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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,105,724 times
Reputation: 3979

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
There was a thread on this, it would be a bit more on topic here:

What density would your cities density be if it was the size of San Francisco?

The densest 47 square miles of LA do not include its CBD, though that could change in the future.
About half of that 5 square miles is warehouse districts which are lightly populated. I think you could include everything from about Los Angeles St. west in DTLA in that San Francisco-sized piece of land and still get a density higher than SF. Historic Core is very dense, Little Tokyo is pretty dense, Bunker Hill has some dense areas and some office-park-ish areas, South Park has dense areas but lots of parking lots that bring down the density. Heading west from DTLA you hit a ton of tracts in the 30-90k ppsm range as you pass through Westlake, Koreatown, Echo Park, East Hollywood and Central Hollywood. Pretty similar to the effect you get heading north from the Loop in Chicago, though with a mid-rise profile instead of high-rise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,010,012 times
Reputation: 6800
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't care for CSAs.
I'm with you on that. In the US, the MSA matters more. I know for Chicago, the CSA goes into SW Michigan. Besides Gary, Indiana, even through Indiana into the county it has for SW Michigan is absolutely nothing like the Chicago MSA.

CSA is a greater area, but for a lot of CSA, the area between the two MSAs is often times much, much, much less dense. I think NYC and LA are exceptions, although there is definitely some much less dense area in the LA CSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,010,012 times
Reputation: 6800
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
About half of that 5 square miles is warehouse districts which are lightly populated. I think you could include everything from about Los Angeles St. west in DTLA in that San Francisco-sized piece of land and still get a density higher than SF. Historic Core is very dense, Little Tokyo is pretty dense, Bunker Hill has some dense areas and some office-park-ish areas, South Park has dense areas but lots of parking lots that bring down the density. Heading west from DTLA you hit a ton of tracts in the 30-90k ppsm range as you pass through Westlake, Koreatown, Echo Park, East Hollywood and Central Hollywood. Pretty similar to the effect you get heading north from the Loop in Chicago, though with a mid-rise profile instead of high-rise.
Which is a good point to always bring up. There is a good section of land in Chicago for example on the south sides which is old factories and even train yards and such. Nobody lives there, so if you exclude them from the overall land area, just like in LA, it gets more dense. The areas I mentioned for Chicago are not a ton of that, but it does indeed exist for some of the areas along the river and also along the expressway. There are some sizable factories and stuff in some of the areas I mentioned, but also some universities/schools as well.

It's a great point though, so even some of these areas need to go lower than just a neighborhood level and more at a census tract or block level to see the true density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:23 PM
 
2,145 posts, read 1,588,088 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by what??? View Post
I think you mean The Bronx. I don't know where there are any single family homes on the entire island of Manhattan. The outer boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and, of course, Staten Island have neighborhoods with single family homes, but not Manhattan.
Many rowhouses in manhattan are single family homes, most where built as single family homes and only now are they used as multifamily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,673,870 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
About half of that 5 square miles is warehouse districts which are lightly populated. I think you could include everything from about Los Angeles St. west in DTLA in that San Francisco-sized piece of land and still get a density higher than SF. Historic Core is very dense, Little Tokyo is pretty dense, Bunker Hill has some dense areas and some office-park-ish areas, South Park has dense areas but lots of parking lots that bring down the density. Heading west from DTLA you hit a ton of tracts in the 30-90k ppsm range as you pass through Westlake, Koreatown, Echo Park, East Hollywood and Central Hollywood. Pretty similar to the effect you get heading north from the Loop in Chicago, though with a mid-rise profile instead of high-rise.
The old Mapping L.A. site had "Central L.A." (Minus the Hollywood Hills) at 800,000 in 46 sq miles, practically identical to San Francisco. No doubt the population here remains in that range. The few neighborhoods that lost population were negated by sizeable population increases in DTLA and Chinatown. The borders included all 6 sq miles that comprise DT, plus 4,200 acre Griffith Park and some low density nabes like Hancock Park, so this isn't a cherrypicked area.

Central L.A. - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times

I'm guessing that the multi-unit housing in this area is in the 75-80% range. Keep in mind that WeHo, the westernmost neighborhood in this area is 89% multi-unit housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 11:32 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,509 times
Reputation: 746
I think the upshot here is that you could live in the central area of a number of major cities, have lots of opportunities--job, recreation, shopping etc.,minimize driving, and not encounter very much suburban terrain. That's true in New York or DC or Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. If you count rowhouses on the urban side of the ledger, add Philadelphia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 07:54 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't care for CSAs. They combined cities with separate histories and identies far apart. Balitmore and Washington are combined together as one CSA. Providence and Worcester with Boston, IMO the first two are separate. The census does count them as separate MSAs and urban areas. Is San Jose a suburb of San Francisco, or just another city in the Bay Area? I'd think the second.

