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.
All large U.S. downtowns have significant office space, and it's very closely correlated to the number of jobs in the downtown requiring a college degree. In turn, this is a good measure of economic importance.
It's also an important measure of the city's tax base, with municipalities relying so heavily on property tax.
It's ridiculous to compare density figures for MSAs when discussing urbanity. The difference between 900ppsm or 1200ppsm or 4000ppsm or whatever is irrelevent because at densities that low, everything is going to be essentially suburban and people are going to travel purely by car. The vast majority of most American metro areas, at least in terms of area and often in terms of population, is suburban or even rural. The urban parts of all of these cities are contained in small areas in the center.
That being said, it is absolutely ridiculous to call Atlanta more urban than Baltimore. Atlanta has 42,000 people living at densities of 10,000ppsm or greater (a relatively low but still workable definition of "urban") while Baltimore has 415,000 people, or TEN TIMES MORE people living at 10Kppsm+. The population density of the city of Atlanta (3,380 ppsm) is less than the density of ENTIRE SUBURBAN COUNTIES in the Northeast (e.g. 4,705 ppsm in Nassau County, NY or 4,006 ppsm in Bergen County, NJ). To call Atlanta urban in any way except for having skyscrapers is ridiculous, and to call it more urban than Baltimore is laughable.
As for Miami, while the city proper is denser, it is also significantly smaller than Baltimore City, so once again we are comparing apples and oranges (I can't believe we haven't gotten over this issue yet). That being said, Miami's "Urban" (10Kppsm+) population is about 400,000, or nearly the same as Baltimore's, and if you include Hialeah it's more than 550,000, significantly higher than Baltimore's. So in some sense Miami is more urban than Baltimore. I would argue, however, that Miami's built form is significantly less urban than Baltimore's, as it is more along the lines of the outer Los Angeles apartment buildings and tightly packed houses that result in high densities but are still almost entirely car-oriented and result in almost no pedestrian walkability or neighborhood comemrcial streets, which to me are the two hallmarks of urbanity and which exist throughout Baltimore. All things considered, I'd call it a tie between Baltimore and Miami.
This is an excellent summary of the relative differences.
Really there is no "top 5". There's NYC, which is its own beast, and then these six cities, with varying strengths and weaknesses. You could (plausibly) rank these cities in almost any order after NYC, depending on how you're weighting different things.
I thought that summary was good, too. I did a similar one breakdown a while back, though I think I'd move Seattle to #9. Click on the arrow for the density maps with the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Probably wrote this already. Thinking of the rankings. The first two are a no brainer:
1) New York City — obviously for reasons beaten to death. Much denser, much bigger, urbanity is more intense and core is very strong
2) Chicago — Outside of downtown, intensity seems to decline much faster than New York City. Has a bit too many relatively dead zones right near downtown and the center is less mixed use than cities #3-#4. Still more impressive center and urban neighborhoods that stretch out for miles more so than any other city besides NYC. I'd say LA is weaker because it's more scattered and its layout (too strip malls and parking lots, less pedestrian and transit friendly than Chicago) feel less obviously urbrn even if urban footprint is as big or bigger than Chicago.
The next 5 are harder to rank. Philly, Boston and San Francisco all seem rather similar in urbanity. Decent downtowns that seamlessly flow into the adjacent residential neighborhoods, lively, pedestrian friendly cities without feeling overwhelming. I'd rank Philly above since it feels (and is) bigger and the long streches of row houses add to the urbanity. Then San Francisco and then Boston. Boston last because it's less dense, though its core is just as dense. Might have the best transit of the 3.
