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.
^^^Wtd is an average density. It's an average density weighted by population. The only other real option is to weight by land area, which is the traditional way.
Anyway, using that service, for the 25 sq mi ring (approx 2.82 mi radius), SF is very severely dinged by that zip code. I just chose 3 other zip codes at random, including 94111, which is also in the financial district though a tad more centric instead of right on the relatively undeveloped waterfront, and avg densities go way up. My point is, one can skew the data however they like, however, when it comes to densities, neither city is going to beat out SF overall. SF's weighted avg density is also that much higher than the other two's, even when you narrow down Philly's city limits, for instance, and that's a clear enough sign that if one is going off of density alone, while they are in the same league, there is a clear leader.
You are doing something wrong. To get to 25 sq miles from 94111, you need to punch in a radius of 4.5 miles which yields a lower population density (18,936 psm) than what I got from 94105.
Anyway I am not saying that those are necessarily the highest densities you can get for each city. I don't know that. I am sure you can play around with it. But those zips are very central and those are the densities for the nearest 25/35/50 LAND sq miles.
^^^Wtd is an average density. It's an average density weighted by population. The only other real option is to weight by land area, which is the traditional way.
Anyway, using that service, for the 25 sq mi ring (approx 2.82 mi radius), SF is very severely dinged by that zip code. I just chose 3 other zip codes at random, including 94111, which is also in the financial district though a tad more centric instead of right on the relatively undeveloped waterfront, and avg densities go way up. My point is, one can skew the data however they like, however, when it comes to densities, neither city is going to beat out SF overall. SF's weighted avg density is also that much higher than the other two's, even when you narrow down Philly's city limits, for instance, and that's a clear enough sign that if one is going off of density alone, while they are in the same league, there is a clear leader.
outside of a few small tracts they are very similar
Philly actually gets some higher areas out at about 2 or so miles in the radius from the core in very dense S Philly (rowhouse nabes close to 50K non weighted density)
This is actually a pretty decent comparison and they are all pretty similar in these spaces
much higher I just don't buy TBH - very close is probably a better use of words
in these spaces portrayed I would suspect the weighted densities are very similar actually- Where Cali generally shows stronger results on weighted density is not the core but the suburban build which is generally higher in Cali say 8K compared to 5K in closer in burbs in the NE as an example which are less consistently dense in built - more peak and valley on density moving from the core
outside of a few small tracts they are very similar
Philly actually gets some higher areas out at about 2 or so miles in the radius from the core in very dense S Philly (rowhouse nabes close to 50K non weighted density)
This is actually a pretty decent comparison and they are all pretty similar in these spaces
much higher I just don't buy TBH - very close is probably a better use of words
in these spaces portrayed I would suspect the weighted densities are very similar actually- Where Cali generally shows stronger results on weighted density is not the core but the suburban build which is generally higher in Cali say 8K compared to 5K in closer in burbs in the NE as an example which are less consistently dense in built - more peak and valley on density moving from the core
The reason he got much higher was probably because he was looking at a lower sq mileage. 2.82 miles from 94111 gets you only to 11 land sq miles. Once you expand that out to 25 sq miles the density drops.
Delancey St for Philly while very nice is not a good reflection of denser non highrise DT-ish areas
What would be a good example, then? I'm not familiar enough to find a good example on my own, Im afraid. I tried looking in the Rittenhouse area, but I couldn't find anything better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
There are other ways in which I think Philly feels bigger than Boston. For instance - Market St.
See, for me, those winding dead end European style streets feel intimate, but not necessarily big city. They are actually often quieter and certainly are quaint. I'd say overall lower Manhattan also feels less big city than Midtown, often for this reason.
I assure you Boston's commercial streets are neither quiet nor quaint. Personally, I think that structure plays a bigger role in the big city feel of a place, but if your looking for vibrancy, Boston has tons of that too in places like Boylston Street, Hanover Street, Mass Ave, and others.
You guys are all bad at math. Pie r squared. A 5 mile radius is around 78.5 sq mi.
