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.
NOT counting Center City. Because Queen's equivalent of that would be Manhattan. I'm focused more so on the residential neighborhoods here.
I personally think Queens wins this. Queens has neighborhoods that reach way higher densities, plus I find Queens to have higher structural density on average.
I think this may be a less intuitive comparison than many make it out to be simply because, unlike the other New York City borough on Long Island, Queens was never a municipality in its own right. I don't even believe that Long Island City or Flushing or Jamaica were incorporated municipalities at the time Queens County was carved out of Nassau County when the five-borough City of (Greater) New York was formed in 1898. (They probably were, though, given that New York is one of those states with no "unincorporated" territory.)
I'll elaborate further below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995
I do notice that people in Philly don't seem to have an aversion to going to Center City the way New Yorkers do with Midtown Manhattan
You haven't spent much time in Northeast Philadelphia, have you?
Some oldtime (=moved there before 1970) residents of the area used to boast about never going to Center City - they regarded it as a badge of pride.
Frankly, when comparing the two cities, I tend to consider Northeast Philly Philadelphia's answer to Queens. Our "Archie Bunkers" moved up there in the years after World War II in response to the influx of blacks in the Second Great Migration, and it has since developed its own multiethnic districts, particularly in its southwest and far northwest corners. The big differences are that Northeast Philly is far, far less dense than Queens, and it's still waiting for subway service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995
Queens is not suburban.
In form, no; in function, pretty much.
As another poster already noted, Queens loses population between 9 and 5. That would make it the textbook definition of a "bedroom community." Flushing may have the pedestrian intensity of a downtown, and Long Island City has office space now, but both were small settlements when Queens entered New York City, in contrast to Brooklyn, which was almost as large as Manhattan and had its own downtown. LIC didn't really develop until the Queensboro Bridge opened in 1909, and Flushing had to await the one-station extension of the Corona (IRT Queensboro) subway line to Main Street in the early 1920s. The areas along the No. 7 line did urbanize as it opened, but I've seen photos of its viaduct going up through empty fields. The chapter on Jackson Heights in Clifton Hood's 722 Miles makes it clear that the apartment buildings there, like in the Bronx, were built to house commuters into the city (here meaning Manhattan).
In terms of properly comparing the two, it is accurate to pull Center City out of the equation, for Queens has no "downtown" on that scale (Downtown Brooklyn has more office space than LIC as well, and it too gains population during the day). As I hinted above, the proper functional comparison would be with Northeast Philadelphia both in terms of how it relates to the urban core and when it urbanized.
If comparing residential areas, I think Queens is more urban than both SF and especially Chicago.
Overall, Queens is more urban than Chicago in the residential areas, but Chicago's built environment is very different in different sections of the city. The residential areas of the north side and parts of the west side visually more resemble an east coast city. While I still think Queens is more urban than these areas, I don't know that the difference is "especially" different than Chicago.
However, when you look at residential parts of the south side or southwest side of Chicago, you can find houses with full lawns. If you were comparing Queens to those areas, the difference in "urbanity" would be extreme.
Last edited by personone; 06-23-2018 at 09:04 AM..
Parts of it are, but not most. It has more suburban areas than any borough except Staten Island. Manhattan is maybe the only borough with no suburban areas.
Parts of it are, but not most. It has more suburban areas than any borough except Staten Island. Manhattan is maybe the only borough with no suburban areas.
With the exception of some of the beach communities and some of the swanky NE Queens neighborhoods, Eastern Queens is not suburban in my opinion.
People from Manhattan will call these neighborhoods suburban because there aren't many 6 story apartment buildings or high rises, but the population density and walkability. Plus the housing stock is mainly barely detached houses, semidetached, 2-4 family houses, and rowhomes.
I think this may be a less intuitive comparison than many make it out to be simply because, unlike the other New York City borough on Long Island, Queens was never a municipality in its own right. I don't even believe that Long Island City or Flushing or Jamaica were incorporated municipalities at the time Queens County was carved out of Nassau County when the five-borough City of (Greater) New York was formed in 1898. (They probably were, though, given that New York is one of those states with no "unincorporated" territory.)
I'll elaborate further below.
You haven't spent much time in Northeast Philadelphia, have you?
Some oldtime (=moved there before 1970) residents of the area used to boast about never going to Center City - they regarded it as a badge of pride.
