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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
And I actually like uptown Charlotte (and it's undergoing a big development boom once again); I just don't expect it to be this big, dense historic downtown area. Same with DC, but the downside there is that it's naturally going to be compared to Philly, NYC, and Boston in that respect and if you're expecting a downtown area like those cities, you're in for a disappointment.
DC really is a north-meets-south type of city in almost every way, even down to the post-war Sunbelt boom development trends.
This doesn't make sense to me as Washington DC's downtown is much larger than both Boston and Philly. I'll give you Center City has a semi "Manhattanesque" look in small portions of it, but i don't believe tourists or people visiting DC feel some void because the buildings don't mirror NYC's style of design. Does building structure being "monotonous" or not, make you feel that much better about your day as a tourist? DC is the Capitol with more things to do downtown and better amenities than many American cities. Combine that with the breathtaking views of the monuments and sights on the mall which no city in the U.S. has an answer to, I don't think anyone is setting themselves up for "disappointment" if they have never been here at all.
Not sure what the in betweens are, but NYC fits 5.7 million people in 136 sq mi and 8.5 million people in 305 sq mi. No other city in the developed world does that.
I think you could probably make a case for cities like Seoul, Tokyo, etc. Istanbul also on the European side has a section where there are over 5.9 million people living in 112 sq mi. That is over 11,000 per sq mi people denser than what you have quoted. There's over 8.6 million people there living in an area of 187 sq mi (this is counting a few Asian side areas), which is almost 20,000 per sq mi denser than NYC.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-16-2015 at 12:17 AM..
this doesn't make sense to me as washington dc's downtown is much larger than both boston and philly. I'll give you center city has a semi "manhattanesque" look in small portions of it, but i don't believe tourists or people visiting dc feel some void because the buildings don't mirror nyc's style of design. Does building structure being "monotonous" or not, make you feel that much better about your day as a tourist? Dc is the capitol with more things to do downtown and better amenities than many american cities. Combine that with the breathtaking views of the monuments and sights on the mall which no city in the u.s. Has an answer to, i don't think anyone is setting themselves up for "disappointment" if they have never been here at all.
Paris is probably my favorite city on earth, not to be cliche, and so I mean it no harm when I come to refute your statement. Maybe Paris has less surface area per capita taken up by streets since Manhattan's can be quite wide, however, I'd argue that it's difficult to accept your statement plain and simply.
Let's take Manhattan alone. Manhattan alone is 72K ppsm, which is a density noticeably higher than Paris' on residential terms alone. Let's not forget that Paris actually has a gazillion high rises and most people in Manhattan don't live in a skyscraper, but rather a mid-rise. So both cities are actually a solid mixture. Adding in Brooklyn and Bronx you get 5.7 million people at 42K ppsm (just adding in Brooklyn you get 4.3 million people at 45K ppsm).
Paris fits 2.2 million people in 41 sq mi (less area than SF or Boston, so speaking for SF alone it's not excused for its anti-growth sentimentality when it claims to be the Paris of the West and is less than half the density) or 10.5 million people in 1,100 sq mi. Not sure what the in betweens are, but NYC fits 5.7 million people in 136 sq mi and 8.5 million people in 305 sq mi. No other city in the developed world does that. The only other cities that do are majority slum/third world and are really not nearly as grand considering sheer wealth gives way to grand structural infrastructure that uber dense third world cities simply don't have.
In office space alone, 22 sq mi Manhattan by itself has 400 million sf privately owned office space while the entire Paris Region has 560 million sf.
Central Paris has 79,000 hotel rooms and the Paris Region has 110,000. Manhattan alone has 113,000 rooms with another 13,000 under construction and 14,000 in planning.
Manhattan is really an urban spectacle in the world. It's so urban that people from around the world come to visit just to "see the city". People don't go to Paris for an urban thrill, but moreso for culture/architecture/food (of course you get all that in NYC, too, but there's definitely an "urban thrill" when visiting Manhattan that you don't get elsewhere).
