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.
The link below is a google streetview image of a street in Union City , NJ. The most densely populated city in US with a density of 51810 per square mile according to wikipedia. The town is overwhelmingly Hispanic.
An interesting thing is that it has a low home ownership rate. Lots of absentee landlords for the 2 family homes. What causes high absentee ownership in a community along with high rentals?
Is this the type of community that in the past may have had white flight to suburbs during post WWII era?
anyhow, what are your thoughts of this city from an academic urban planning standpoint?
Seems perfect, I did a satellite view and it seems like the perfect city, the streets are almost perfect grids so mass transit would be efficient it seems no matter where you are in that city you are walking distance from shops, diners local bars etc etc. Hell I wish my city was more like that, I'm in DFW and everything is so spread out here that you burn a ton of gas going anywhere.
The density is almost the same as that of Paris (54,000 per sq mile). It seems like a decent neighborhood with an active high street with restaurants, supermarkets, etc. Roads are not too wide with nice, compact houses. Those overhead wires though make it look ugly.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,580 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57818
People that want to live in a single family home prefer not to be in an area with apartments, and the density that goes with it. As big apartments become more and more common, people in the homes will sell. Our density is 2,512.6 inhabitants per square mile, with home ownership at 85%, and is ranked as the 5th safest city in U.S. The few apartment complexes are big, but adjacent to the commercial areas (2 strip malls) and not near single family residences. Transit is minimal and limited to the major arterial, and walking scores are poor, at an average of 12. That's the way residents here like it, and many more people are willing to pay the high prices to move here as evidenced by homes selling in a day or two with multiple offers over asking.
Still, while this area is dense by national standards, it's not dense by New York standards at all. Most of Manhattan is denser. One census tract on the Upper East Side gets to 242,000 PPSM, which is (I believe) the densest in the country. It's right around here.
In general though, when you look at Wiki's list of U.S. cities by population density, you'll see a lot of small cities you've likely never heard of. The reason for this is pretty simple. Basically, a core city contains lots of land which is used for non-residential purposes. Think manufacturing, office space, parks, etc. But if, due to accidents of incorporation, you end up with "urban suburbs" which are outside of the city's limits, those suburbs (provided they're almost entirely residential) will often have densities higher than the city as a whole. Thus New York, LA, Miami, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, Portland, Providence, and DC all have "suburbs" which are denser than the city. Out of major dense cities, San Francisco is the only one where the municipality with the highest density is the core city proper.
People that want to live in a single family home prefer not to be in an area with apartments, and the density that goes with it. As big apartments become more and more common, people in the homes will sell. Our density is 2,512.6 inhabitants per square mile, with home ownership at 85%, and is ranked as the 5th safest city in U.S. The few apartment complexes are big, but adjacent to the commercial areas (2 strip malls) and not near single family residences. Transit is minimal and limited to the major arterial, and walking scores are poor, at an average of 12. That's the way residents here like it, and many more people are willing to pay the high prices to move here as evidenced by homes selling in a day or two with multiple offers over asking.
Sounds like a nightmare to live someplace so car dependent, and surrounded by snobby neighbors.
areas like that are part of the problem, it's why 3rd world countries have 10X faster internet than us and better mass transit(making them slightly less oil dependent). it's because those countries tend to have HUGE population densities in their cities living stacked on top of each other like cordwood so it's easier to roll out infrastructure and easier to upgrade existing infrastructure and it's easier to lay out mass transit if whole population is packed into double digit square miles with no gaps, where I live only a few buses run every 15 minutes many of them run once an hour and a few just a couple times a day(the ones that go to the edges of town).
Suburbia is a failed system as it hurts the masses.
Still, while this area is dense by national standards, it's not dense by New York standards at all. Most of Manhattan is denser. One census tract on the Upper East Side gets to 242,000 PPSM, which is (I believe) the densest in the country. It's right around here.
