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)
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,258 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Your first post claimed that European cities were denser and older and that is why. And yes I agree that American cities today are less dense. However, if we go back and compare US and European cities before these policies took place we we find that US cities we just as dense as European cities. Point being, density along with car-dependency is a result of these policies. Its like you are saying "the US is sprawled out because it is sprawled out". You are not identifying the source of the problem, just a characteristic of the problem.
Which U.S. cities? New York? That's always been a huge outlier in this country (see nei's density charts). Chicago as dense as Paris? Never. Philadelphia as dense as Barcelona? No. San Francisco as dense as Madrid? No. Boston as dense as Rome? No. DC as dense as Amsterdam? No. What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Which U.S. cities? New York? That's always been a huge outlier in this country (see nei's density charts). Chicago as dense as Paris? Never. Philadelphia as dense as Barcelona? No. San Francisco as dense as Madrid? No. Boston as dense as Rome? No. DC as dense as Amsterdam? No. What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
Parts of NYC (LES) had densities of around 400,000 per square mile. In a large part, the old slums are still there they just have less than 1/4th the people occupying them today. More density, always more gooder.

Most American cities really were built after the industrial revolution when mechanized transportation became common, in contrast most European cities were built prior to mechanized transportation. The railroad is what really made suburban-city commuting possible and was the greatest surbanizing force in the United States. The automobile and highways resulted in a smaller shift from urban/suburban population than rail did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:46 AM
 
40,106 posts, read 24,345,620 times
Reputation: 12619
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
No. I mean that low-density is a symptom, a characteristic of sprawl and car-dependency.



Your first post claimed that European cities were denser and older and that is why. And yes I agree that American cities today are less dense. However, if we go back and compare US and European cities before these policies took place we we find that US cities we just as dense as European cities. Point being, density along with car-dependency is a result of these policies. Its like you are saying "the US is sprawled out because it is sprawled out". You are not identifying the source of the problem, just a characteristic of the problem.
If you go back and compare the US and European countries before those policies, then the density simply isn't comparable. And that makes a difference because we are talking about national policies. The relative size of European nations, along with the population density and population size (as a percentage of the national population) all play a role in determining whether transit issues are local, regional or national issues. And local issues simply aren't addressed on a national level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:47 AM
 
40,106 posts, read 24,345,620 times
Reputation: 12619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Parts of NYC (LES) had densities of around 400,000 per square mile. In a large part, the old slums are still there they just have less than 1/4th the people occupying them today. More density, always more gooder.
"Gooder" for whom?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
"Gooder" for whom?
The crowd that thinks more density is always more gooder. Who am I to question the awesomeness of living in a 600 square foot apartment with a family of 6-8 people and one toilet per floor?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:53 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
45,986 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Parts of NYC (LES) had densities of around 400,000 per square mile. In a large part, the old slums are still there they just have less than 1/4th the people occupying them today. More density, always more gooder.
But at what rent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:57 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
45,986 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Most American cities really were built after the industrial revolution when mechanized transportation became common, in contrast most European cities were built prior to mechanized transportation. The railroad is what really made suburban-city commuting possible and was the greatest surbanizing force in the United States. The automobile and highways resulted in a smaller shift from urban/suburban population than rail did.
Only the oldest parts of European cities were built prior to mechanized transportation. Southern Europe, in particular, urbanized rather late. Finland was mostly rural while most of New England was urban in the early 20th century.

Doubt it. You didn't have the decentralization or urban flight with rail, nor drastic population loss in cities. Density drop after 1950 or so was enormous in many older northern cities, and the type of housing density changed drastically. In the western US, the change is much smaller though than the rest of the country, as most places were less dense and newer construction often not as low density (those 1/2+ acre burbs common in New England barely existed pre-automobile).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
But at what rent?
Very high rents.

Gut renovated and not so horribly crowded, and people are willing to pay a lot to live in an old slum in NYC. Point is it's not that hard to imagine what it would have been like with 4x as many people when most of those buildings weren't even connected to sewers at all. Pleasant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Only the oldest parts of European cities were built prior to mechanized transportation. Southern Europe, in particular, urbanized rather late. Finland was mostly rural while most of New England was urban in the early 20th century.

Doubt it. You didn't have the decentralization or urban flight with rail, nor drastic population loss in cities. Density drop after 1950 or so was enormous in many older northern cities, and the type of housing density changed drastically. In the western US, the change is much smaller though than the rest of the country, as most places were less dense and newer construction often not as low density (those 1/2+ acre burbs common in New England barely existed pre-automobile).
I can't seem to locate the census data that proves this, but this is somewhat on point. Continues on for several pages, but mostly talks about individual suburbs rather than statistics.
Nrb Suburbs Introduction: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places
Quote:
Suburbanization spurred the rapid growth of metropolitan areas in the twentieth century. In 1910, the U.S. Census recognized 44 metropolitan districts-areas where the population of the central city and all jurisdictions within a 10-mile radius exceeded 100,000. By the 1920s, suburban areas were growing at a faster rate than central cities-33.2 percent compared to 24.2 percent in the previous decade. During the 1940s, the average population of core cities increased 14 percent while that of the suburbs increased 36 percent. For the first time, the absolute growth of the population residing in suburbs nationwide, estimated at nine million, surpassed that of central cities, estimated at six million. This trend continued, and in the 1950s, the population of suburban areas increased by 19 million compared to an increase of six million in the core cities. This growth signaled the post-World War II suburban boom. By 1960, a greater number of people in metropolitan areas lived in the suburbs than in the central city, and, by 1990, the majority of all Americans lived in suburban areas.(1)
Suburbs were already growing faster than cities as early as the 1920.

Links to:
Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise And Fall Of Suburbia: Robert Fishman: 9780465007479: Amazon.com: Books
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:09 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,901,398 times
Reputation: 18049
Americans love football and Europeans love soccer;developed different taste. It was a matter of taste that US choice independence of cars as they moved outside cities after WWII. Air travel pretty much ended train travel in US for distance travel.
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