I digress, part of the reason why the top 5 is the top 5 isn't all necessarily human residential density on paper. The top 5 also have the largest and most concentrated CBDs, and the highest concentration of hotel rooms and sightseeing spots, with transit that connects all of this. This combination of forces is what creates the urban atmosphere, and a contiguous walkable format served by efficient transit is what ties it all together and amplifies the effect.
Factoring in all of that I'd say DC is a clear #6, not LA.
For residential density, it's NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly. Then DC. One could argue LA is top 5/6 ousting DC for its "core", but it's certainly not built the same way nor does it function/feel the same way as the others.
For office space/CBDs, it's NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, Boston. All of LAC (9-10 million people) has about 200 million sf of inventory, Midtown Manhattan alone has 240 million sf. Central Chicago has around 136 million sf. DC is well above 100 million sf. San Francisco has about 85 million sf, most of).
The 23 special wards of Tokyo have over 9 million people in about 240 sq. Miles. So it's denser than NYC by a good margin. Also, I'd argue Hong Kong gives an equal and comparable "urban thrill" as NYC.
Eschaton, one of the biggest issues with trying to provide a nice, dense, walkable corridor in Los Angeles is how pock-marked Los Angeles is with auto-centric uses. While so much more of Los Angeles has pedestrian-focused, street-facing retail than most unfamiliar with the city would expect, it seems like 1 in 3 is too auto-centric for what should be a highly urban environment.
Here's a great example in Los Feliz. From this view, it looks very urban and walkable. Turn the view 360 degrees and its a big blank wall, and behind that blank wall is a ton of surface parking. However, I believe there is a major project planned for that lot.
See, I know I have East Coast eyes here, but even the walkable commercial block looks kinda pathetic compared to similar areas in Pittsburgh. It most strongly reminds me locally of this streetcar suburb business district, but even in that case the business district is longer, and at least some of the buildings on the street are 2-3 stories. The low-slung nature of LA's shops is quite jarring, but I guess it makes sense given LA is essentially a giant streetcar suburb which had later residential infill densifying it.
The think I don't understand, however, is why densifying the commercial corridors is so hard? I mean, typically speaking my understanding is with zoning commercial areas have much looser zoning. Here in Pittsburgh there are still height requirements and parking minimums, but you can easily plunk down an apartment building in the commercial district of an otherwise single-family zoned neighborhood, without NIMBYs doing much of anything about it. Similarly, a lot of infill is happening in former industrial/service zones because no one is around to complain. It seems like the inverse has happened with LA - the infill has made the residential zones in the core denser over time, but the low-slung, pedestrian unfriendly commercial structure is harder to change. Why?
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Not that I disagree with you, but I don't fully agree. South Loop has **** loads of young professionals and is still growing, and there are a number of young professionals who are living in areas like Hyde Park and increasingly Bridgeport and Pilsen now (and slowly Bronzeville). Second, not everywhere on the SS is blighted. Beverly on the far south side has the 2nd highest median household income of any community area in the city and Mount Greenwood next to it is5th highest. Archer Heights is just out of the top 10 and Ashburn is in the top 15. Also, the SW side is largely Hispanic and so is the SE side.
Yes and most of the worst blighted areas.... especially those that in the 70s 80s into the 90s, looked like war zones. Have been cleared out. Many of theses areas I believe, will be great again. When new infill as the city needs it. Will provide the space. Parts already are. Whether they stay primarily black though? Might be the question in the future. Like the Garfield neighborhoods and Lawndale's. Just on 360° streetviews, you see lots of reclaimed areas of empty lots again. Great city Parks in these areas too., maintained.
