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 02-24-2015, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Yeah, that's always been the really striking thing for me about Pittsburgh. Here's this big population loss, huge loss of industry, it's in the rust belt - you expect to see decay and abandonment - and it's there but it's nothing like what you'd see in Baltimore, Philly, Cleveland, etc.
That's mainly because Pittsburgh was not a white flight city, or at least not to the same degree as most of the rest of the rust belt. The first group of neighborhoods which were heavily affected by white flight (Hill District, Garfield, Homewood, Beltzhoover, California-Kirbride, Perry Hilltop, etc) did see as much blight and demolition as anywhere else in the Rust Belt. But since Pittsburgh's black population never exceeded 25%, these areas were pretty contained, all in all. The only other highly blighted neighborhoods tended to be near highways or potential highway routes (East Deutschtown, Hazelwood), flood zones (West End), or were just geographically isolated areas which were largely forgotten by the city at large (Spring Garden, Esplen). But all together you're talking about way less than half of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2015, 07:27 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 NOLA101 View Post
Indeed it is a significant difference, and you illustrate my point perfectly. That's an enormous difference across millions of people.

But you don't seem to understand the conversation. We're talking urban areas, not irrelevant city limits.
A lack of understanding the conversation could be because you're being unclear. No need to be rude. I thought you were talking about neither but focusing on LA's densest areas. If you wanted to talk about the entire urban area, the difference in household size would be smaller, as NYC's suburbs do have larger household sizes than the city.

Sure, it's literally significant. But a 10% isn't going to result in a noticeable density difference. The household size difference if comparing inner areas, but as I showed in the weighted housing density graph, while Los Angeles may not be #2 or #3 on core housing density it doesn't lag that much behind cities often assumed to be denser (Boston, Philadelphia, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 07:38 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 NOLA101 View Post
Then we have totally different definitions of sprawl.

Your definition of sprawl is apparently extreme high density surrounded by almost nothing. That is certainly an unorthodox definition.
Except the almost nothing is still obviously developed. Suburban homes on large lots and strip malls in say Suffolk County take up a lot of space. One of the criticisms of sprawl is that a lot of land is lost to development. Los Angeles is relatively parsimonious in its land use by a per capita measure, better than NYC even though the average New Yorkers lives in a denser neighborhood.

A rather obvious way to experience this first-hand is to leave Boston from the near the city center and go outward. 20, maybe 30 miles of areas that aren't that built up but built up enough there isn't really much open space and the roads are crowded. In contrast, the Bay Area barely more than half the land area while holding more people. You leave the development more quickly though a realistic comparison is impossible with geography.

I'm not saying I agree that definition, but I do think it's an important consideration.

Quote:
Actually, no, you just made that up. It absolutely matters. You're just using an arbitrary cutoff because you're trying to promote some weird definition of sprawl.
The reason behind Los Angeles not gobbling as much land isn't relevant in ranking how much land it consumes

Quote:
In fact, using your weird definition, if LA were denser, more urban, and more transit oriented, then it would be much sprawlier than today, because you would change the distrubution from a flat gradient of population Sunbelt-type format to one characterized by high density and a steep density curve. Under your definition you could turn LA into Hong Kong and yet LA would be no less sprawly, as long as the same urban area were maintained.
It would only be much sprawler than today under that definition if it gained very low density suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 07:40 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 NOLA101 View Post
Not true. The densest Census tracts in LA are in the Rampart neighborhood, which is indeed a poor immigrant ghetto.
Rampart is tiny however, comparing neighborhood at least a square mile or two Koreatown is the densest, followed by Westlake which contains Rampart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,672,514 times
Reputation: 6288
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
You quite obviously don't understand what "weighted density" means. Get back to us, please. Hong Kong isn't less dense than Phoenix just because you don't care about how a population is distributed.



Indeed it is a significant difference, and you illustrate my point perfectly. That's an enormous difference across millions of people.

But you don't seem to understand the conversation. We're talking urban areas, not irrelevant city limits.
-Hong Kong isn't less dense than Phoenix period--according to demographia, the urban area has 7 million people with a standard density of 68,400 ppsm . The US model (dense core, ginormous suburbs) isn't all that prevalent outside our borders.

