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.
If you can draw a better square in google maps for Brooklyn, then by all means. The roads cut off, they turn, they do all sorts of things making it EXTREMLY hard to make a square. How about some of you make the maps?
How about you start by picking the densest neighborhoods in NYC? That would be a good start. Manhattan, the Bronx and Western Queens all have denser neighborhoods than Brooklyn.
Then, if you're going to pick half of Brooklyn, why not pick the denser half instead of the less dense half?
Out of the 58 densest community areas in NYC you didn't pick one in the top half
Philadelphia is interesting because it's densest pedestrian friendly urban environment with the most street level activity is some type of funky shape like this:
It would include all of Center City and University City and the surrounding neighborhoods in West Philadelphia, most of South Philadelphia, and most of Lower North Philadelphia up to Temple University
Couple things.....
-You have an interstate highway in your map
-You have a river in your map
You may want to refer back to the OP's post because I think you are confused on what continous urbanity means.
How about you start by picking the densest neighborhoods in NYC? That would be a good start. Manhattan, the Bronx and Western Queens all have denser neighborhoods than Brooklyn.
Then, if you're going to pick half of Brooklyn, why not pick the denser half instead of the less dense half?
Out of the 58 densest community areas in NYC you didn't pick one in the top half
5 miles X 2 miles immediately eliminates many parts of New York because of its shape. Continuous urbanity means uninterrupted buildings over 5 miles X 2miles.
You definitely have no idea what you're talking about. Hollywood and Highland is extremely busy, and much busier than those two other locations. At times, thanks to the tourists and idiot costume people, it's impassible.
I know that intersection, and it isn't the 2nd busiest pedestrian intersection. That's an absurd claim. It gets pedestrians because of the ghetto swap meet, but is not particularly busy compared to major LA intersections like Metro Center, Hollywood Highland, Rodeo, 3rd Street, even Wilshire/Westwood is busier.
Sorry buddy, you are wrong. Maybe you should actually visit the city sometime... I actually live and work here not in (LOL) Orange County.
And I am going to assume that Wilshire and Vermont is actually busier than Wilshire and Western, considering it is a transfer point for a lot of buses and the Red / Purple Line.
Not sure what you're talking about, as 1. You aren't MD Allstar, and you didn't pick the map, 2. He didn't pick Kings County overall and 3. Household size is irrelevant to a conversation of density.
Sorry, reading comp fail on my part.
It should be noted that LA's housing density in the core is comparable to Philly's. The aesthetic is obviously different, but LA's density is legit by any metric. It isn't a product of overcrowding, which is often implied. There are overcrowded areas, but they are made up of mostly family oriented nabes (Huntington Park, Maywood, etc).
-You have an interstate highway in your map
-You have a river in your map
You may want to refer back to the OP's post because I think you are confused on what continous urbanity means.
I'm not sure he meant geographic constraints, like small rivers, aren't allowed...it makes sense in situations like the SF Bay since it's such a large distance, but crossing the Charles River is a five minute walk in some places.
I think the idea was to find which cities are developed continuously...meaning places which don't resort to sprawl, etc. within a certain land area.
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?
The National Mall separates the dense/urban parts from not as dense/urban parts, so is an obvious southern border for DC. The blocks south of the Mall tend to be rather dead.
Continuous urbanity means uninterrupted buildings for 5 miles X 2 miles. That means, nothing can break that mass of development including rivers, oceans, or massive parkland. Central Park, Millennium park, and the National Mall would all qualify as breaks in the urban environment. Open space equals breaks in the urban environment. Where are the urban canyons in those?
I suppose to set the most minimum boundaries, the width has to be at least 2 miles and the length has to be at minimum 5 miles long.
For urbanity, I'll describe it as the closest you can get to 100% urban environment in the United States. Let the area include the essentials like retail, residential, office, some form of transit (bus counts too), even small squares/parks.
Curious to hear results, especially explanations and comparisons. Pictures are certainly welcome, as are statistics and personal experiences and observations.
So not sure on the definition but these rivers etc MD describes seem not to break the urbanity IMHO
MD are suggesting that the river between CC and U City breaks urbanity? it takes 45 seconds to cross
So not sure on the definition but these rivers etc MD describes seem not to break the urbanity IMHO
MD are suggesting that the river between CC and U City breaks urbanity? it takes 45 seconds to cross
Or Chicago... you know the Loop is separated from the rest of the city by rivers. Guess it doesn't count.
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.
I'm not sure he meant geographic constraints, like small rivers, aren't allowed...it makes sense in situations like the SF Bay since it's such a large distance, but crossing the Charles River is a five minute walk in some places.
I think the idea was to find which cities are developed continuously...meaning places which don't resort to sprawl, etc. within a certain land area.
O, ok. I thought he/she wanted to actually examine urbanity in the built environment and it's intensity ranked by city in America pertaining to buildings and their relationship to the street and each other. I assumed he/she wanted to measure how far that intensity travels uninterrupted in each of those cities for 5 miles X 2 miles so an accurate ranking could be established for how far each cities core actually goes before they fall to smaller buildings at the 2-3 floor level versus high-rise’s. My mistake, I'm definetly in the wrong thread. That's not really interesting to me since honestly, I'm only interested in the highest level of urbanity.
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.
