Most urban cities (Massachusetts, overhead, suburban, subway)
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.
Some people in the comments are arguing that Koreatown does have parks, specifically the Seoul International Park... But they are still a tiny amount of greenspace compared to the huge population of the district.
Yes. There is a clear disparity in urbanity between Chelsea/Kensington and Koreatown.
Oh really? Well, in that case, I vote Jacksonville the most urban city in the world.
You left out "antidisestablishmentarianism."
Drum roll....
One factor...more so with regard to commerical thoroughfares.
Non-factor. Most houses in San Francisco are made of wood; the building material has no impact on whether one thinks he can safely cross a street or not.
Minor factor, imo. Wider sidewalks do have a psychological impact on the pedestrian, but Chelsea's sidewalks are not substantially wider than those in Koreatown.
I don't think this makes much of a difference either. You can have sprawl with an irregular grid and a very compact built environment with a regular grid. Even at comparable population densities, I don't think it makes much of a difference. I don't find Chelsea to be any more urban than Park Slope, which has a regular grid pattern.
This does make a bit of a difference...particularly in how buildings and streets are scaled.
I was just playing around (but feel free to go with Jacksonville). As munchitup pointed out, it sounds like when you say "urbanity" you mean pedestrian friendly--am I right? Personally, I don't think Kensington is any more urban than Koreatown--though it's decisively more pedestrian friendly. I totally agree with munch's assessment. Btw each of those things I listed are something New Urbanists would bring up--maybe not the 'density of building materials', but there'd definitely be some discussion of material quality. Another thing I forgot to add was frequency of access points--streets with more doors on them are considered more urban by new urbanists. Block length is another thing to add.
I tend to think that really only street/setback width and the number/orientation of access points to the street matters for pedestrian friendliness--and really it only matters in commercial corridors. I find LA's residential areas to be very pedestrian friendly.
I was just playing around (but feel free to go with Jacksonville).
It technically is the biggest city in the United States. That has to count for something, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
As munchitup pointed out, it sounds like when you say "urbanity" you mean pedestrian friendly--am I right?
Not precisely. I think most people judge urbanity by the "publicness" (not a real word) of the urban design. The streets in Brooklyn are very "public" in the sense that residences are built right up to the street and houses and are stacked one by one. So you're literally in the street as soon as you walk through the door. This is completely different from a lot of areas of Los Angeles where buildings are designed to afford more privacy. I mean, when you have a house or a building set back from the street with a gate around it, or a building with a hedge surrounding it (to the point you can't even see the front door), then it's safe to say that those structures were designed to create a greater sense of privacy, and conversely, a lesser sense of "publicness." That privacy is what people typically associate with more suburban environments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
Another thing I forgot to add was frequency of access points--streets with more doors on them are considered more urban by new urbanists. Block length is another thing to add.
Sure. More doors on the streets "puts people into the streets" so to speak. And shorter blocks encourage walking because it gives you more options to get to any one destination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
I tend to think that really only street/setback width and the number/orientation of access points to the street matters for pedestrian friendliness--and really it only matters in commercial corridors. I find LA's residential areas to be very pedestrian friendly.
I am hardpressed to think of any residential areas that are not pedestrian friendly (with the exception of suburban apartment complexes built directly next to six-lane highways with no sidewalks). Most city neighborhoods are fairly pedestrian-friendly in the sense that you can walk around them. The difference lies, imo, in how well the residential is tied into the commercial and also how easily the residential structures "get people into the streets."
This is an example of a public-focused urban design that "gets people into the streets."
Not precisely. I think most people judge urbanity by the "publicness" (not a real word) of the urban design. The streets in Brooklyn are very "public" in the sense that residences are built right up to the street and houses and are stacked one by one. So you're literally in the street as soon as you walk through the door. This is completely different from a lot of areas of Los Angeles where buildings are designed to afford more privacy. I mean, when you have a house or a building set back from the street with a gate around it, or a building with a hedge surrounding it (to the point you can't even see the front door), then it's safe to say that those structures were designed to create a greater sense of privacy, and conversely, a lesser sense of "publicness." That privacy is what people typically associate with more suburban environments.
I hear you. You're talking about the classic "great street" (or plaza or whatever). A phrase you often hear in planning/urban design is "activating the street," or descriptions of the street as a "public room." This is where you get into discussions of the street wall, and the optimum building height/street width ratio for "enclosure" and things like that. Also discussions about "eyes on the street." Personally I agree that all these kinds of things can be nice--but I'm not sure whether I'd really call this "urbanity." I still think that "pedestrian-friendliness" or "pedestrian scale" or "pedestrian orientation" are the kinds of phrases that most accurately represent this.