SOME SEEM TO THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE ROW HOMES AND NARROW STREETS AND SIDWALKS FOR URBANITY, DENSITY AND WALKABILITY? I DISAGREE. These areas street grids are fine as they are. Even wider streets then other parts of the city, and still a FULL ALLEYWAY SYSTEM . NOTICE.....NO street poles for the WIRES. THEY ARE IN THE ALLEYS. Where the city planners put them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
The "cherrypicking" argument here is a bit silly. Los Angeles didn't start off as a 460 sq. mile megacity. It slowly annexed land away from Los Angeles County over the decades. The original city of Los Angeles is as dense as any city in America that isn't NYC. That's not "cherrypicking." It's simply a flat out reality that Los Angeles sustains high densities longer than anywhere outside of NYC. I'm not sure what's particularly difficult to comprehend about this.
And again, I didn't say anything about the population density of the South Side. My point is that young professionals aren't checking for the largely African American, blighted, and auto-centric parts of the city, which is why threads about Chicago focus almost exclusively on the Loop and a handful of trendy neighborhoods on its North Side. This is true for every other city we discuss on C-D. In these "who's more urban threads," we're generally focused on the meanest and leanest areas these cities have to offer.
It's common knowledge Chicago's Bungalow belt isn't ripe for gentrification. It did begin in Chicago in 1910. That is pretty far back. Gentrification basically ends where neighborhoods begin the Bungalow belt. They remained inded in good to great shape anyway.
As for the South side. The nearer to Downtown areas ARE gentrifying the near West ones are. Those of the west and south that had the MOST Blight 60s 70s. Had MOST cleared out by the previous Mayor. Many blocks have land now returned to Prairie. Some blocks a couple homes survived. Some then have parts of blocks intact. Some still have housing at risk.
These areas yet gentrification did not reach. Some show parts gaining new infill especially long Mass transit lines. But it gives Chicago NEW LAND TO GROW AGAIN . But that time is yet future in large degrees. But unless the US economy collapsed? That time will come. As The most Ripe older stock neighborhoods closed to downtown complete their renewal. Others will have their time.
Areas as this show where a NEW NEIGHBORHOD can arise in time. Some blocks totally new housing cn come
Another.... Old original Brown/red Stone Victorians and Greystone originals on Right. Then on Left some New kinds to replace those originals lost.... sadly so many original Victorians were lost.
Sadly these once great areas happened to be in the Radical change and White flight of the 60s to 70s Then the turmoil and Riots destroyed some and blight afterwards more.
These areas look nothing like a BIG CITY anymore.... Or how it once did full of homes.
This doesn't make sense to me as Washington DC's downtown is much larger than both Boston and Philly. I'll give you Center City has a semi "Manhattanesque" look in small portions of it, but i don't believe tourists or people visiting DC feel some void because the buildings don't mirror NYC's style of design. Does building structure being "monotonous" or not, make you feel that much better about your day as a tourist? DC is the Capitol with more things to do downtown and better amenities than many American cities. Combine that with the breathtaking views of the monuments and sights on the mall which no city in the U.S. has an answer to, I don't think anyone is setting themselves up for "disappointment" if they have never been here at all.
I will grant you quantitatively DT DC maybe bigger. But, qualitatively Boston or Philly are going to be far more interesting. On a Saturday most of downtown DC is going to be blocks upon blocks of office buildings with very little go one, save for the occasional restaurant. Gallery Place is the exception, but try walking from Galley Place to Georgetown. You will have some stuff near gallery place and a little bit of stuff on F street and eventually city center, but then it's a solid 30 min walk of 9-5 office districts. A few people out walking, but no buzzy big city retail/parks etc. Even walking from Galley Pace
By contrast, try walking from the North End or Bulfinch Triangle to Prudential Center in Boston. You start out in a buzz, dense area with lots of bars and restaurants, walk across the (admittedly disappointing greenway) to the vibrancy of Quincy Market and Haymarket, then cut up through Washington street in DTX (somewhat rundown, but revitalizing quickly and very busy pedestrian activity) then cut down to Chinatown, a real organic Chinatown with markets, bakeries, tea shops, etc, the cut over to the theater district, lots of bars, theaters and students, then walk down bolyston with high end shopping on one side and a buzzing urban park on the other, then head into back bay on either newbery or Boylston street for big city shopping experience, cross by the busy urban energy of Copley square and then continue down Boylston until you come to the huge busy Prudential center.