Frankly, when comparing the two cities, I tend to consider Northeast Philly Philadelphia's answer to Queens. Our "Archie Bunkers" moved up there in the years after World War II in response to the influx of blacks in the Second Great Migration, and it has since developed its own multiethnic districts, particularly in its southwest and far northwest corners. The big differences are that Northeast Philly is far, far less dense than Queens, and it's still waiting for subway service.
In form, no; in function, pretty much.
As another poster already noted, Queens loses population between 9 and 5. That would make it the textbook definition of a "bedroom community." Flushing may have the pedestrian intensity of a downtown, and Long Island City has office space now, but both were small settlements when Queens entered New York City, in contrast to Brooklyn, which was almost as large as Manhattan and had its own downtown. LIC didn't really develop until the Queensboro Bridge opened in 1909, and Flushing had to await the one-station extension of the Corona (IRT Queensboro) subway line to Main Street in the early 1920s. The areas along the No. 7 line did urbanize as it opened, but I've seen photos of its viaduct going up through empty fields. The chapter on Jackson Heights in Clifton Hood's 722 Miles makes it clear that the apartment buildings there, like in the Bronx, were built to house commuters into the city (here meaning Manhattan).
In terms of properly comparing the two, it is accurate to pull Center City out of the equation, for Queens has no "downtown" on that scale (Downtown Brooklyn has more office space than LIC as well, and it too gains population during the day). As I hinted above, the proper functional comparison would be with Northeast Philadelphia both in terms of how it relates to the urban core and when it urbanized.
I'm not super familiar with the subtleties of Philadelphia like that, however my point was that it seems like plenty of Philly people will hang out in Center City, while New Yorkers usually avoid hanging out in Midtown Manhattan. Like that South Street bar strip, seems to draw a lot of Philly residents.
Interestingly, Queens has almost no Archie Bunker neighborhoods left. Almost all of the former Archie Bunker neighborhoods now have large Hispanic and/or Asian populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone
Overall, Queens is more urban than Chicago in the residential areas, but Chicago's built environment is very different in different sections of the city. The residential areas of the north side and parts of the west side visually more resemble an east coast city. While I still think Queens is more urban than these areas, I don't know that the difference is "especially" different than Chicago.
However, when you look at residential parts of the south side or southwest side of Chicago, you can find houses with full lawns. If you were comparing Queens to those areas, the difference in "urbanity" would be extreme.
Are those neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Chicago?
I think we often forget on this forum about daytime commuter-adjusted population. And since both cities' residential areas intertwine with their CBDs, I think this is fair to bring up. Philly gains about 105,000 people during the weekday, while Queens loses at least 350,000 (all commuter-adjusted data is from the 2006-2010 ACS, so it's probably even higher now). Not enough to swing the tide in Philly's favor if we're going to heavily weight pedestrian activity to boost urbanity, but it closes the gap from 775,000 people to 315,000 people.
I don’t know. I feel like the trend is going in the opposite direction (more people working outside of Manhattan). Long Island City, while I think someone already mentioned that most of the skyscrapers there are residential instead of office, really did not have much back then except maybe the Citibank tower and Silvercup Studios. I’m willing to bet that much more people are working there now than there were in 2006-2010. As far as the rest of Queens, I’m not sure much has changed too dramatically when talking about business districts.
According to this, Long Island City has 12mn Sq of office space and has Center City is 45mn.
Philly at its peak had a pop density of 15k per square mile. Still only 75% as dense as Queens right now. Queens is definitely built up more.
Hmmm. Still no mention of Flushing though, which I believe is still a larger CBD than Long Island City. But still very interesting! I can’t seem to find anything on Downtown Flushing’s official size as a CBD. I can find a few sources claiming that it’s the next largest behind Downtown Brooklyn, but none that actually say how large it is.
I think this may be a less intuitive comparison than many make it out to be simply because, unlike the other New York City borough on Long Island, Queens was never a municipality in its own right. I don't even believe that Long Island City or Flushing or Jamaica were incorporated municipalities at the time Queens County was carved out of Nassau County when the five-borough City of (Greater) New York was formed in 1898. (They probably were, though, given that New York is one of those states with no "unincorporated" territory.)
I'll elaborate further below.
You haven't spent much time in Northeast Philadelphia, have you?
