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: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,144 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
That's just false - if we're talking about city proper than SF is more consistently urban and dense than Boston or Philly.
City proper is quite arbitrary here, especially in the case of Boston. San Francisco is only 48 sq miles, and is physically disconnected from the East Bay (you can't walk or cycle to Oakland) and Marin County (less so), while San Mateo County to the south is not a walkable part of the urban fabric. Compare this to Philadelphia, which is 134 sq miles, and has at least 80 continuous sq miles of a dense, walkable environment. Center City to West Philly is a short walk or bike ride over the Schuylkill River, while north and south of Center City is continuous. Only the NE and NW sections of the city are somewhat auto-dependent and less dense.
Boston also has a small city proper like SF (nearly identical, actually), but is much more contiguous on a human scale with its surrounding urban municipalities (Cambridge, Somerville, etc.), with direct pedestrian and cyclist access to several. To an outsider, you wouldn't know when you've left Boston for some of its
surrounding municipalities. SF may have the stronger urban core in terms of density, vibrancy and number of buildings, but it's small. Oakland's across the Bay, and it's semi-dense suburbia down to San Jose. Philly and Boston have larger uninterrupted urban footprints, which is why I and several others consider them to be in the same tier.
If we're talking purely city proper here, on paper SF wins on urbanity and density, but that's not the whole story, as it's a smaller area than Philadelphia proper and the contiguous urban fabric of Boston. And it's public transportation is easily the worst of the three, while it's high walkability can be hampered by those hills. Those weren't false statements, which is what makes this discussion of urban cores (not of wealth, not of F500 companies, prestige, etc.).
City proper is quite arbitrary here, especially in the case of Boston. San Francisco is only 48 sq miles, and is physically disconnected from the East Bay (you can't walk or cycle to Oakland) and Marin County (less so), while San Mateo County to the south is not a walkable part of the urban fabric. Compare this to Philadelphia, which is 134 sq miles, and has at least 80 continuous sq miles of a dense, walkable environment. Center City to West Philly is a short walk or bike ride over the Schuylkill River, while north and south of Center City is continuous. Only the NE and NW sections of the city are somewhat auto-dependent and less dense.
Boston also has a small city proper like SF (nearly identical, actually), but is much more contiguous on a human scale with its surrounding urban municipalities (Cambridge, Somerville, etc.), with direct pedestrian and cyclist access to several. To an outsider, you wouldn't know when you've left Boston for some of its
surrounding municipalities. SF may have the stronger urban core in terms of density, vibrancy and number of buildings, but it's small. Oakland's across the Bay, and it's semi-dense suburbia down to San Jose. Philly and Boston have larger uninterrupted urban footprints, which is why I and several others consider them to be in the same tier.
If we're talking purely city proper here, on paper SF wins on urbanity and density, but that's not the whole story, as it's a smaller area than Philadelphia proper and the contiguous urban fabric of Boston. And it's public transportation is easily the worst of the three, while it's high walkability can be hampered by those hills. Those weren't false statements, which is what makes this discussion of urban cores (not of wealth, not of F500 companies, prestige, etc.).
I don't agree with those boundaries. North of the 676 things are pretty sparse for example. San Francisco can easily go farther south and north.
What don't you agree with? The boundaries of Center City Philadelphia are Spring Garden to South Street, River to River... whether you agree with it or not.
I did say San Francisco is more built up. However, I disagree that everything north of I-676 is sparse. West of Broad Street is getting pretty built up, pretty quickly. Broad Street itself is also building up pretty quickly. East of Broad is definitely sparse, but this area is poised to change quickly, especially West of 9th Street. They are turning the old reading viaduct into the Reading Viaduct Park similar to the Highline in Manhattan. This will help to speed up development of this area, for sure. The area between 9th Street and I-95 needs a lot of work, but there are some big plans for this area.
Last edited by RightonWalnut; 05-27-2017 at 10:57 PM..
...Here is that same map of "Urban Core Philadelphia" broken down to the neighborhoods. Green neighborhoods are developed/gentrified, and yellow neighborhoods are the ones that are building up, redeveloping and gentrifying. https://drive.google.com/open?id=11L...KU&usp=sharing
The list of neighborhoods in what I would consider "Urban Core Philadelphia" include:
Penn Center/Financial District, Rittenhouse Square, Avenue of the Arts, Logan Square, Fitler Square, Washington Square West, Market East, Society Hill, Old City, Penn's Landing, Chinatown, Parkway Museum District, Loft District, Callowhill, University City, Woodland Terrace, Spruce Hill, Clark Park, Squirrel Hill, Cedar Park, Southwest Cedar Park, Garden Court, Walnut Hill, Powelton Village, West Powelton, Graduate Hospital, Hawthorne, Bella Vista, Queen Village, Passyunk Square, East Passyunk Crossing, Newbold, Spring Garden, Fairmount, Spring Arts, Francisville, Poplar, West Poplar, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Delaware Waterfront, Olde Kensington, Yorktown, and Templetown
What don't you agree with? The boundaries of Center City Philadelphia are Spring Garden to South Street, River to River... whether you agree with it or not.
