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 did the leg work for everyone so people can actually see how large 5 miles X 2 miles really is. Continuous urban development based on the most intense urban design assessed through built environment and structural density is as follows for the top 6 cities in America:
keep in mind this isn't perfect, but it is pretty close to an accurate measurement of 5 miles X 2 miles without any breaks over water etc. to give people an idea of what amount of the city would fall in such a measurement
Seems good to me However, I think the Boston one could use some readjustments to include Cambridge and Brookline instead of going out to the far western parts of Boston city proper which seem to be less dense and a little more industrial in parts. I also think the Brownstone Belt of Brooklyn would've been a better measurement rather than the more "downtrodden" parts of the central, east-central-most part of the borough.
It isn't remotely similar to Manhattan-style urbanism, no.
But just to be fair, aren't there underground parking garages in some parts of Manhattan? I think there's going to be a new underground parking garage structure underneath the World Trade Center last time I checked.
You can't cross water. It has to be uninterrupted. You really shouldn't have massive parks either. This is why DC is above the national mall and NYC doesn't include Manhattan which would have Central Park and need to cross water to meet the 5X2 requirement.
I thought water is often included in total square mileage?
This is approximately 10 sq miles in Philly, as made adjustments but really reduced the need to include much of Center City.
Also that Chicago map isn't good at all. It cuts off actually when it's about to get some of the most urban in the city through Edgewater/Uptown/Rogers Park...It also starts way too far north, slashes the loop in half and doesn't include any of the south loop/printers row/ etc... some of most urban neighborhoods in the city. Also going way too far west. SF map also pretty off, the urbanity extends much farther west into the Richmond District. Pacific Heights, most of Western Addition and Haight Ashbury aren't even included. In both Chicago/SF the urbanity is still continuing easily beyond these areas and definitely more urban than what you run into in DC and to a lesser extent in Boston.
Also wait, in the NYC map you didn't include ANY of Manhattan? Really?
But just to be fair, aren't there underground parking garages in some parts of Manhattan? I think there's going to be a new underground parking garage structure underneath the World Trade Center last time I checked.
How is this "just to be fair"? By your logic, there's parking in Paris, and parking in Dallas, so Paris=Dallas? And, no, WTC has no parking.
1. We were talking about free surface parking, not paid underground parking
2. Yes, there is underground parking in Manhattan, but it's the exception. Maybe 10-20% of projects have parking, and it's usually limited to residents only, and only a few spaces. Retail and office and hotel uses almost never have parking. In LA, 100% of everything has parking, and a ton of it, and usually free, and usually surface or above-ground.
3. There is no underground parking garage planned for the WTC. There is an underground vehicle center, for deliveries and bus drop-offs, but there isn't even one parking space, not for the public and not for WTC users. Even the old WTC didn't have any parking (it did have some parking originally, but not later on).
Wow really? That is hilarious. East Coast posters want so bad to find a reason why LA is not in their city's league. They fail every time.
It is NOT!!!!
LOL Just kidding. Honestly though, I found LA to be pretty urban and very dense when I visited, its just different for lack of a better word. It was like a collection of medium-dense streetcar suburbs with highly dense main arteries and corridors (Wilshire, Hollywood, Santa Monica Blvd, Sunset, Ocean) and "city islands" such as Century City, Downtown Santa Monica, Downtown Hollywood, Downtown LA (I only saw the skyline briefly, unfortunately we didn't had enough time to check the place out), etc. The crowd levels in the parts of the LA area I visited were consistent but not overwhelming. To me, it felt packed but it still felt like I had some decent amount of space walking on the sidewalks in comparison to the parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn I've been to. I was surprised by how structurally dense Beverly Hills was in both the residential areas and the main commercial area around Rodeo Drive and Wilshire Blvd. The part of BH we were Crustacean's is also looked urban too. The weren't a lot of crowds in this area, but granted, we there around sundown so things must've died down a bit.
I don't think I fall into that realm. I'd agree that LA's density is pretty underrated. Although its built form may not appear as dense as East Coast cities, its population density is nothing to sneeze at -- and that's still very important to support urban amenities.
LOL Just kidding. Honestly though, I found LA to be pretty urban and very dense when I visited, its just different for lack of a better word. It was like a collection of medium-dense streetcar suburbs with highly dense main arteries and corridors (Wilshire, Hollywood, Santa Monica Blvd, Sunset, Ocean) and "city islands" such as Century City, Downtown Santa Monica, Downtown Hollywood, Downtown LA (I only saw the skyline briefly, unfortunately we didn't had enough time to check the place out), etc. The crowd levels in the parts of the LA area I visited were consistent but not overwhelming. To me, it felt packed but it still felt like I had some decent amount of space walking on the sidewalks in comparison to the parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn I've been to. I was surprised by how structurally dense Beverly Hills was in both the residential areas and the main commercial area around Rodeo Drive and Wilshire Blvd. The part of BH we were Crustacean's is also looked urban too. The weren't a lot of crowds in this area, but granted, we there around sundown so things must've died down a bit.
So your judging LA's urbanity from a visit to the Westside, ok gotcha
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.
imock+St +to:Pond+St&hl=en&sll=42.338665,-71.08349&sspn=0.09542,0.2108&geocode=FcCmhQIdNMfC-w%3BFVcGhgIdanXC-w%3BFZtyhgIdgpDD-w%3BFd10hgId6tfD-w%3BFT9IhgIdftfD-w%3BFQ4IhgIdGT7E-w%3BFdvyhQIdcj3E-w%3BFZzLhQIdCXXD-w%3BFZa-hQIdtiHD-w%3BFRCnhQIdfcrC-w&oq=ja&t=h&gl=us&dirflg=w&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=13&z= 13
However, I think the Boston one could use some readjustments to include Cambridge and Brookline instead of going out to the far western parts of Boston city proper which seem to be less dense and a little more industrial in parts. I also think the Brownstone Belt of Brooklyn would've been a better measurement rather than the more "downtrodden" parts of the central, east-central-most part of the borough.
