U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-25-2012, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
343 posts, read 567,834 times
Reputation: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Would only add continuity of developed density also plays in; there are areas more isolted that achieve these densities on a smaller footprint and without cohesion/continuity urbanity can be diminished
True. I would probably say that if an area could manage a population density of 10,000 per square mile continuously over one square mile or two, it could be classified as urban for our purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2012, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,531 posts, read 5,722,619 times
Reputation: 2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Since were talking about history the way cities are develop, their cores, We all know that in the 60s began large urban renewal projects taking on by cities in America, also many cities core started to decline.

50s
Seattle city, WA......... 467,591 pop 70.8 sq mi 6,604 /sq mi
Denver city, CO.......... 415,786 pop 66.8 sq mi 6,224 /sq mi
Atlanta city, GA......... 331,314 pop 36.9 sq mi 8,979 /sq mi

40s
Seattle city, WA......... 368,302 pop 68.5 sq mi 5,377 /sq mi
Denver city, CO.......... 415,786 pop 66.8 sq mi 6,224 /sq mi
Atlanta city, GA......... 302,288 pop 34.7 sq mi 8,711 /sq mi

I brought this up because you put Seattle and Denver up with Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit and made a separate tier for Atlanta, Houston Dallas, and Miami. When Atlanta is just as old and was denser than both of them by historical layout. After the 70s Atlanta the city core started to decline and didn't start to increase until the 90s mean while the suburbs just grew. While Seattle pass Atlanta in density during time Atlanta was in decline, Denver wasn't even denser than Atlanta until the census took 100,000 off from Atlanta in 2010.

Remember your the one taking about historical layout how do Seattle and Denver get in the same sentence as Chicago, DC, and Detroit. At the same time above Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. When they just pass them, post 70's? Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas are older than LA technically and they did not model after LA, and LA has nothing to do with their historical layout. LA boom like a bet out hell in the early 20 century, Sun belt growth is post 70s growth. Urban renewal made those cities less dense not they start off that way or planned.
Since when is Atlanta 34 sq. miles? If you took the inner 50% of Seattle OR Denver they would probably have much higher densities as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 01:58 PM
 
Location: NY, NY
808 posts, read 620,339 times
Reputation: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by cittic10 View Post
Sowflorda
Chi-town
San fran

And that's about it. It's the cities that are bound on one or more sides by water or undevelopable land.
Although to me, NYC feels like it's in the woods. It's obviously urban but the second you cross over the bridge, it's hills and trees and quaint little mainstreets towns.
Have you ever been to NYC? It does not even remotley feel like it is in the middle of woods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:28 PM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,811,801 times
Reputation: 1164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
I debated on Atlanta but on the whole the urbanity is more similar to the modern incarnation with aspects old in the core; Atlanta is a wildcard of sorts, a small old core with a less dense wide sprawled expanse. doesnt fit well into any category and as is developing today is more consistent with a newer model save a few nabes.

Denver in some ways seems to share more IMHO; albeit limited in experience with Denver and as I said there is no perfect portrayal
Yeah you missed what I was saying

Seattle, and Denver age wise, by historical development are peers to Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas. Seattle, and Denver historically are NOT built denser than those cities, all those cities became major cities before WWII, after the urban renewal of the 60s older sunbelt cities became less dense. And until last decade they wasn't trying to infill. You got the age and story of Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas completely off.

Again sunbelt growth represents post 70's growth they were already major cities before the sunbelt boom. Again is not the historical layout of these cities it's the urban renewal of the 60s. So I'm trying to figure out what's this newbie thing? Houston, Atlanta and Dallas aren't new compared to Seattle and Denver. but they grow different after the 60s.

Cities that began major cities after the 70s rose up in sprawl but infliing is pretty popular most cities today are trying to infilling. But I don't know any city trying to model sprawl. basically the pro sprawl age is 1970 - 2000.

Also sprawl doesn't always equal low density LA is certainly not, Atlanta is the 9th largest by metro but in 1,800 sq mi Atlanta is top 12 by population anyways. Another thing ever time I bring up Atlanta I not asking is Atlanta urban or not, or what ever. that's not my point. I'm not saying Atlanta is urban as Seattle but rather your tire by historical layout is off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
Since when is Atlanta 34 sq. miles? If you took the inner 50% of Seattle OR Denver they would probably have much higher densities as well.
You seriously didn't even read my post, I don't even know where to began, the 1950 part, historical layout discussion, There's just so many things wrong here. At least kidphilly read a little I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
8,844 posts, read 5,254,723 times
Reputation: 2788
I would put the list as follows:

