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.
That would actually be more of a weakness. I don't think DC has "lots" of vibrant mixed-use corridors. There tends to be more of a segregation of the residential and commercial. Rhode Island Avenue, for example, has almost no pedestrian-oriented retail. Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill is another major thoroughfare that's largely residential. Sure, there are some business here or there, but streets like H Street and U Street are a bit exceptional. That's why they're so popular; there aren't many other streets with that much retail.
This is very true. That's another reason why the future of D.C. lies in it's new neighborhoods and new streets. Clothing stores and restaurants are all locating on the first floors of apartment/condo buildings and office buildings. That is something you don't see much in old D.C.
I see where they are coming from and I disagree. I think its flawed thinking to suit one's argument. In my example above city A is clearly more urban than city B. If you wanna say that a portion of city B (which may in fact be larger than the whole of city A) is more urban, that's fine. But it's not more urban on the whole.
I guess. I suppose you could throw an additional 400 square miles into NYC and make it a lot less urban. I think there needs to be some way to account for areas of cities that are truly "dead weight" but are included in city limits for whatever reasons. Otherwise, we can just outright say that Berlin is a lot less urban than all of these places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
You can say it's just semantics, but I think it's more than that. The reason LA is not thought of as being particularly urban is precisely because when people think of LA they don't just think of central LA, they think of the whole place (and yes of course they also think of urban design and lifestyle, and not just pop density).
I *do* think that is part of it. But I also think people don't think of it as being that urban because its core is more auto-dependent and the metro is not very centralized. There's basically nowhere in the metro area that is the functional equivalent of Central Boston. If there were, I think people would think about L.A. a bit differently. Central L.A. would probably be regarded as "The City" and the other areas would be thought of as a bunch of outlying suburbia that happen to be included in the same political boundaries as its dense core.
I see where they are coming from and I disagree. I think its flawed thinking to suit one's argument. In my example above city A is clearly more urban than city B. If you wanna say that a portion of city B (which may in fact be larger than the whole of city A) is more urban, that's fine. But it's not more urban on the whole.
You can say it's just semantics, but I think it's more than that. The reason LA is not thought of as being particularly urban is precisely because when people think of LA they don't just think of central LA, they think of the whole place (and yes of course they also think of urban design and lifestyle, and not just pop density).
Is DC more urban than Chicago? Based on percentage of population, the answer is yes.
Is DC more urban than Chicago? Based on percentage of population, the answer is yes.
Based on common sense, the answer is no.
That's sort of a difficult question to answer. Is Floyd Mayweather, Jr. a better fighter than Deontay Wilder? Yes. Could Floyd Mayweather, Jr. step into the ring and beat Deontay Wilder? No.
DC is sort of a pound-for-pound king in these matchups. By many objective metrics (total transit commuters, car ownership, etc.), its core matches or exceeds those of Philly, SF and Boston. It just can't keep up with other cities beyond a certain point. But the reality is that most people don't care that much about living in sprawling South Side Chicago neighborhoods (from an urbanist perspective) even if they are denser than areas just outside of DC.
Is DC more urban than Chicago? Based on percentage of population, the answer is yes.
Based on common sense, the answer is no.
What percentage are you talking about? Chicago has a higher average population density than DC and has a sizable area that is more intensely urban than anything in DC. Neither statement can be made about LA vis-a-vis the top 6, and that's before we even get to other issues.
What percentage are you talking about? Chicago has a higher average population density than DC and has a sizable area that is more intensely urban than anything in DC. Neither statement can be said about LA vis-a-vis the top 6, and that's before we even get to aesthetic issues.
Well, Central LA has about 830,000 people living in 46 sq. miles. DC has 640,000 people living in 61 sq. miles. So it is considerably denser than DC. From a human density perspective alone, you basically have San Francisco sitting in middle of the L.A. metro area.
Take a look at this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I wanted to see how Central Los Angeles would look compared to other cities. For the most part, I adhered to the boundaries in this L.A. Times article. However, I excluded Hollywood Hills and Hollywood Hills West because those are large areas that are sparsely populated. That removes 11.87 square miles from the 57.87 square mile L.A. Times definition (for a total land area of 46 sq. miles).
