Density vs Built environment (map, metro, suburban, downtown)

[CaliSon]

Can a city be devoid of either density or built environment and still be considered a true urban city? Case example DC is a low density city with high built environment and LA is a high density city with low built environment

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by CaliSon

Can a city be devoid of either density or built environment and still be considered a true urban city? Case example DC is a low density city with high built environment and LA is a high density city with low built environment

Is DC low density? I don't think it is.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by CaliSon

Can a city be devoid of either density or built environment and still be considered a true urban city? Case example DC is a low density city with high built environment and LA is a high density city with low built environment

I think you're misunderstanding structural density.

It's not about the total three-dimensional area that buildings comprise. It's about the amount of ground space taken up by building footprints in total, instead of green space, parking, and roads. High rises can contribute to density, but if they're surrounded by surface parking, it kind of get canceled out. To a small extent, height does matter (it's hard for one-story buildings to give a structurally dense feel), and a small to nonexistent setback from the sidewalk also matters.

Thus DC is a very structurally dense city - lots of three-story to midrise housing, little to no setback from the roads, little parking except on the streets. Portions of LA are structurally dense, but even though the "suburban" residential areas have small lots, they tend to be set back from the road and don't give a "street-wall" appearance.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think you're misunderstanding structural density.

It's not about the total three-dimensional area that buildings comprise. It's about the amount of ground space taken up by building footprints in total, instead of green space, parking, and roads. High rises can contribute to density, but if they're surrounded by surface parking, it kind of get canceled out. To a small extent, height does matter (it's hard for one-story buildings to give a structurally dense feel), and a small to nonexistent setback from the sidewalk also matters.

Thus DC is a very structurally dense city - lots of three-story to midrise housing, little to no setback from the roads, little parking except on the streets. Portions of LA are structurally dense, but even though the "suburban" residential areas have small lots, they tend to be set back from the road and don't give a "street-wall" appearance.

This is consistent with what Donald Shoup says:

“You can’t have the number of cars we have in L.A. without our parking lots,” says Shoup. “And you can never create urban density with the parking lots we’ve built.”

Between the Lines - Features - Los Angeles magazine

Scott Bottles also provides an interesting assessment in his book, "Los Angeles and the Automobile."

In general, those regions with a long history of urban growth tended to decentralize later than cities such as Los Angeles. New York, Boston and Philadelphia had built up over the previous two hundred years extensive urban cores, which even today continue to exert a strong influence over the transporation patterns of the surrounding areas. Other cities such as Houston, Los Angeles and Phoenix emerged after the invention of the streetcar, automobile and truck. Because these innovations encouraged residential and economic dispersal, the city centers of these later cities today appear less developed.

Older metropolises such as Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco had by that time several layers of urban growth surrounding their downtown commercial districts which exerted strong centralizing forces on the rest of the city. Lacking such prior development, Los Angeles found itself less constricted and hence more easily adaptable to the automobile and a decentralized economy.

[Malloric]

And yet LA metro has the highest urban density in America with San Francisco and San Jose rounding out the top three. Go figure. New York came in number 5. For city density, LA was close at 8000 to DC's 10,000. Fine line to go call LA (proper) low-density and DC high-density. It's also an example of the need for a weighted density as average alone doesn't give a very accurate picture. You need to have other information to understand what average density really means.

[dweebo2220]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think you're misunderstanding structural density.

It's not about the total three-dimensional area that buildings comprise. It's about the amount of ground space taken up by building footprints in total, instead of green space...

Here are some interesting google map aerials of "typical" central DC and LA neighborhoods, at roughly the same scale (the scale bar appears to be off--check it and you'll see that when the numerical values match up the cars are at completely different scales in each):

Washington DC

Los Angeles

It's clear that in the LA image more of the ground area is covered by buildings. Also, the distance between the front doors of facing blocks (the total setback) is surprisingly almost exactly the same in both cities. Where a big difference exists is the "back door" distance, or the setbacks along alleyways. In the LA image, you can see that the distance between buildings is quite small (I've always wondered if it would be possible to "flip" LA blocks so that street life would be encouraged to happen along the narrow alleys..).

I think that the "street wall" effect purely has to do with whether or not buildings are attached along the street front. The LA buildings are detached, but as you can see--not by that much at all.

However, I'm not going to argue that this minimal amount of space has nothing to do with perceptions--it completely does. I wonder if simply building thin facades (like what was built above stores in the wild west to make them appear taller..) would radically change the way people feel on LA streets... hmm... photoshop time...

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Malloric

And yet LA metro has the highest urban density in America with San Francisco and San Jose rounding out the top three. Go figure. New York came in number 5. For city density, LA was close at 8000 to DC's 10,000. Fine line to go call LA (proper) low-density and DC high-density. It's also an example of the need for a weighted density as average alone doesn't give a very accurate picture. You need to have other information to understand what average density really means.

agreed on weighted density (this shows the actual median people actually reside). LA and SF still are very good on this metric as well

Gradient is also interesting and really shows the different construct of Cali metros, even sunbelt metros



Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract - Austin Contrarian

Another take on weighted density - Austin Contrarian

nei has done some great charts of volumes by metro at different density levels as well.