  • 1.) NYC
    • Gargantuan urbanity in all directions
  • 2.) Chicago, Philadelphia
    • Large central cores, while remaining very urban outside the core for the most part
  • 3a.) Boston, San Francisco, DC
  • 3b.) Los Angeles
    • These are ranked in two tiers (not in a particular order) because they have about the same about of urbanity in their city limits. 3a consists of cities with tight city limits, so they are almost completely made up of very urban areas. Los Angeles has an equal size stretch of urbanity (perhaps a little larger) but is surrounded on almost all sides by lackluster urban development (in some respects Chicago could be here too, but the very urban areas are too large, hence its spot in tier 2.)
  • 4.) Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, Cleveland, Pittsburgh
    • These cities have smaller (relatively, compared to the above cities) dense cores but then consists mainly of single family homes. Seems like these are mostly Midwestern/PacNW cities.
  • 5.) Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City
    • These cities also have similar cores to the above cities but the single family homes/suburban style development kicks in even earlier and the densities are even lower than those in tier 4.
Obviously this is incomplete, some cities I am not familiar enough with to place (STL, Kansas City - I'm gonna guess they go in tier 4 though)... Others are hard to place like Miami and New Orleans (I'm guessing somewhere between 4-5).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:35 PM
 
Location: The City
18,901 posts, read 15,415,554 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Yeah you missed what I was saying

Seattle, and Denver age wise, by historical development are peers to Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas. Seattle, and Denver historically are NOT built denser than those cities, all those cities became major cities before WWII, after the urban renewal of the 60s older sunbelt cities became less dense. And until last decade they wasn't trying to infill. You got the age and story of Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas completely off.

Again sunbelt growth represents post 70's growth they were already major cities before the sunbelt boom. Again is not the historical layout of these cities it's the urban renewal of the 60s. So I'm trying to figure out what's this newbie thing? Houston, Atlanta and Dallas aren't new compared to Seattle and Denver. but they grow different after the 60s.

Cities that began major cities after the 70s rose up in sprawl but infliing is pretty popular most cities today are trying to infilling. But I don't know any city trying to model sprawl. basically the pro sprawl age is 1970 - 2000.

Also sprawl doesn't always equal low density LA is certainly not, Atlanta is the 9th largest by metro but in 1,800 sq mi Atlanta is top 12 by population anyways. Another thing ever time I bring up Atlanta I not asking is Atlanta urban or not, or what ever. that's not my point. I'm not saying Atlanta is urban as Seattle but rather your tire by historical layout is off.


You seriously didn't even read my post, I don't even know where to began, the 1950 part, historical layout discussion, There's just so many things wrong here. At least kidphilly read a little I guess.
Actually dont really think I did at all; but this is pretty typical we dont always have to agree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:49 PM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,811,801 times
Reputation: 1164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Actually dont really think I did at all; but this is pretty typical we dont always have to agree
That's the thing you technically didn't disagree you came back wrote about something different altogether it appears as a straw man. I'm not asking is Atlanta urban or not, or what ever, that's not my point. I'm not saying Atlanta is urban as Seattle but rather your tire by historical layout is off. Just cause a city is denser doesn't mean it's historical layout was denser. You got the age and story of Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas completely off. I guess it's popular to respond with out reading now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 03:00 PM
 
Location: The City
18,901 posts, read 15,415,554 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
That's the thing you technically didn't disagree you came back wrote about something different altogether it appears as a straw man. I'm not asking is Atlanta urban or not, or what ever, that's not my point. I'm not saying Atlanta is urban as Seattle but rather your tire by historical layout is off. Just cause a city is denser doesn't mean it's historical layout was denser. You got the age and story of Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas completely off. I guess it's popular to respond with out reading now.

I said I was generalizing on the development timeframe aspect and Atlanta has components of both and no single catagorization is perfect

Atlanta is older but also has many similarities with newer growth areas in time of huge growth; which to makes sense in how and why I said it doesnt fit as well as others

in the context then where would you suggest Atlanta best fits then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
5,340 posts, read 2,364,287 times
Reputation: 2724
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBCA View Post
True. I would probably say that if an area could manage a population density of 10,000 per square mile continuously over one square mile or two, it could be classified as urban for our purposes.
Los Angeles's urbanity is a controversial topic, but in terms of good old fashioned, non-subjective density, the city is far and away #2 in this country. The amount of L.A. residents living in 30k, 20k and 10k neighborhoods trails only NYC, and there are now 100 cities/neighborhoods (from Koreatown to Santa Monica) in L.A. County with a minimum 10k density. Combined they total 315 sq miles with an average density over 14k.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
343 posts, read 567,834 times
Reputation: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Los Angeles's urbanity is a controversial topic, but in terms of good old fashioned, non-subjective density, the city is far and away #2 in this country. The amount of L.A. residents living in 30k, 20k and 10k neighborhoods trails only NYC, and there are now 100 cities/neighborhoods (from Koreatown to Santa Monica) in L.A. County with a minimum 10k density. Combined they total 315 sq miles with an average density over 14k.
And parts of LA are certainly very urban, and feel like a big city when you walk around in them. LA's reputation for sprawl is not incorrect, but disproportionately derives from the San Fernando valley.

I would suspect that the density of greater Los Angeles is not lower than most large metro areas. The only real difference between LA and something like Philadelphia is that Philadelphia's city limits encompass only the densest and most urban parts of the metro area. It would be possible to gerrymander LA's city limits around an area with 1 million people and have density similar to or greater than many east coast cities.
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 $84,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:57 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top