If you don't consider South Bay (Silicon Valley), which isn't part of the urban area or MSA, San Francisco is similar to Boston and DC in the percent of people living outside the city limits. And the San Francisco area is rather urban, both its city and suburbs are among the densest in the country and comes out somewhat denser than Boston.
The census bureau looks at commuting patterns. If you look at Denver-Broomfield-Greeley, I can say with certainty that few people from Greeley commute to Denver, let alone the south Denver suburbs. However, people from Greeley commute to Broomfield, and many people commute back and forth between Denver and Broomfield.

Baltimore and Washington's identities are not *that* far apart. My friend used to work in suburban DC, her DH worked in suburban Baltimore.

If you take out areas that don't prove your point, yeah, you can prove anything. Someone said by my strict definition there are a lot of people living in "urban" San Jose, which is true, but as far as "form", a lot of it is suburban. California suburbs, like Colorado suburbs, do tend to be "cities".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
I think the upshot here is that you could live in the central area of a number of major cities, have lots of opportunities--job, recreation, shopping etc.,minimize driving, and not encounter very much suburban terrain. That's true in New York or DC or Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. If you count rowhouses on the urban side of the ledger, add Philadelphia.
Well, yeah, but that's not the topic of the thread. You can live in downtown Denver and not go into the suburbs. So what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 08:31 AM
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: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Going back to the OP, there's not really any city in America that fits his criteria. But as to feeling as there's no suburban areas, San Francisco might be your best bet. Sticking out at the end of a peninsula, it feels like an island to itself. Visible to the west, ocean; to the east, miles of bay and a distant glimpse of another city, to the north across the Golden Gate, a small town and mostly preserved land. To the south, there are suburbs but a large part of the peninsula is also preserved land. From Manhattan, in all directions it appears to be endless city but from San Francisco having open space nearby gives the appearance that the metro ends and the city has little suburban-type areas. The suburbs San Francisco does have have a bit of a resemblance to European suburbs, in their dense concentration of houses bordered by open space rather than lower density residential areas.

On the negative side, someone living in San Francisco is more likely to have to leave the city, since it is economically and culturally less centralized and just smaller, compared to someone living in Chicago, let alone New York City. The shear size of New York City (it takes an hour just to drive through the city in normal non-jammed traffic, not including Staten Island) together with how much is in or near the city center means many residents have little to leave. Transplants in particular are rather unaware of even the outer "suburban" areas at the city limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 08:36 AM
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: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javier77 View Post
I wonder if there's any city in the USA 100 per cent European style, with people living in buildings intead of houses all around the city?
It might also be good for the OP to clarify what he means by that since many if not most European metros have plenty of people living in houses. Any many have houses within the city limits:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hambu...,112.41,,0,1.5

Do semi-attached homes count as houses? Attached (such as row houses)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 09:17 AM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,509 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Going back to the OP, there's not really any city in America that fits his criteria. But as to feeling as there's no suburban areas, San Francisco might be your best bet. Sticking out at the end of a peninsula, it feels like an island to itself. Visible to the west, ocean; to the east, miles of bay and a distant glimpse of another city, to the north across the Golden Gate, a small town and mostly preserved land. To the south, there are suburbs but a large part of the peninsula is also preserved land. From Manhattan, in all directions it appears to be endless city but from San Francisco having open space nearby gives the appearance that the metro ends and the city has little suburban-type areas. The suburbs San Francisco does have have a bit of a resemblance to European suburbs, in their dense concentration of houses bordered by open space rather than lower density residential areas.

On the negative side, someone living in San Francisco is more likely to have to leave the city, since it is economically and culturally less centralized and just smaller, compared to someone living in Chicago, let alone New York City. The shear size of New York City (it takes an hour just to drive through the city in normal non-jammed traffic, not including Staten Island) together with how much is in or near the city center means many residents have little to leave. Transplants in particular are rather unaware of even the outer "suburban" areas at the city limits.
There are plenty of people who live in San Francisco who consider it a great imposition to leave the city, and rarely do. Most employed San Francisco residents still work in San Francisco. Pretty much anything people want to do--including going to big box stores like Costco--can be done within San Francisco. I think if anything San Francisco's geographic isolation--with a land connection only in one direction--encourages people there to feel separate. So you can, as the OP asked about, live in the city you use which doesn't have suburbs.
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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