Most urban cities (metro, largest, planner, downtown)
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.
The reason I say that LA and DC function very differently is because the two cities have very different contexts. DC has a large area of contiguous urbanity that includes pretty much everything you want or need to go to. LA has smaller patches of urbanity that are scattered about. Thus, the regional context dictates that you own a car and drive it to an extent that the regional context in DC does not. Los Angeles may offer areas where it's possible to go "car-lite," but the layout and design of the city make it much more difficult to be "car free" than DC, Chicago or New York. And that's in essence one of the biggest differences between LA and other cities.
The reason I say that LA and DC function very differently is because the two cities have very different contexts. DC has a large area of contiguous urbanity that includes pretty much everything you want or need to go to. LA has smaller patches of urbanity that are scattered about. Thus, the regional context dictates that you own a car and drive it to an extent that the regional context in DC does not. Los Angeles may offer areas where it's possible to go "car-lite," but the layout and design of the city make it much more difficult to be "car free" than DC, Chicago or New York. And that's in essence one of the biggest differences between LA and other cities.
I generally agree with you on this (though think you sell LA short) - Despite that, I still find Los Angeles to be a much more urban city than Boston or DC.
I don't think DC's contiguous urban area is that large either, especially with what it breaks down to on the edges of town.
I generally agree with you on this (though think you sell LA short) - Despite that, I still find Los Angeles to be a much more urban city than Boston or DC.
Well, since you seem to be focused mainly on population, then that's naturally the view you'll take. But people who are more focused on transit-use/culture, structural density, walkability and contiguity are going to choose Boston or DC over LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
I don't think DC's contiguous urban area is that large either, especially with what it breaks down to on the edges of town.
It is quite large, comparatively speaking. We don't have many cities in the U.S. with any type of contiguous, pedestrian-centric built environment, little less one that sustains itself over several square miles. Manhattan, the pinnacle of urbanity in the United States, is only 23 sq. miles. So the urban footprint of DC is quite expansive by American standards. It is one of the few cities in the United States that can even be said to come remotely close to offering the lifestyle one would have in Manhattan, London or Paris both in terms of quality and scale (obviously not close to those cities, but closer than most other American cities including Los Angeles).
Well, since you seem to be focused mainly on population, then that's naturally the view you'll take. But people who are more focused on transit-use/culture, structural density, walkability and contiguity are going to choose Boston or DC over LA.
It is quite large, comparatively speaking. We don't have many cities in the U.S. with any type of contiguous, pedestrian-centric built environment, little less one that sustains itself over several square miles. Manhattan, the pinnacle of urbanity in the United States, is only 23 sq. miles. So the urban footprint of DC is quite expansive by American standards. It is one of the few cities in the United States that can even be said to come remotely close to offering the lifestyle one would have in Manhattan, London or Paris both in terms of quality and scale (obviously not close to those cities, but closer than most other American cities including Los Angeles).
I don't know how much this tells us, but here's a chart I've made showing metropolitan core areas (for example, the Boston core is really Boston+Cambridge+Somerville+Brookline) ranked by their populations living above a walkscore of 90. I'm sure I'm missing some cities, but this gives a good idea of some of the major players. Also, I've removed NYC because there are almost 3 million people in the city living above a walkscore of 90...
I don't know how much this tells us, but here's a chart I've made showing metropolitan core areas (for example, the Boston core is really Boston+Cambridge+Somerville+Brookline) ranked by their populations living above a walkscore of 90. I'm sure I'm missing some cities, but this gives a good idea of some of the major players. Also, I've removed NYC because there are almost 3 million people in the city living above a walkscore of 90...
Interesting chart. Just curious on Philly, was it just the city? As some areas that sorround the city to the South, West and East are closer to the core and more walkable than many parts of the city itself, especially the far Northeast.
Your link didnt work but areas like Milbourne, Upper Darby, Parts of the Main Line, Jenkintown, Conshy, and even into Camden, especially venturing out along the PATCO line.
Would imagine a place like Milbourne would be in the 80s at worst with direct MFL subway access as does parts of Camden, not all nabes I would choose to live but
Your link didnt work but areas like Milbourne, Upper Darby, Parts of the Main Line, Jenkintown, Conshy, and even into Camden, especially venturing out along the PATCO line.
Would imagine a place like Milbourne would be in the 80s at worst with direct MFL subway access as does parts of Camden, not all nabes I would choose to live but
Yeah I just checked out Milbourne, and it was a 69.. Camden's highest neighborhood gets a 70.. Upper Darby looks pretty good, but unfortunately walkscore doesn't seem to have a score for neighborhoods in that area (just for specific addresses). This is the only metro I've seen where the data is unavailable so close to downtown. I suspect Darby would add some to Philly, but probably wouldn't make that large of a difference.
I don't know why the link didn't work, but just check out walkscore.com and click the top tab "cities and neighborhoods." Walkscore is a very imperfect thing--it's based only on amenities (not on transit--or if it does factor in transit, it's not very nuanced), it only counts businesses that have a listing, and it completely favors gentrified areas with lots of amenities over neighborhoods that may be just as "walkable" for their residents' needs but that don't have a zillion other specialty shops that are only in nicer areas. So it should really be taken with plenty of salt--but I think it does give you a pretty good idea of generally how things break down in each metro.
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.
