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, 04:30 PM
 
4,586 posts, read 4,619,186 times
Reputation: 4358

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by espn_lies View Post
Nation built for cars not people
^^^^ to support the need to control other countries for oil! Shameful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2014, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Better comparisons would be to Hamburg, Budapest and Vienna.
FYI I went through the numbers, and for the inner 50 square miles, it seems Hamburg is about the same as Boston (about 600,000?), Budapest about the same as San Francisco (about 800,000). Vienna is significantly denser, I got 1.05 million but we're already taking in fringe districts with rural portions, the inner 18 square miles have 650,000 people. Philadelphia's about 800,000-850,000 depending on where you put the boundaries.

Budapest's core is denser over a larger area than any of these American cities, but once you get outside of Hungaria Korut (ring road) densities drop off fast with lots of industrial areas and lower density railroad/streetcar suburbs. Hamburg's core looks decently dense, but then it drops off like Budapest. Hard to tell from street view how much was demolished in WWII, how much was rebuild similar to how it was before, and how much was rebuilt at lower densities.

Last edited by memph; 02-19-2014 at 04:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 07:12 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You quoted me but your response didn't address what I was saying. You said that I said that Europe didn't have sprawl (that's not what I said). I said that Europe has denser sprawl than the U.S.
I'm not arguing that European cities are/were more dense than US sunbelt cities. That's obvious.

If you were implying that Europe does have sprawl but it's just denser than the US then I didn't pick up on it. If you actually wrote that at some point before I quoted you in a reply then I missed it (and couldn't find it on further inspection).

Quote:
And yes, it can be easily be argued that European cities are less car dependent than similar U.S. big cities. Going down the list from top to bottom, European metros have much higher transit shares than American metros. And if you think that greater densities have nothing to do with that, then I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't say that they weren't less car dependent so you don't need to tell me anything. What I said and what I meant is that Europe looks how it looks largely because they spent the first 30 years after the war rebuilding what was wrecked and when they were finished then they focused their resources on greenfields. Europe does have car dependent suburbs but they're a smaller piece of the puzzle and that's mostly because they have a larger percentage of the population living in the original urban core.

US cities were also dense in the 1940s. (They weren't medieval dense like some european cores but it's a joke to think that most Europeans live that way.) but we chased people out of our cities starting in the 1950s.

Quote:
None of those places come close to being as dense, walkable or transit-oriented as the majority of Parisian communes. The Northeast built rowhomes in neighborhoods that are still largely car-centric. Paris built towers. Arlington County has had TOD for maybe a decade (and still isn't nearly as dense and walkable as outer Paris).
You offered up "Clichy" as an example. I'm assuming that means Clichy-sous-bois and not Clichy-la-Garenne from where one can cross the street into the 18th arrondissement.

Clichy-sous-bois has 20,000 ppm. All of the examples I offered have similar towns and zip codes with densities of 12,000 to 45,000ppm.

"TODs" in NoVa are relevant if you live near the Metro. 395 is lined with towers out past the Pentagon that have shuttle buses to metro stations because they're nowhere near a metro stop. I'm not sure whey these places in the Parisian suburbs, built around RER stations in the 60s, 70s and 80s wouldn't qualify as TOD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 07:31 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Use urban areas, which doesn't add lots of undeveloped land.

Paris urban area is 10.4 million people in 1098 square miles, roughly 10,000 ppm. The NYC urban area is 18.3 million people in 3450 square miles, 5,318 ppm.


18.3 million people is the NYC MSA which covers 6720 sq. mi. Where are you getting the data from to whittle that down to 3450 sq. mi?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 07:36 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
How does the US stack up in that graph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I assume semi-detached includes row houses, no clue what other includes.
That's strange. semi-detached elsewhere implies a twin. Unless you're an "end of row" your rowhouse is attached on both sides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee Ex-ex-ex-urbs
358 posts, read 415,502 times
Reputation: 725
The assertions made in the article the link directs to are opinions. I don't agree with those opinions.

I'm afraid to say anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:24 PM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
18.3 million people is the NYC MSA which covers 6720 sq. mi. Where are you getting the data from to whittle that down to 3450 sq. mi?
The US census defined urban areas. MSAs are defined by county limits, why would you use them? The NYC urban area is in dark green:



The map is obviously wrong in that Staten Island should be part of the NYC urban area. But the generally boundaries are correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:26 PM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbradleyc View Post
The assertions made in the article the link directs to are opinions. I don't agree with those opinions.
That's just like, your opinion, man!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:39 PM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
How does the US stack up in that graph?
with strong regional variation:

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hous...ric/units.html

60% detached, 6% attached (includes semi-detached?!), 26% apartment buildings, 7% (!) mobile homes

Interestingly, California (and many other western states) had a higher proportion of detached homes in 1950. The northeastern states, of course, had a lower proportion. Lowest in 1940 was NY State (32%). Exclude upstate and I suspect it would have been 25% or less. I've always been puzzled by the posters describing little difference between old urban housing and newer housing, with the main difference housing style and quality. I'm more used to mass detached housing being more of a postwar thing in big cities, and a minority of old housing stock.

Quote:
That's strange. semi-detached elsewhere implies a twin. Unless you're an "end of row" your rowhouse is attached on both sides.
I think it was just a mislabelling problem, another pdf I saw added "rowhouse" to the label. Semi-detached is the most common housing style in the UK but not by much. I think it's close to 1/3 attached, 1/3 detached, 1/3 detached. Apartment buildings aren't too common outside of London, another British weirdness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2014, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,250 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
2.23 million for Berlin (around 3.5 million for London). That's more than Philly but not hugely so. Had Philadelphia not had lost housing stock to abandonment and urban renewal it would probably be pretty close (maybe 1.8 million?).
No. Philly and Boston were never close to being as dense as Berlin and London.

Quote:
The act increased the area of Berlin 13-fold from 66 km˛ (25.5 mi˛) to 883 km˛ (341 mi˛) and the population doubled from approximately 1.9 million to near 4 million, with almost 1.2 million of these new inhabitants coming from the 7 surrounding towns alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Berlin_Act

That was a density of 74,608 ppsm in 1920. That's more than the number of people within the city of Philadelphia in 1920 (1,823,779/13,610 ppsm). You're really talking about a density that's more on par with Manhattan than Philadelphia.

It's the same thing with London. If you grind it down to its leanest and meanest 40 sq. miles or so, it would be a blow out. Even taking that 3.5 million stat for London, that's basically Chicago's peak population stuffed into Philadelphia. That is a HUGE difference.

And these are just the objective standards. There are also the subjective ones relating to these cities' walkability and built environment. In this regard, Barcelona and Paris are dense and mixed-use in a way that Manhattan is not.
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