-One of the main criticisms of sprawl is its inefficient land use. Therefore, the low density areas absolutely need to be taken into account in this discussion.

-The LA MSA averages 3 persons per household. If it had the same average household size of the New York MSA (2.71), LA would still have 12.3 million residents and would still have the more densely populated urban area of the two. Compared to your wild claims of 15 immigrants cramming into a house, it's not a huge difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Yeah, Tokyo ands Seoul are denser. NYC's up there though. Do you know how Osaka and Paris stack up? They probably round out the top 5, as Barcelona and Madrid are too small.



10k density seems high for NYC's suburbs. I saw a graph (IIRC from Nei) that showed Nassau County, which has areas that are pretty dense by suburban New York's standards, had a lower weighted density than Orange County. Hudson County is far and away the densest area out of the Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx, but it only makes up 5-6% of that 12 million figure.
I was just ball-parking, maybe it's more like 8k ppsm for the suburbs. But I don't think it would be 5k ppsm or something like that. Essex county has a higher weighted density than Nassau, and Passaic, Westchester and Union county have decently high weighted densities too.

Paris would be probably a bit over 25k ppsm with Paris+the 3 inner departments.

Not sure about Osaka but just looking quickly at the numbers for some of the municipalities I'd guess around 20-25k ppsm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 01:54 PM
 
3,940 posts, read 4,036,149 times
Reputation: 4353
Quote:
I was just ball-parking, maybe it's more like 8k ppsm for the suburbs. But I don't think it would be 5k ppsm or something like that.
Last time I saw this comparision, it was LA that was (also determined as least sprawly by this measure) at avg of 5k per sq mile at its sprawlly margins, and New York's (including suburbs like Westchester) average was less than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
If you download this:
Population density profiles - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

And look at the graph, New York's weighted density drops to below 10k around 17 miles from City Hall. That doesn't take you very far beyond city limits on the Bronx and Queen side, although it also takes in a good chunk of NE NJ including Newark, the Oranges, Passaic, Hackensack, Englewood and Elizabeth, and of course Hudson County.

This area has a population of 11.6 million.

It only really drops below 5k ppsm once you get to about 29 miles out, which means beyond White Plains, Port Chester, Paterson, Perth Amboy, Plainfield and basically the Nassau-Suffolk boundary.

This area has about 15 million people.

LA maintains a 10k+ ppsm density up to about 20 miles out, roughly the distance to the LA-Orange County boundary (although outlying parts of LA county including parts of the LA Basin and SG and SF valleys are also further than that). It maintains 5k+ ppsm densities pretty much up to the margins.

So the outer New York suburbs are less dense, but if you include the inner suburbs and "satellite cities" in suburban counties (Newark, Jersey City, Yonkers, Paterson, etc) I think New York's suburbs are still reasonably dense on average. I think Nei calculated the numbers for weighted density of the city proper, using those and the metro area value of 31,251 ppsm, the suburbs should be around 8-8.5k ppsm.

LA-OC still has a weighted density of 12,114 ppsm so denser than NYC suburbs, although outer LA suburbs might be a bit below 8k ppsm weighted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 09:02 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
I'm lazy to dig up where my numbers are or bother redo them, and some of those were from long ago and used census 2000 data. But I found someone who did the same calculations and made a list of densest counties in the US. Besides Hudson, four New Jersey counties made the list, all except Bergen has sizable old cities within them so they're not really typical suburbia, boosting the weighted numbers.

Data - Devin Bunten

Marin's numbers are skewed as it has a prison in a tract with very high densities.

Last edited by nei; 02-25-2015 at 09:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,802 posts, read 5,460,455 times
Reputation: 3113
The difference between transit riders in LA as opposed to NYC, Chicago and many other major US cities is that transit riders in LA are at the bottom of the rankings as it relates to income, and being in a city where bus riders outnumber rail system riders 3 to 1 means that they're being sacrificed thanks to this rail building spree.

That's unconscionable even though the percentage of residents who use public transit has been stuck near the bottom of the national rankings for over three decades among the nation's 50 largest metro areas.

The areas of southern California with the most population growth including the IE, southern Orange County and the Santa Clarita & Antelope Valleys have almost no one utilizing public transit to begin with, and no urban planning project is going to change that.
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
Similar Threads
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