U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 01-13-2014, 10:21 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,604,483 times
Reputation: 5411

Advertisements

Atlanta was way more dense back then. I think I remember seeing a stat where Atlanta was around 10k ppsm density with a sizable urban core. So much was destroyed in the 60s-80s. You can see today where buildings stood and just see either grass or parking lots.

Here's a video of what Atlanta used to look like: I think if it had continued to just build in and around it's core and didn't embrace the sprawl culture, it would be a somewhat dense urban city.


Atlanta.Georgia - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2014, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,604,820 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
If the peninsula had barely been built up while East Bay large, that must have been that must have East Bay was developed independently from San Francisco and built as an extension of Oakland, since it's easier to get from Daly City to San Francisco than most of East Bay. Oakland and San Francisco must have been rather independent for most of their history, at least pre-1950. I assumed most of Daly City was older than that, probably judging from how packed in the neighborhood is.
There was no data for San Mateo county, so I didn't include anything from there, that's part of the reason why I said the weighted density of the true urban area would be lower. Daly City looks like it had about 1/10th of the current population in 1940.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Daly City and nearby might be one of the most dense postwar (50s to 60s) non-infill neighborhood. NE Philly and parts of Queens might also be a contender, thought they're within the city limits. Parts of the penisula must have been developed pre-1950, did you include them? They look they're leapfrog railroad suburbs, rather than a continuation of San Francisco like Daly City. For Long Island, the southern part of Nassau County was a line of railroad suburbs, predating parts of Queens, especially NE Queens.
Within the US or including Canada (Montreal)? http://goo.gl/maps/m7Bw9

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
San Francisco's weighted density in 1950 sounds identical to 2010, perhaps the only older city in the country where that's true. I assume Philly and Boston proper were higher in 1950?
I would think so... if they both lost population and the losses were greatests in the dense areas with growth in the less dense areas, they must have.

As for what part of the US reminds me most of my area... honestly I don't know, it depends on which part of Toronto and other nearby cities. Pennsylvania (especially smaller cities like Allentown) remind me a bit of older parts of Toronto.
Bethlehem: http://goo.gl/maps/ExtPf
Toronto: http://goo.gl/maps/eWSm3

For other cities, like my collegetown (Waterloo) I'd say Cleveland is similar.

For more mid-century housing, Chicago is a perfect match.
Suburbs like this would fit in perfectly in Scarborough: http://goo.gl/maps/NRf0R

For newer suburbs, there is no equivalent really, maybe the built form of San Diego and the architecture of Dallas? ex http://goo.gl/maps/cvwcg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,604,820 times
Reputation: 1604
I guess Toronto could be like a Northeastern city since usually those sorts of comparisons are based on the older part of the city, but only barely, kind of like Pittsburgh. As for Kitchener-Waterloo, I would describe it as more Midwestern.

Houston 1950
Population: 624,014
Area: 134.6 sq mi
Standard Density: 4,636 ppsm
Weighted Density: 7,474 ppsm

Cincinnati 1950
Population: 625,799
Area: 102.4 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,111 ppsm
Weighted Density: 15,535 ppsm
*Note that the Kentucky portion of the urban area was not included since no data was available.

Baltimore 1950
Population: 1,099,137
Area: 132.8 sq mi
Standard Density: 8,277 ppsm
Weighted Density: 26,783 ppsm

Houston had some moderately dense census tracts around 15-20k ppsm, but a surprisingly large amount of low density ones. Although it was largely than Atlanta, it was noticeable less dense.

Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine neighbourhood was quite dense but beyond that not so much.

Baltimore was definitely quite a dense city back then, especially the core neighbourhoods with the 3 storey no setback rowhouses. It was either 3rd or 4th densest (depending on Chicago).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,033 posts, read 98,948,726 times
Reputation: 31502
Some odd choices of cities to post graphs of. We don't have many posters from Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland. How about some of you graphics people posting Denver? Please?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:23 AM
 
2,373 posts, read 2,832,020 times
Reputation: 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
San Francisco's weighted density in 1950 sounds identical to 2010, perhaps the only older city in the country where that's true. I assume Philly and Boston proper were higher in 1950?
Boston and Philly were both quite a bit higher in 1950 but for different reasons.

Boston's density shrank in part due to disinvestment and changing uses but mostly because of shrinking household sizes.

