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.
That's because a high population density does not equal "walkable". It's just a calculation of how many people live in a given area.
A great example of this is Manila. It has anywhere from twice to three times the population density of New York City, yet it is probably one of the least "walkable" cities on planet earth. Most retail is located at huge mega malls that make the Mall of America look like a flea market, they only have three light rail lines, and in Makati (the downtown of Metro Manila), many of the streets have huge steel girders that prevent pedestrians from the crossing the road where they please. That and the fact the generally the only people who walk for any significant length there are people who aren't rich enough to own a car or take a taxi.
When I worked there, the condo I stayed at was 4 blocks from my office so I just walked to work each day. Most people I knew thought I was mad.
On the other hand, density is a factor of "walkability" and the most walkable places are generally the most dense.
I agree - I just got back from Chicago and though Chicago has many walkable areas some things jumped out at me. There is a lot new Hi-rise apartment/condos just south of the loop yet this density seems to have done little to make this environment walkable or pedestrian friendly. Just putting a lot of people in one area does not make an area walkable. It is more the street level access to amenities which can be very good in less dense areas.
I do think this calculation, however imperfect (because any calculation is flawed) acts to quantify the feel of a city from broader perspective. it can never take into account the actual feel in certain areas. For example in Atlanta Midtown has developed very nicely and seems to be getting a good mix of new and old and parks and cafes etc. All areas/cities are going to have areas that feel different. this calculation is an attempt to quantify the feel of the city/region as a whole.
To me an interesting observation on this data is that the big NE cities have the greatest disparity between city and burbs - in some ways their burbs (especially the further out newly developed areas) may be some of the worst sprawl, especially relative to the core. Whereas CA cities (LA, SF, SD) probably demonstrate the most continuity of the urban-surburban development and this stays pretty consistent for wide swaths. Maybe the least sprawled from that perspective. The Sunbelts cities to lessor extent maintain a moderate level urban-surburban over a wide area.
Maybe a city like Houston or Atlanta is the model for new city development. Multiple semi-urban cores surrounded by somewhat dense urban/suburban development.
To me an interesting observation on this data is that the big NE cities have the greatest disparity between city and burbs - in some ways their burbs (especially the further out newly developed areas) may be some of the worst sprawl, especially relative to the core. Whereas CA cities (LA, SF, SD) probably demonstrate the most continuity of the urban-surburban development and this stays pretty consistent for wide swaths. Maybe the least sprawled from that perspective. The Sunbelts cities to lessor extent maintain a moderate level urban-surburban over a wide area.
Interesting points, and I agree to a certain extent. It's no surprise to me that the three oldest metropolitan areas in the county -- Boston, New York and Philadelphia -- have the largest differential between suburban and urban density (i.e., Density Gradient Index). However, I don't necessarily believe that this assumes that these areas are among the worst in terms of suburban sprawl.
Metropolitan areas in the Northeast just developed much differently in that the cores are extremely dense surrounded by pretty dense inner-ring suburbs. Yet when you look at the broader metropolitan areas, these metros tend to have a lot of permanently preserved open space that really dilutes the density figures. That is something you do not find on a large level in other metropolitan areas across the country. Thus, even when you have concentrated development in a Smart Growth pattern -- but divide overall population by overall land area -- it will appear that the population density is just evenly distributed; that really isn't the case.
This is not to say that suburban sprawl does not exist in these areas, but the DGI doesn't account for the exclusion of open space which precludes any development -- or population, for that matter.
Eh... Not much of a fan of this honestly. Sure it is accurate, but I don't really care how much yard space or how close the houses are put together in the suburbs.
kidphilly, as far as the south loop, particularly roosevelt area along with wells/clark/wabash and down museum campus area, that is a bad example b/c that entire area is brand new, i.e. those buildings went up in the last 2 years. If you were there in 2007-2008 like I was, virtually none of that was there, and I could count over 20 construction cranes in the area from my bedroom window in printers row. A lot of those places just had their first tenants last fall.
The suburbs in the northeast were built for the rich on comparatively large lots. Many of the so-called suburbs in LA were built for the lower-middle and working classes on tiny lots. Yes, the houses are detached, but they're so close together that they're practically touching. And the street grid is as unvarying as Manhattan.
In the northeast there's a huge difference between dense urban and open suburban development: Manhattan vs. Westchester. LA is neither here nor there, i.e., not dense but not particularly open. This chart reflects that.
Eh... Not much of a fan of this honestly. Sure it is accurate, but I don't really care how much yard space or how close the houses are put together in the suburbs.
kidphilly, as far as the south loop, particularly roosevelt area and down museum campus area, that is a bad example b/c that entire area is brand new, i.e. those buildings went up in the last 2 years. If you were there in 2007-2008 like I was, virtually none of that was there, and I could count over 20 construction cranes in the area from my bedroom window in printers row. A lot of those places just had their first tenants last fall.
I know Chicago pretty well, was just there for a conferance last weekend and walked back through that area (btw the lake was that breathtaking aqua-blue with sailboats everywhere, what a majestic waterfront that city has) but it very much reminded me of areas in Houston or Atlanta. I know Chicago has so many great neighborhoods I love but that area needs less developers and more small bars and restaurants and such - was very sterile yet shiney new buildings. but they sure do have a great view
I know Chicago pretty well, was just there for a conferance last weekend and walked back through that area (btw the lake was that breathtaking aqua-blue with sailboats everywhere, what a majestic waterfront that city has) but it very much reminded me of areas in Houston or Atlanta. I know Chicago has so many great neighborhoods I love but that area needs less developers and more small bars and restaurants and such - was very sterile yet shiney new buildings. but they sure do have a great view
There are only a couple of bar areas in that area. There are some good ones on South Michigan south of Roosevelt, along with printers row off Dearborn around Columbia College. Besides that, not much yet. Give it 10 years and it will probably be similar to Streeterville/Near East as that seems the theme they are going with. Not really my thing, but whatever. There is still lot of undeveloped land or buildings in that area, but a lot of it is filled underground with remnants of train yards (CSX), or actual train yards still functioning along with Metra Trains coming in from the south.
In and around Philly, and Boston is probably the same way, once you get about 10+ miles from the city limits in any direction, the population density abruptly and dramatically drops from about 5-7K to less than 2k instantaneously.
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.