Population - 831,350 (18,072 ppsm)
Transit Riders - 77,447 (18.39%)
SOV commuters - 249,033 (59.15%)
Walk to work - 19,682 (4.67%)
Bike, cab, other - 11,380 (2.70%)
No vehicle households - 73,074 (21.20%)
I think we already knew this, but if Central L.A. were its own city, it would be the third densest large city in America, literally nipping at SF's heels.
Well, Central LA has about 830,000 people living in 46 sq. miles. DC has 640,000 people living in 61 sq. miles. So it is considerably denser than DC. From a human density perspective alone, you basically have San Francisco sitting in middle of the L.A. metro area.
Take a look at this.
But again it's apples to oranges. You are comparing the core of one city to the whole of another. Obviously a larger city will have a larger core. That doesn't mean that it's more urban pound for pound.
Raymond was trying to illustrate why my thinking was flawed and I explained where his analogy fails.
Btw, this discussion has focused on population density and, as we've discussed, it is only but one aspect of what makes a place urban.
You can say it's just semantics, but I think it's more than that. The reason LA is not thought of as being particularly urban is precisely because when people think of LA they don't just think of central LA, they think of the whole place (and yes of course they also think of urban design and lifestyle, and not just pop density).
And when they think of Seattle they're primarily thinking of a handful of neighborhoods (Downtown, Belltown, Uptown, Capitol Hill, First Hill, Pioneer Square/International District, U District, etc.). Most of Seattle is Single-Family/Residential. Seattle is becoming denser, but still pales in comparison to San Francisco - 7,969/sq mi vs 18,187/sq mi.
Los Angeles' density is 8,282/sq mi, although that includes a lot of sprawl.
Well, Central LA has about 830,000 people living in 46 sq. miles. DC has 640,000 people living in 61 sq. miles. So it is considerably denser than DC. From a human density perspective alone, you basically have San Francisco sitting in middle of the L.A. metro area.
These sorts of things are interesting but still might not tell you everything. There's an area of the north side of Chicago that's the same size as San Francisco that has 200K more people than SF, but does it seem denser when you're there? Not necessarily. You could do the same thing with the north/north west side of Chicago and it would come out denser than Central LA. There are 850,000 people in Chicago living in 38 sq mi on the north and part of NW side which would make it the 2nd densest city in the US behind NYC. If expanded out to 46 sq miles, then it would be just over 1 million people.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-15-2015 at 04:41 PM..
What percentage are you talking about? Chicago has a higher average population density than DC and has a sizable area that is more intensely urban than anything in DC. Neither statement can be made about LA vis-a-vis the top 6, and that's before we even get to other issues.
A higher percentage of DC residents live in car-free households, live in walkable areas, etc. DC's population destiny isn't even that far from Chicago's, that alone should tell you how misleading city limit statistics can be.
Based on population and housing density, Central LA is more "intensely urban" than DC. It is more dense with amenities and it's safe to say it's more job dense too. Central LA's built form is more car-centric though, which gives it the appearance of being radically different from the top 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's sort of a difficult question to answer. Is Floyd Mayweather, Jr. a better fighter than Deontay Wilder? Yes. Could Floyd Mayweather, Jr. step into the ring and beat Deontay Wilder? No.
DC is sort of a pound-for-pound king in these matchups. By many objective metrics (total transit commuters, car ownership, etc.), its core matches or exceeds those of Philly, SF and Boston. It just can't keep up with other cities beyond a certain point. But the reality is that most people don't care that much about living in sprawling South Side Chicago neighborhoods (from an urbanist perspective) even if they are denser than areas just outside of DC.
True, but that doesnt make DC's neighborhoods more urban, it just makes them nicer. It's like comparing San Francisco to the Bronx. SF is clearly more desirable and beloved than the Bronx, but the Bronx is unquestionably more urban.
By US standards DC has an excellent and outsized transit system for its size and density, that's why it does so well in those metrics. You could argue that Boston, Philly, SF would exceed DCs total ridership with comparably comprehensive systems, but that's speculation. All three are more urban than DC IMO.
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.