In general though, when you look at Wiki's list of U.S. cities by population density, you'll see a lot of small cities you've likely never heard of. The reason for this is pretty simple. Basically, a core city contains lots of land which is used for non-residential purposes. Think manufacturing, office space, parks, etc. But if, due to accidents of incorporation, you end up with "urban suburbs" which are outside of the city's limits, those suburbs (provided they're almost entirely residential) will often have densities higher than the city as a whole. Thus New York, LA, Miami, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, Portland, Providence, and DC all have "suburbs" which are denser than the city. Out of major dense cities, San Francisco is the only one where the municipality with the highest density is the core city proper.
Manhattan as a whole is denser than Union City too. And a large chunk of The Bronx too. But New Jersey's cities near the Hudson are impressive and the only real competition NYC has in the country as far as density/urbanity.
Also, I thought Guttenberg was not technically a city, which is why Union City is number 1 depending on the list.
And you know what I think about the street view you posted? In my opinion it's not really functionally more urban than a neighborhood made of 3-6 story buildings like the LES. I do think density is an important part of urbanity, but there comes a point where the extra density is just superfluous. I think some might argue that peak residential urbanity can even be achieved with somewhere like Bushwick that's all 2-3 story rowhomes and apartment buildings.
In looking at the linked streetview, my first thought was this: where do the people on the left side of the street park their cars? If the street could have been made just 8 feet wider, there could have been parking on both sides of the street, thus dramatically reducing the circle-the-block frustration that comes from living in a place with not enough parking.
Just for the heck of it, I moved the streetview a few blocks west to JFK Blvd. Sure enough, in typical New Jersey fashion, there are no left-turn lanes. Anyone wanting to turn left will hold up the traffic behind him, resulting in lots of hasty, unsafe merges to the right to get around the obstructing turning vehicle. Ten more feet of street width would have provided separate left-turn lanes, resulting in smoother traffic flow (and reduced air pollution and reduced accidents and injuries).
I know that there are a lot of urbanists who hate cars and want them to disappear. But until that "blessed" day arrives, would it kill the designers to make small changes that would result in big improvements for their car-owning residents and visitors?
And you know what I think about the street view you posted? In my opinion it's not really functionally more urban than a neighborhood made of 3-6 story buildings like the LES. I do think density is an important part of urbanity, but there comes a point where the extra density is just superfluous. I think some might argue that peak residential urbanity can even be achieved with somewhere like Bushwick that's all 2-3 story rowhomes and apartment buildings.
This is actually a common argument in modern urban planning. It seems the "sweet spot" for lots of pedestrian traffic outside is about six stories. Highrise apartment buildings become "vertical suburbs" because a lot of times they have different commercial and quasi-commercial functions (daycares, gyms, coffeeshops, etc) integrated inside the buildings, meaning residents are less apt to spend time lingering around outside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
In looking at the linked streetview, my first thought was this: where do the people on the left side of the street park their cars? If the street could have been made just 8 feet wider, there could have been parking on both sides of the street, thus dramatically reducing the circle-the-block frustration that comes from living in a place with not enough parking.
Just for the heck of it, I moved the streetview a few blocks west to JFK Blvd. Sure enough, in typical New Jersey fashion, there are no left-turn lanes. Anyone wanting to turn left will hold up the traffic behind him, resulting in lots of hasty, unsafe merges to the right to get around the obstructing turning vehicle. Ten more feet of street width would have provided separate left-turn lanes, resulting in smoother traffic flow (and reduced air pollution and reduced accidents and injuries).
I know that there are a lot of urbanists who hate cars and want them to disappear. But until that "blessed" day arrives, would it kill the designers to make small changes that would result in big improvements for their car-owning residents and visitors?
Seriously though, what is your solution? Knock down the houses that have been there for over a century? The homes front right on the sidewalk, so your only options are either to knock them down or not have a sidewalk at all. And the whole city was mostly laid out in the 19th century (though it continued to be built out through the 20s) meaning no one was anticipating cars.
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.
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.