Anyway, I digress. Not even looking at weighted average, the "average" density of SF is about 18k ppsm at this point with a population approaching 850k. Add in Daly City and you get closer to 1 million (~950k+) with a density of "only" 17,500 ppsm, contiguous. Sure, SF then basically cuts off as it has a mountain range to the south and water on the other 3 sides. However, ~50 sq mi at ~17.5k ppsm, un-weighted by population.
Just think about this. For Boston to do the same, its surrounding cities have to be closer to 30-40k ppsm so that the central 50 sq mi can be upwards of SF's city limits or city limits + Daly City density. This is not the case. And Philly? More contiguous, but no severely great peaks and no real substantial areas greater than 30k ppsm. It doesn't have the density that Boston or SF have, and Boston doesn't have the density that SF has.
Just think about this logically.
Last edited by anonelitist; 02-25-2015 at 10:16 PM..
What would be a good example, then? I'm not familiar enough to find a good example on my own, Im afraid. I tried looking in the Rittenhouse area, but I couldn't find anything better.
I assure you Boston's commercial streets are neither quiet nor quaint. Personally, I think that structure plays a bigger role in the big city feel of a place, but if your looking for vibrancy, Boston has tons of that too in places like Boylston Street, Hanover Street, Mass Ave, and others.
If you look at my posting history, I always put Boston ahead of Philly in terms of overall vibrancy, when comparing the overall downtowns and cities. It has the greater/more renowned shopping. It has a larger theater district. It has the greater intensity of office uses. It has more transit and higher usage converging on a smaller area. It has things like Fenway right in the core.
However, none of this is equated with the charm, quaintness, and quietness of Boston's oldest sections. In fact, take Beacon Hill for an example. It is designed in a way to totally dissuade vehicular traffic and is mainly residential. It is denser than anything in Philly. But it is quiet, and quaint.
Where Philly exceeds in terms of vibrancy is in the mixed use and totally open/public nature of Center City. Take what Back Bay offers on a smaller scale and Boston's Financial District offer on a smaller scale and put it in a gridded car friendly, transit friendly, and pedestrian friendly area. And while in sheer numbers Philly has nothing on the overall core of Boston, it is in a setup conducive to vibrancy moreso than some of the densest sections of Boston.
San Francisco has that in common with Philly, but on a larger scale a little more similar and in some cases on a larger scale than Boston. SF is also more global and even more touristy than the other two.
So in most objective & quantifiable ways (like overall density and size) Boston ususally loses to either SF or Philly.
But in terms of the actual city itself, I think there's a good argument for Boston carrying the most urban "big city feel" for the reasons that I listed up top.
Philadelphia gives off of a more claustrophobic urban feel than Boston because Philadelphia's streets are narrower than Boston's streets. That is one of the reasons why Philadelphia is more urban than Boston. Boston's non-grid, European like streets does give off a unique urban dynamic compared to other cities.
Philly streets can get so narrow that it gets like this (and this is outside of center city) https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9409...mOqQ!2e0?hl=en
You can literally can touch both houses on each side of the street by laying down across the street
^^^All 3 of these cities have buildings too low to feel "claustrophobic". Building height wise, SF is the tallest on average, which is why it has the highest density. But we're still talking about 5 floors vs 4 floors vs 3 floors. There's nothing claustrophobic about any of these. And there's nothing claustrophobic about rowhouses, or Boston's Beacon Hill or North End. They are cute, charming, relatively quiet areas.
And anyway, claustrophobia has more to do with the relationship of the buildings to the street and the other things, such as large crowds on the sidewalk. NYC may have wider avenues in its high rise districts, but the relationship to 50+ stories to 4 lanes of traffic is greater than the relationship of 2-3 stories of attached single family homes or apartments (rowhouses) to an alleyway.
Philly feels more blue collar and run down than Boston and San Francisco based off first impressions. Economically, Boston and San Francisco are head and shoulders above Philly.
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.
I tried looking in the Rittenhouse area, but I couldn't find anything better.
