban then Philadelphia? Philadelphian center city is not home to "low density". Every thread about D.C.'s urbanity you talk about urban canyons, please use a different term. And I said that SF is denser at the core, but over a span of time Philly keeps high density up. Boston, SF, and Philly are all ahead of D.C. in urbanity, not a gigantic stretch, but its noticeable.
Are you trying to tell me D.C. is more urban then Philadelphia? Philadelphian center city is not home to "low density". Every thread about D.C.'s urbanity you talk about urban canyons, please use a different term. And I said that SF is denser at the core, but over a span of time Philly keeps high density up. Boston, SF, and Philly are all ahead of D.C. in urbanity, not a gigantic stretch, but its noticeable.
I look at the two cities this way.
Center City is more urban than Downtown DC. This is not subject to debate.
Outside of their immediate cores, in what I'd call their "vibrant cores," DC is more urban than Philly. DC has a lot more verticality outside of Downtown than Philly does. I would consider Columbia Heights to be more urban than most of South Philly, for example.
DC drops to rowhouse neighborhoods that are of lower intensity than Philadelphia's. West Philly, for example, is signficantly more urban than Brookland or even Petworth or Brightwood. The District becomes rather leafy once you leave its vibrant core. Philadelphia, on the other hand, remains a sea of very dense rowhousing over a very large area.
Center City is more urban than Downtown DC. This is not subject to debate.
Outside of their immediate cores, in what I'd call their "vibrant cores," DC is more urban than Philly. DC has a lot more verticality outside of Downtown than Philly does. I would consider Columbia Heights to be more urban than most of South Philly, for example.
DC drops to rowhouse neighborhoods that are of lower intensity than Philadelphia's. West Philly, for example, is signficantly more urban than Brookland or even Petworth or Brightwood. The District becomes rather leafy once you leave its vibrant core. Philadelphia, on the other hand, remains a sea of very dense rowhousing over a very large area.
Center City is more urban than Downtown DC. This is not subject to debate.
Outside of their immediate cores, in what I'd call their "vibrant cores," DC is more urban than Philly. DC has a lot more verticality outside of Downtown than Philly does. I would consider Columbia Heights to be more urban than most of South Philly, for example.
DC drops to rowhouse neighborhoods that are of lower intensity than Philadelphia's. West Philly, for example, is signficantly more urban than Brookland or even Petworth or Brightwood. The District becomes rather leafy once you leave its vibrant core. Philadelphia, on the other hand, remains a sea of very dense rowhousing over a very large area.
So that's the difference, imo.
I'm sorry, I hate to be so stern but your comparing Columbia Heights which is very urban and has a density of 37 ppsm but it only 0.83 sm. While south Philly is 9.7 sm at 17 ppsm and has one Tracy t 47 ppsm. So you just can't say that D.C. is more urban. South Philly is 10x the land area, and stays urban topping the density parts of Columbia heights. D.C isn't more urban outside the core. It just isn't.
Are you trying to tell me D.C. is more urban then Philadelphia? Philadelphian center city is not home to "low density". Every thread about D.C.'s urbanity you talk about urban canyons, please use a different term. And I said that SF is denser at the core, but over a span of time Philly keeps high density up. Boston, SF, and Philly are all ahead of D.C. in urbanity, not a gigantic stretch, but its noticeable.
Just like Bajan said, D.C.'s downtown is not as urban as center city, but D.C.'s urban core is more urban than Philly's urban core. D.C.'s core is built up more than Philly's urban core. Philly is largely a row house city outside of center city. D.C. is the complete opposite outside of downtown D.C. The contrast is growing more and more everyday as the city continues to go vertical in all direction's far from downtown D.C. Philly much like Baltimore will remain a row house city. Row houses will be renovated and beautified, but the city will not go vertical like D.C. is doing. One of the biggest differences between the built form of D.C. and Philly is D.C. is more of an apartment city while Philly is more of a row house city. That contrast is growing even more steadily every day.
That's not spot on. What don't y'all get!?!? Philly is the size of 2 an a half D.C's and only 57 thousand people. The rest of Philadelphia holds 1.6 million. D.C. does not do that.
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.
