Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2010, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,795,360 times
Reputation: 451

Advertisements

If you could rearrange the ten largest cities in the U.S in any order, what would they be? What would you make their populations? What about density?

Just for those who may not know the current list is here:
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enjoy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2010, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
It's good you added density, population, and what cities. It keeps it from being vague and from being closed down by the moderators (the thread).

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Philadelphia
6. Boston
7. San Francisco
8. Seattle
9 Miami
10. Atlanta

I really don't care about density, never really was into it, don't care to be into it now. I like cities for what they have not how tightly together it's grouped or how many people can fit on the same block.
That's not a competition, IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2010, 11:54 PM
 
1,263 posts, read 4,011,218 times
Reputation: 642
I like this opinion. I never understood why density is so highly rated here. It really isn't something special. Yes density can get you more walkability and justify more public transportation but density can also create many other problems. For example driving and parking is usually much more of a pain in a dense neighborhood. Besides walkability can be walkability inside a mall. In a way stores in a mall are denser and more walkable than any street outside. I don't particularly like malls but just saying. I have no preference shopping in a mall or in a street under or near those office buildings not related to me in any way. America is not short of land. Some parts of the world are but America is really not. It needs to have some dense cities in the areas where flat land is luxury, but in other parts really it is just a tradeoff and what the city wants. There is no superiority of dense cities over less dense cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi View Post
I really don't care about density, never really was into it, don't care to be into it now. I like cities for what they have not how tightly together it's grouped or how many people can fit on the same block.
That's not a competition, IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2010, 11:59 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by fashionguy View Post
I like this opinion. I never understood why density is so highly rated here. It really isn't something special. Yes density can get you more walkability and justify more public transportation but density can also create many other problems. For example driving and parking is usually much more of a pain in a dense neighborhood. Besides walkability can be walkability inside a mall. In a way stores in a mall are denser than any street outside. I don't particularly like malls but just saying. I have no preference shopping in a mall or in a street under or near those office buildings. America is not short of land. Some parts of the world are but America is really not. It needs to have some dense cities in the areas where flat land is luxury, but in other parts really it is just a tradeoff.
I honestly can't see Los Angeles being as dense as it's North California counter part San Francisco. It would completely ruin the significance of the city.
People say sprawl is a bad thing, I don't think so. Miles and miles of coastal beaches, mountain environment, a downtown in the mix, Hollywood. I like how everything is in it's own place and not put together so closely packed that it feels/looks like a push-and-shove situation.

Density works wonders for San Fran, some cities are great with it, other's aren't but have their own unique thing going on.

Besides LA is getting denser, the larger it's population gets, the denser it becomes, even though stereotypically it isn't viewed as "dense", it still is above average in density.

Last edited by DANNYY; 05-17-2010 at 12:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2010, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Jersey Boy living in Florida
3,717 posts, read 8,190,559 times
Reputation: 892
The thing about LA is that it isn't as urban as SF but it is still very dense. The way they pack single family houses into neighborhoods in that city to the point where you can crawl through your neighbors window. It reminds me of Miami.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2010, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,498 posts, read 27,006,609 times
Reputation: 4890
Density is good...to a certain point.

Its never really been a problem here in Texas though because land is so cheap & readily available. In places like NYC, SF, Chicago, Miami, DC, or LA I can see where density might be needed because they are limited by natural barriers, but here its just not necessary. Now that's not to say I don't like seeing walkable urban environments. I do & its happening in Texas. Will we ever be on the level of those other cities as far as density, no & that's fine by me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2010, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,516 posts, read 33,565,329 times
Reputation: 12157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post
Density is good...to a certain point.

Its never really been a problem here in Texas though because land is so cheap & readily available. In places like NYC, SF, Chicago, Miami, DC, or LA I can see where density might be needed because they are limited by natural barriers, but here its just not necessary. Now that's not to say I don't like seeing walkable urban environments. I do & its happening in Texas. Will we ever be on the level of those other cities as far as density, no & that's fine by me.
Wouldn't be so quick to say no. I see Houston and Dallas reaching where LA is now and LA is continuing to grow inside it's city limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2010, 10:46 AM
 
Location: St Paul, MN - NJ's Gold Coast
5,251 posts, read 13,824,382 times
Reputation: 3178
There's a lot of pros when it comes to density.
Mass transportation, walkability, job opportunity, a wider variety of eats/shopping.

Look at Manhattan!

Of course density has its cons (like lack of nature), but it's not just the idea of having a lot of people in one area.

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Houston
5. Dallas
6. Los Angeles
7. San Antonio
8. San Diego
9. Phoenix
10. San Jose

Density as is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2010, 10:50 AM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,951,203 times
Reputation: 7976
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston
5. San Fran
6. DC
7. Baltimore
8. Pittsburgh
9. San Diego (my oddball on density but is on the coast and can't beat the weather plus La Jolla)
10. Seattle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2010, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPerone201 View Post
There's a lot of pros when it comes to density.
Mass transportation, walkability, job opportunity, a wider variety of eats/shopping.

Look at Manhattan!

Of course density has its cons (like lack of nature), but it's not just the idea of having a lot of people in one area.

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Houston
5. Dallas
6. Los Angeles
7. San Antonio
8. San Diego
9. Phoenix
10. San Jose

Density as is.
BP, normally I agree with your posts, but I find it necessary to ask, San Antonio above San Deigo?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top