Take, for example, LA's quintissential beach towns--Manhattan Beach and especially Hermosa Beach. They are both characterized by a very "activated" public sphere: lots of people on the streets, hanging out on patios, sidewalk dining, jaywalking, talking over fences, having "chance encounters," etc. In other words, the residents live a rather "public" life. But are these communities "urban"? I can guarantee that none of the residents would tell you they live in a particularly "urban" environment. (Admittedly this might have something to do with racial/class connotations to the word...). What I guess I'm getting at is that scale and intensity is a factor. The upper east side doesn't feel as lively and vibrant and "public" as downtown hermosa beach, does, but I'd definitely say that the UES is more "urban."
That said, Manhattan and Hermosa beach are incredibly pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian scaled and pedestiran-oriented, etc.
The upper east side doesn't feel as lively and vibrant and "public" as downtown hermosa beach, does, but I'd definitely say that the UES is more "urban."
The Upper East Side goes get a lot of people on its commercial streets.
Hermosa Beach probably feels more vibrant because it attracts a lot of visitors looking to fun. And maybe a younger resident population.
Yeah, that was maybe a bad comparison. Basically I just wanted to point out that there are places that have all of the "public life" and "active street" qualities but that aren't particularly "urban."
Holy crap I was 18 and living in OC when the riots occurred. I remember watching it unfold on TV and it was like some crazy real-life movie. It is so hard to believe that it was that bad back then. Just insane. That video brought me back...
Oh yeah, what were we talking about again?
Must've been insane. I was 3 and living in Florida. I remember seeing an episode of the popular Bill Cosby created late-80's/early-90's Historically Black College Sitcom: A Different World, about the LA riots. 20yrs later and Rodney King's dead. Weird that he died exactly 20yrs after the riots.
You're answering your own question. That's not my question. My question is simply what accounts for the difference in urbanity (for any given blocks, not links posted to streetviews) between Koreatown and Chelsea. Unless, that is, you believe there is no difference, in which case you're saying that Koreatown is as urban as Chelsea.
How does that not answer the question? You were saying they were comparable based on density stats, but there is an obvious difference in their urbanity--I showed you why those stats were the way they are despite Chelsea being obviously more built up and urban. The views of Ktown (one on the border and then one not even within Ktown which I took arbitrarily and crossed the street into Ktown with a more densely built environment) you gave underplays its actual urbanity while the factors I listed are what lessen Kensington's official density stats. It's a direct answer and yet it has you smacking your head anyhow. The stats overstate themselves for Ktown in a lot of ways, because its density doesn't accomodate all that much non-residential area. The streetlife is also not that overwhelming since there are bordering neighborhoods that aren't that dense. However, it is dense enough to support fairly high ridership for a fairly short heavy rail line.
The upper east side doesn't feel as lively and vibrant and "public" as downtown hermosa beach, does, but I'd definitely say that the UES is more "urban."
Wait, what?? This is crazy talk.
The Upper East side has FAR more pedestrian vibrancy than Hermosa Beach. What a ridiculous comparison. 86th/Lexington is one of the busiest intersections in all of Manhattan.
Why not compare Hermosa Beach to something similar, like other beach towns (South Shore of Long Island or Jersey Shore; some places like Long Beach, NY, Seaside Heights, Long Branch, etc.).
But to compare it to the Upper East Side, a place with more pedestrians than probably anywhere in the U.S. outside of Manhattan?
How does that not answer the question? You were saying they were comparable based on density stats, but there is an obvious difference in their urbanity--I showed you why those stats were the way they are despite Chelsea being obviously more built up and urban.
You made arguments as to why Chelsea's density is artificially low (i.e., "non-residential institutions"). So I accounted for these "non-residential institutions" by essentially removing a whole square mile from its borders (which is excessive, but whatever). Even after doing that, Chelsea's population density is only 41,113, which is less than Koreatown's density of 42,609 ppsm. So then my question became "What accounts for the difference in urbanity?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The views of Ktown (one on the border and then one not even within Ktown which I took arbitrarily and crossed the street into Ktown with a more densely built environment) you gave underplays its actual urbanity while the factors I listed are what lessen Kensington's official density stats.
If you're really up to it, you can easily remedy this by posting links to every single commercial and residential corridor in Chelsea and every single commercial and residential corridor in Koreatown. Then compare each and every one of those streets. Simple. If you were to do this, you would see a very obvious difference in the degree of urbanity. So then my question remains: "What accounts for the difference?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The stats overstate themselves for Ktown in a lot of ways, because its density doesn't accomodate all that much non-residential area.
I've already adjusted for this. It's the same way we accommodate you guys by removing a mountain range from L.A.'s city limits (hypothetically speaking) to get a better understanding of the city's true population density. In this case, I've removed an entire square mile from Chelsea to account for "non-residential institutions," which is an area nearly the size of Central Park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The streetlife is also not that overwhelming since there are bordering neighborhoods that aren't that dense.
That may or may not be true. But most people would say that Chelsea is more urban than Koreatown based on the built environment alone (irrespective of pedestrian activity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
However, it is dense enough to support fairly high ridership for a fairly short heavy rail line.
This has nothing to do with my question.
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.