In 1950 dozens of neighborhoods in Philadelphia hadn't been built yet. These were mostly rowhomes that were built - the infamous "air-lite" that's all over the Delaware Valley - but they were less dense than older neighborhoods and since they were populated by people leaving other parts of the city they didn't result in any growth for the city. Philly also had rapidly declining household size and large scale disinvestment.

It never ceases to amaze me when I dig up my relatives in the 1910 or 1920 census that they were living in rowhomes slightly smaller than my own with 8-12 people. 100 years later it's just the 3 of us. Multiply that by thousands of households and it makes a huge difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,604,820 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Some odd choices of cities to post graphs of. We don't have many posters from Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland. How about some of you graphics people posting Denver? Please?
Any graphs in particular you're interested in? 1950 data or 2010? With a regular frequency curve or cumulative? And what cities would you like to compare to?

Meanwhile...

Denver 1950
Population: 415,786
Area: 67.4 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,169 ppsm
Weighted Density: 10,773 ppsm
*Data was only available for what was probably the Denver city limits of the time, although I don't think Wheat Ridge, Aurora, Lakewood and Englewood and the like were too developed yet.

Louisville 1950
Population: 369,129
Area: 42.9 sq mi
Standard Density: 8,604 ppsm
Weighted Density: 13,998 ppsm
*Data was not available for the suburbs such as anything in Indiana

Columbus 1950
Population: 420,101
Area: 52.6 sq mi
Standard Density: 7,987 ppsm
Weighted Density: 13,275 ppsm
*The densest census tract by far was the Ohio Penitentiary, without which Columbus' weighted density would be about 1000 ppsm lower.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 04:55 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,754 posts, read 39,728,377 times
Reputation: 14675
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
*The densest census tract by far was the Ohio Penitentiary, without which Columbus' weighted density would be about 1000 ppsm lower.
how dense with this penitentiary?! And how many people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,033 posts, read 98,948,726 times
Reputation: 31502
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Any graphs in particular you're interested in? 1950 data or 2010? With a regular frequency curve or cumulative? And what cities would you like to compare to?

Meanwhile...

Denver 1950
Population: 415,786
Area: 67.4 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,169 ppsm
Weighted Density: 10,773 ppsm
*Data was only available for what was probably the Denver city limits of the time, although I don't think Wheat Ridge, Aurora, Lakewood and Englewood and the like were too developed yet.

Louisville 1950
Population: 369,129
Area: 42.9 sq mi
Standard Density: 8,604 ppsm
Weighted Density: 13,998 ppsm
*Data was not available for the suburbs such as anything in Indiana

Columbus 1950
Population: 420,101
Area: 52.6 sq mi
Standard Density: 7,987 ppsm
Weighted Density: 13,275 ppsm
*The densest census tract by far was the Ohio Penitentiary, without which Columbus' weighted density would be about 1000 ppsm lower.
Thanks. I didn't know Columbus was that big in 1950. Most of the Denver suburbs you referenced were around back then; those are all contiguous with Denver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,604,820 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
how dense with this penitentiary?! And how many people?
114,039 ppsm and 4,417 people. Baltimore's densest census tract was a prison too, and it still is, unlike for Columbus where the penitentiary was demolished. Today's San Quentin Penitentiary census tract is similarly dense and populated as that of Columbus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2014, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,604,820 times
Reputation: 1604
Los Angeles 1950
Population: 3,827,734
Area: 780.7 sq mi
Standard Density: 4,903 ppsm
Weighted Density: 9,202 ppsm

San Diego 1950
Population: 353,298
Area: 79.0 sq mi
Standard Density: 4,470 ppsm
Weighted Density: 7,784 ppsm

Sacramento 1950
Population: 166,259
Area: 31.8 sq mi
Standard Density: 5,228 ppsm
Weighted Density: 9,192 ppsm

San Jose 1950
Population: 95,235
Area: 15.0 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,349 ppsm
Weighted Density: 7,900 ppsm

San Jose and Los Angeles are the only urban areas I've looked at so far that have had their weighted densities increase. All four of these California cities were rather low density back then.

The San Jose data was only available for what was presumably the city limits at the time. As for Sacramento, the Northern part of the city was separated from the rest by low density census tracts along the American River so it was excluded, even though it included tracts above 1000 ppsm. Including these would increase the population by 36,677 to 202,936 and reduce the weighted density to 8,115 ppsm.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top