You can do similar in Philly. It's impossible to do a similar walk in central DC.
This doesn't make sense to me as Washington DC's downtown is much larger than both Boston and Philly. I'll give you Center City has a semi "Manhattanesque" look in small portions of it, but i don't believe tourists or people visiting DC feel some void because the buildings don't mirror NYC's style of design. Does building structure being "monotonous" or not, make you feel that much better about your day as a tourist? DC is the Capitol with more things to do downtown and better amenities than many American cities. Combine that with the breathtaking views of the monuments and sights on the mall which no city in the U.S. has an answer to, I don't think anyone is setting themselves up for "disappointment" if they have never been here at all.
I only said that if people not familiar with DC are expecting its downtown to be similar to Philly's or Boston's, they will be disappointed. Philly's and Boston's downtowns have a gritty, historic character to them that is wholly absent in downtown DC where even the historic buildings are very polished and feel newish. I never said tourists would be disappointed with DC as a city.
Not that I disagree with you, but I don't fully agree. South Loop has **** loads of young professionals and is still growing, and there are a number of young professionals who are living in areas like Hyde Park and increasingly Bridgeport and Pilsen now (and slowly Bronzeville). Second, not everywhere on the SS is blighted. Beverly on the far south side has the 2nd highest median household income of any community area in the city and Mount Greenwood next to it is5th highest. Archer Heights is just out of the top 10 and Ashburn is in the top 15. Also, the SW side is largely Hispanic and so is the SE side.
The South Loop is part of the city's CBD. That's not what I'm talking about. When I say "South Side," I am thinking of the Wild 100s, Harold's, Trinity United Church, etc.
I'm not here to argue about whether the South Side has nice neighborhoods or even if some of them are transit-oriented and popular with young professionals. That's getting a bit too deep into the weeds. The point was that there are large areas of the South Side that are either blighted or auto-centric in character and consequently don't receive much attention on this forum.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 06-16-2015 at 07:53 AM..
The South Loop is part of the city's CBD. That's not what I'm talking about. When I say "South Side," I am thinking of the Wild 100s, Harold's, Trinity United Church, etc. It'
Only part of it is part of the CBD. South of Roosevelt you might consider partially downtown but it's not part of the Loop or anything. I think this is pretty apparent to anybody who's been there, especially down there when it starts getting a lot more low rise.
Quote:
I'm not here to argue about whether the South Side has nice neighborhoods or even if some of them are transit-oriented and popular with young professionals. That's getting a bit too deep into the weeds. The point was that there are large areas of the South Side that are either blighted or auto-centric in character and consequently don't receive much attention on this forum.
Sure, but you can find that in any city. My point is that it's not as un-dense in numerous areas as you think. Sure, it's not 30K per sq mi like some large areas on the north side, but there's still many areas over 15K per sq mi which I already showed you. There's 750,000 people living in an area down there with a combined density of over 12,000 people per sq mi which, if it was its own city, would still rank up there in the top 5 densest.
And some of the high crime areas are not as blighted as you think on the surface. Some definitely are, but there are some high crime areas down there which don't necessarily look that way on the surface.
If I dropped you here without telling you it's one of the more high crime areas of the city, would your first thought be "I need to get the hell out of here?" Probably not. Looks like a normal area with well maintained buildings and yards. The blight you would see in some of these areas come from the commercial streets because of a higher volume of vacant storefronts. However, go to the residential streets in these areas and it might not be what you think. People in a lot of these neighborhoods still do a good job of keeping up their yards and stuff more often than not. I think places like Englewood, parts of West Englewood, etc are different and have a lot higher percentage of vacant lots and blighted buildings than high crime areas like South Shore, Chatham, Grand Crossing, etc.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-16-2015 at 07:51 AM..
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.
They don't NYC.....