I did say San Francisco is more built up. However, I disagree that everything north of I-676 is sparse. West of Broad Street is getting pretty built up, pretty quickly. Broad Street itself is also building up pretty quickly. East of Broad is definitely sparse, but this area is poised to change quickly, especially West of 9th Street. They are turning the old reading viaduct into the Reading Viaduct Park similar to the Highline in Manhattan. This will help to speed up development of this area, for sure. The area between 9th Street and I-95 needs a lot of work, but there are some big plans for this area.
Why would the boundaries of "Center City" be relevant? This thread is about the urban core as it actually exists.
In fact, the planner's version is often drawn larger than the current reality....they're planning for growth. And they're drawing boundaries for convenience. There are areas of CCP that are less a part of the core than the train station for example, but that would be complicated.
I was in Toronto a couple years and 1/4 mile from Torontos downtown resembles Philadelphia exurbia. For Philadlephians it would be like walking S on Pine and walking into a neighbohood in Malvern.
Not sure where you walked that's a 1/4 mile from downtown and looked like exurbia? Maybe Rosedale? If so, Rosedale was designed and built as a "Garden Suburb" type development 100 years ago for the elite classes of the time, but it's a small island unto itself and is surrounded by more typical, much denser urban development that is to be expected in the city centre.
In much of old Toronto (especially to the East and West of downtown), you can walk 5 miles from downtown and still be in a very dense, urban environment of vibrant commercial streets with bustling sidewalks, tall buildings, etc. -- certainly far from suburban, let alone exurban. https://goo.gl/maps/pp5zFgjrU2M2
Yes, most of Toronto's old residential streets close to downtown have small front lawns, but they're still dense and urban with a mix of rowhouses, semi-detached houses small pre-war apartment buildings, and taller, post-war residential towers. There are a sizeable number of streets that do resemble the Philly model of urban development too, however.
In much of old Toronto (especially to the East and West of downtown), you can walk 5 miles from downtown and still be in a very dense, urban environment of vibrant commercial streets with bustling sidewalks, tall buildings, etc. -- certainly far from suburban, let alone exurban. https://goo.gl/maps/pp5zFgjrU2M2
Yes, most of Toronto's old residential streets close to downtown have small front lawns, but they're still dense and urban with a mix of rowhouses, semi-detached houses small pre-war apartment buildings, and taller, post-war residential towers. There are a sizeable number of streets that do resemble the Philly model of urban development too, however.
I don't think I've ever heard someone call Yorkville suburban or exurban. I think he has a pretty rigid definition of urbanity based on where he is from when it comes to residential built form. If it is low-mid rise and contiguous residential built form its perfect urbanism type of thing.
I've looked on google maps (which doesn't replace actually visiting and I've never been to Philly) but what I do notice is there are large swaths of built up areas immediately around the downtown area but they are highly residential in built form. You get impressive and contiguous low to mid rise density but what I find it lacks vs Old Toronto is really busy and large mixed use commercial/residential arterials to the caliber of QSW, KSW, College, Bloor etc. I suspect the further away from the core urban area of Philly the arterials really start to taper into low density stuff whereas in Toronto they go on forever and the suburban high density built form does as well.
I think some people just assume that because there is contiguous built form that this is an optimal type of urbanity. It can be but I can't help but think in the absence of really busy and vibrant mixed use arterials crossing the city that there is that missing element. Old Toronto has impressive swaths of low/mid and highrise density throughout but I think its the interplay of all that with its busy/vibrant residential/commercial mixed use arterials that is the glue that makes its urbanism interesting and vibrant.
Still, to me Philly looks like an interesting and dense urban city with character worth a visit. I'd check it out to confirm my thoughts based on what I've seen on google maps. It definitely has way more impressive Pre WWII development than Toronto imo - the core city looks older, streets narrower etc. You can tell it was important for a long time when Toronto well - just wasn't. Not surprising - since Toronto was a shack and trees in the late 1790's when Philly was actually a city and probably the city in the U.S at the time. I don't think this makes it more urban now, just older bones and more dense older bones. There is some new development I see but not anything like Toronto - the DT core definitely seems smaller. I'd also be really surprised if the city is as busy or vibrant as Old Toronto but i'm open to seeing if it is or not.
Old Toronto's residential streets are just different bones. They are more leafy green and are set back more from the street than by the looks of Philadelphia. That said, most don't have driveways and just a small front yard. People park on the street. Make no mistake however that they are actually quite densely packed. Also the residential streets are never far from a more dense and very urban major arterial like Bloor, Ossington, Danforth, Roncesvalles, College, King Street West, Queen Street west etc. The urban form of Philly is just different but I wouldn't say more urban simply because the residential streets have more walk up 2 or 3 story rowhouse type development. In some cases it looks like these residential areas are quite far from major urban arterials. Old Toronto's residential housing is never far from major arterials with lots of restaurants and shops for example.
Philadelphia in its old neighborhoods outside of Center City have a lot of local commercial strips. Some of them had been quite rundown and selections not great for quite a while, but they've been improving rapidly. Philadelphia's densely built up low-rise and mid-rise neighborhoods outside downtown are usually small lots packed to the gills with buildings side by side, so there are a good deal of commercial strips that can be supported even if not on large, broad arterials or particularly tall.
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.
