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 simply said that DC from the air at first glance looks like Paris. At first glance that's what I thought the picture was of.
As far as DF, have you been there? Its a mega city with plenty of urbanity.
This isn't urban enough for you?
I think an argument can be made that D.C. looks like Paris from the air. I think it will be a much stronger argument in about 5-10 years though. The image below for instance, will extend for a much much larger distance north, south, east, and west:
By the way - anyone else HATE the new Google Maps?
Yeah, I'm with you on this.
Have you noticed how much more difficult it is to use just the map? Nevermind the dysfunctional design to streetview now, but even the map is screwed up.
That doesn't really make any sense then. Paris doesn't have contiguous urbanity because of the Seine, and Manhattan doesn't have contiguous urbanity because of Central Park? Why would a city be "punished" for having green space or water?
I agree with this. Depending on how you look at the question, Philly could be #2 for contiguous walkability. It won't be the highest density, but it will be contiguous, dense, and walkable.
Agree Broad Street is straight 10 miles from N-S. Incredible consistent, fully built, walkable, low density on both sides of Broad - between the 2 rivers. Now there parts in Norf Philly that you probably aren't going to make it out alive on that walk, but that's another story.
Agree Broad Street is straight 10 miles from N-S. Incredible consistent, fully built, walkable, low density on both sides of Broad - between the 2 rivers. Now there parts in Norf Philly that you probably aren't going to make it out alive on that walk, but that's another story.
If you count row house's, then yes. Problem is, their intensity is too low. Pockets of them is fine, but only row house's for miles is a non-starter for intense urban core development for any city. You need at least 6-8 story buildings every few streets. Philly lacks that. Look at the Philly aerial, it's 80% 2-3 story row homes. The intensity is too low. Philly needs a lot more vertical development in the neighborhoods.
Well, if anybody was paying attention, which is up for debate, they would see that I included Chicago's river in the core of their city when I made the 5X2 miles google core. You can't make this stuff up. : smack::s mack:
We are creating a rectangle or square. We aren't adding in a chunk here and there zigzagging to create the most built environment we can. We are going for a continuous, uninterrupted, structurally urban built environment. That means, if we include UCity for Philly, we have no choice but to draw the five mile line down UCity. The river is fine next to Center City for 1-2 miles and really connected. One problem......what about the other 4 miles north to south.....
How many crossings do you see as the river bends and turns headed to the bottom of South Philly? How about North Philly? SMH...............
Last edited by MDAllstar; 02-21-2014 at 06:56 PM..
Have you noticed how much more difficult it is to use just the map? Nevermind the dysfunctional design to streetview now, but even the map is screwed up.
If you really mean "wall to wall people, and super intense urbanity", then yeah, that's it.
Even in Europe, outside of Paris, how many cities would meet that criteria? London might, but is more medium density, and has some breaks (but overall core is huge), Madrid might and is very high density (but overall core is more mid-sized), Berlin no (not dense enough), Barcelona and Rome no (dense but core is too small).
There are probably like half a dozen cities on earth that truly meet your criteria of contiguous wall-to-wall people over a large area. NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong definitely. Osaka, Shanghai, Seoul, London arguably, with caveats. Sao Paulo and Mexico City have too many breaks. Maybe Bangkok? Mumbai? Cairo? Do we care if the humanity is in more slum-like conditions?
Mumbai works a bit differently. Along the coastline (meaning along that Lake Shore Drive knockoff Marine Drive), it can have areas that are as pleasant as anywhere. Mumbai's thing is that it starts building 6-10 story towers (flats), often entire buildings owned by one family (ours is, by us), majority if the time the flats on certain floors are leased out, it's block after block and while the density is above 60,000 people per square mile over miles of land area, the design is very "dense suburbanized" in the residential areas. The towers typically have fences around them, that fragment the "sidewalk". Often you wont see a single person walking when they don't need to because it can be difficult to do so due to the design.
Then Mumbai has it's commercial areas. Shopping and nightlife streets and where companies and stuff are, they are jammed packed to extremes.
I'll post some of my pictures of our family building in Mumbai (the note to mods). From the balcony, from inside looking out, and from the outside of the building, you'll get the idea when you don't see a single person, that the residential areas along the coast are quiet and sleepy pedestrian wise.
By the way, in some of these areas (like where our building is, there's no such thing as sidewalks, yes, places can be VERY DENSE but very suburban too)
From the picture from the balcony, you'll notice the other buildings you see have fences around them. Yes, like suburbs in America, people who own their own buildings, put permanent 2 feet thick 10 feet tall fences often with glass shards sticking up all over their tops so it badly injures people trying to intrude if they get passed security.
Dense and suburban. Not all of the city, even on the coast is functionally complete for pedestrians.
I have some pictures of Hong Kong, Cairo, and Singapore as well, that I'll upload later but from my observations, Asian cities also have their own type of dysfunctional sprawl. Hard to explain, because it's dense but it's vertical sprawl at the same time.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 02-21-2014 at 07:38 PM..
I think an argument can be made that D.C. looks like Paris from the air. I think it will be a much stronger argument in about 5-10 years though. The image below for instance, will extend for a much much larger distance north, south, east, and west:
Detroit's layout was designed by a Frenchman too, so anyone thinking Detroit doesn't look like Paris, is ignorant, correct?
And Chandigarh India was designed by a Frenchman (Le Corbusier) too, so obviously looks Parisian. I mean, nothing says Paris like modern concrete housing slabs...
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.
