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.
With all due respect to Philly, to say this is laughable. Neither can truly be said to be "more urban" than the other IMO, but if we have to pick i fail to see how one could not pick LA. Philadelphia has better public transit, certainly has a better downtown overall, and is more dense overall within city limits (not on the metro level though, and i wouldn't be surprised if the core areas of each city are actually quite similar in density)...but LA is MASSIVE compared to Philly, not to mention it actually has some parts (all within the downtown area) that are much more densely populated than anywhere in Philly. Maybe it just comes down to aesthetics and arbitrary "feelings" for many people (i.e. brick architecture and row houses = OMG THAT JUST MAKES IT SO MUCH "MORE" URBAN!!1!...never mind that the other city is quite dense itself, and is much larger)
Not looking for a fight, but that last part stood out to me...and this is just a simple question, doesnt have to turn into a debate, not to mention its off topic just a bit...with that being said..
Isnt that the case with SF and Philly urbanity/Density? Philly being much larger than SF and extremely dense itself? I only ask because I've seen "some" poster's dismiss that fact as if it doesnt hold any weight, but its being used in this thread in LA's defense.
I think Philly is more urban due to the fact it is more compact and not sprawling like LA. In LA, you pretty much have to have a car to get anywhere, but Philly is different because one train stop can get you to many more places than a train stop in LA can.
I think the 'density threshold' method of determining urbanity/vibrancy does not translate in real life. 5,000 & 10,000 only matter as a 'threshold' if you are obsessed with whole, round numbers followed by sequences of multiple zeros.
A city of row houses will never achieve the density of a city full of mid-rise residential apartments, but the vibrancy level actually tends to be higher because people's front doors literally open up onto the street. Density does not directly translate to vibrancy, even though it is an important ingredient it is not the deciding factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
It really isnt. Los Angeles is more vibrant in my experience. Philadephia is very vibrant as well, but LA is more vibrant over a larger area and more dense over a larger area as well, whether we're talking 5,000+ persons per square mile or 10,000+ persons per square mile.
Philadelphia has a tighter albeit smaller main cluster 10,000+ppsm but LAs is quite a bit larger.
As many have said before there are two different types of urbanity. Philadelphia has the old-school, pre-automobile tiny one-way streets, no break in building structure, no room for yards or driveways-urban environment. LA has a post-automobile form of urbanity which conceals how dense an area is. So you could say that LA sustains high levels of density over a larger area but it just doesn't look like it. It is what it is-a car focused city can never be considered one of the most urban in my book. Ask someone from Europe which city they think is more urban and most will say Philadelphia.
I sincerely doubt Philly is a more intense urban experience than LA.
Unfortunately your thought process is flawed on this particular argument.
The 2 key characteristics of urbanity is walkability & public transportation.The ability to function without the need to own a drivers license. Clearly Philadelphia is superior to LA in these critical aspects.
When you add in the footprint of Philadelphia which was designed in 1700 in the age of horse + buggy, and the fact that the majority of its growth was over by 1900(before the invention of the auto). It becomes luminously clear what city is the more urban of the 2.
Any urbanist who has been to every USA would be able to tell you that Philadlephia is the 2nd most urban city in the USA behind NYC, in the true context of what "Urban" denotes.
That doesnt make Philadlephia the 2nd best city, 2nd most vibrant city, 2nd most dense city just the 2nde most urban.
Here is a decent aerial of South Philly. Maybe 300,000 of Philadelphias 1.5 M people live in that area. West Philly, SW Philly, N PHilly are exact replicas of South Philly in how they were planned.
Unfortunately your thought process is flawed on this particular argument.
The 2 key characteristics of urbanity is walkability & public transportation.The ability to function without the need to own a drivers license. Clearly Philadelphia is superior to LA in these critical aspects.
When you add in the footprint of Philadelphia which was designed in 1700 in the age of horse + buggy, and the fact that the majority of its growth was over by 1900(before the invention of the auto). It becomes luminously clear what city is the more urban of the 2.
Any urbanist who has been to every USA would be able to tell you that Philadlephia is the 2nd most urban city in the USA behind NYC, in the true context of what "Urban" denotes.
That doesnt make Philadlephia the 2nd best city, 2nd most vibrant city, 2nd most dense city just the 2nde most urban.
Here is a decent aerial of South Philly. Maybe 300,000 of Philadelphias 1.5 M people live in that area. West Philly, SW Philly, N PHilly are exact replicas of South Philly in how they were planned.
Your definition of 'urban' is not the definition of 'urban', its the definition of 'old'.
As far as that pic, its impressive.
However,
Here is a census 2010 map of Philadelphia and Los Angeles TO SCALE:
We see that Philadelphia's cluster of 10,000+persons per square mile is similar in size to LA's main cluster, but LA has many areas outside that main cluster with 10,000+ppsm, whereas Philadelphia has comparatively few areas with that sort of density outside its cluster.
The To scale 5,000+person per square mile cluster map is a bit more lopsided in LAs favor.
"Aaaarghhh" he screams as he runs off, camera cuts to giant 'urban' blob-monster which turns deep purple if it consumes cities with "10,000+" density. There is only one place that could create such a monster.... L.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02
^^^ Help us please: The Rorschach tests are back! What will he devine for this thread?
^^^ Help us please: The Rorschach tests are back! What will he devine for this thread?
Actually after looking at that 10,000+ppsm map closer, I dont believe its to scale, in fact, I think Philadelphia is actually too big in that map.
Which means its cluster is actually smaller.
I need to take another look.
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.