Then DC and LA. DC is has the least dense, smallest core of the 7 but its core but a non-disjointed pedestrian layout, with the highest transit usage besides NYC (hard to compare though). LA is huge and as residentially dense as Chicago, but disjointed and parts a bit pedestrian unfriendly. I'll rank DC #6 and LA #7. Many will argue with my LA rank, I'll agree that any of the cities from #3-7 can be switched depending on your criteria. LA and DC arguements have been beaten to death. Big gap afterwards. The next ones are more interesting:
After these 7, the densest cores are Baltimore, Miami and San Diego. Baltimore declines faster but it has the structral density many love to praise. Also skimming the NY Times census map, one finds the densest tracts in both San Diego and Miami aren't really contigous; they're scattered; Miami more so than San Diego. This is not true of Los Angeles. My impression of San Diego is it feels more cohesive and pedestrian friendly than Miami. It's hard to rank these 3, but my rank would be (8) Baltimore (9) Miami (10) San Diego. Then...
no city core stands out by density (not shown but Pittsburgh, Denver and Portland are rather similar in density to Houston in the core). But one city stands out for a vibrant, large downtown. And urban neighborhoods that flow seamlessly into downtown; density is contigous. Not really to level of Boston or Philly or San Francisco but still nice. It's not dense at all outside few neighborhoods right by downtown; but at least the most urban neighborhoods are right next to each other. It's very center is denser than the other cities remaining. If you haven't guessed I'm thinking of Seattle. I'll rank Seattle as (11). Portland actually had a nicer downtown in some ways if only because there were so few office buildings no dead zones were created, but it felt smaller and it's hard to take Portland seriously at being urban. A number of other cities might compete, but ranking those are even harder.
Fort Greene: 2.0 people / household
Koreatown: 2.7 people / household
No, it doesn't explain LA's density, but it may affect the highest densities. But in most other urban cities, low household size tend to associated with the densest center city neighborhoods, less so in LA. Koreatown's household size is typical of many immigrant outer borough neighborhoods of NYC, but ones in or near the city center:
It's ridiculous to compare density figures for MSAs when discussing urbanity. The difference between 900ppsm or 1200ppsm or 4000ppsm or whatever is irrelevent because at densities that low, everything is going to be essentially suburban and people are going to travel purely by car. The vast majority of most American metro areas, at least in terms of area and often in terms of population, is suburban or even rural. The urban parts of all of these cities are contained in small areas in the center.
That being said, it is absolutely ridiculous to call Atlanta more urban than Baltimore. Atlanta has 42,000 people living at densities of 10,000ppsm or greater (a relatively low but still workable definition of "urban") while Baltimore has 415,000 people, or TEN TIMES MORE people living at 10Kppsm+. The population density of the city of Atlanta (3,380 ppsm) is less than the density of ENTIRE SUBURBAN COUNTIES in the Northeast (e.g. 4,705 ppsm in Nassau County, NY or 4,006 ppsm in Bergen County, NJ). To call Atlanta urban in any way except for having skyscrapers is ridiculous, and to call it more urban than Baltimore is laughable.
As for Miami, while the city proper is denser, it is also significantly smaller than Baltimore City, so once again we are comparing apples and oranges (I can't believe we haven't gotten over this issue yet). That being said, Miami's "Urban" (10Kppsm+) population is about 400,000, or nearly the same as Baltimore's, and if you include Hialeah it's more than 550,000, significantly higher than Baltimore's. So in some sense Miami is more urban than Baltimore. I would argue, however, that Miami's built form is significantly less urban than Baltimore's, as it is more along the lines of the outer Los Angeles apartment buildings and tightly packed houses that result in high densities but are still almost entirely car-oriented and result in almost no pedestrian walkability or neighborhood comemrcial streets, which to me are the two hallmarks of urbanity and which exist throughout Baltimore. All things considered, I'd call it a tie between Baltimore and Miami.
You have to be completely delusional to think Atlanta is more urban and dense than Baltimore. Gosh city data is a very weird place.
Worcester, MA has more people living in high density tracts (> 12k/sq mile, not a high threshold at all) than Atlanta. Not coincidentally, they had similar populations in 1920.
Other cities with more people living in high density tracts than Atlanta:
Trenton, Reading, Hempstead, Hartford, Lancaster, Lynn, Lowell, New Haven, Redwood City, Hackensack, Richmond (CA), Cleveland, Allentown, Bridgeport, etc., etc.
Atlanta falls into the category of Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Charlotte...etc
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.