Some oldtime (=moved there before 1970) residents of the area used to boast about never going to Center City - they regarded it as a badge of pride.
Frankly, when comparing the two cities, I tend to consider Northeast Philly Philadelphia's answer to Queens. Our "Archie Bunkers" moved up there in the years after World War II in response to the influx of blacks in the Second Great Migration, and it has since developed its own multiethnic districts, particularly in its southwest and far northwest corners. The big differences are that Northeast Philly is far, far less dense than Queens, and it's still waiting for subway service.
In form, no; in function, pretty much.
As another poster already noted, Queens loses population between 9 and 5. That would make it the textbook definition of a "bedroom community." Flushing may have the pedestrian intensity of a downtown, and Long Island City has office space now, but both were small settlements when Queens entered New York City, in contrast to Brooklyn, which was almost as large as Manhattan and had its own downtown. LIC didn't really develop until the Queensboro Bridge opened in 1909, and Flushing had to await the one-station extension of the Corona (IRT Queensboro) subway line to Main Street in the early 1920s. The areas along the No. 7 line did urbanize as it opened, but I've seen photos of its viaduct going up through empty fields. The chapter on Jackson Heights in Clifton Hood's 722 Miles makes it clear that the apartment buildings there, like in the Bronx, were built to house commuters into the city (here meaning Manhattan).
In terms of properly comparing the two, it is accurate to pull Center City out of the equation, for Queens has no "downtown" on that scale (Downtown Brooklyn has more office space than LIC as well, and it too gains population during the day). As I hinted above, the proper functional comparison would be with Northeast Philadelphia both in terms of how it relates to the urban core and when it urbanized.
Queens had multiple towns / town centers before it became a borough so in that sense there were actual multiple small downtowns at one point--which also accounts for why talking about the Queens CBD often means mentioning the three different neighborhoods of Long Island City, Flushing, and Jamaica.
Queens does definitely lose population during its 9 to 5, but I'm curious as to what the trends have been in regards to percentages and total numbers of people leaving the borough for work and people coming into the borough for work.
If you go by population density, then Queens is more urban and "built up" than Chicago and San Francisco as well. Density is only one of many factors of the subjective determination of being "more urban".
The thing about comparing Queens and Philly which makes Queens so much more dense is the difference in housing stock. Queens is mostly made of apartment buildings and Philly is mostly single-family rowhomes. FWIW though, Queens does have a very diverse housing stock, I think it’s safe to say more than any other borough, but for the most part it has many more apartment buildings and multi-family homes compared to Philly where single-family rowhomes dominate.
However, someone else already mentioned that Philly has much smaller streets and Queens has a lot of very wide ones. I think that parts of Queens that are more densely populated than Philly can sometimes actually be less structurally dense and therefore may actually feel less urban than they are. Some wide streets do have urban benefits though. I always hated how wide Queens blvd was, though the reason for that is for the massive Queens blvd subway line that runs underneath it, which I cannot imagine Queens without.
I agree that population density is only one part of the full picture. One thing I like to look at is car ownership rates and method of commuting to work daily. I think that in a general sense, the amount of car use is inversely related to level of urbanness. Basically the more urban, the lower the car use.
Both Philly and Queens have very similar car ownership rates, with Queens slightly lower, with Queens around 36% of households car free and Philly at 33%. But one major difference is that in Philly, 50% of people commute to work by driving alone, and only 26% by public transit. In Queens, the majority of people (52%) commute by transit and only 32% drive alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
Parts of it are, but not most. It has more suburban areas than any borough except Staten Island. Manhattan is maybe the only borough with no suburban areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
Queens and Staten Island are the only boroughs less urban than Philadelphia IMO
I am from Queens and I have to agree with it ranking #4 in urbanness behind Manhattan, Brooklyn, and The Bronx. Only ahead of Staten Island. There seems to be a sizesble drop from BK/BX to Queens. Ignoring SI, Queens is the only borough where over 50% of households have a car, way higher than the other boroughs. Subway coverage in Queens, while fantastic for American standards, is weak compared to the other boroughs.
Though I will say that Queens is the most difficult borough to speak about as a collective unit, or to make generalizations about for 2 reasons. One is that it is so large. Is is the largest borough. The 2nd is that the built form of Queens is much more varied and can change drastically from neighborhood to neighborhood, or sometimes even within a single neighborhood. Queens built form follows no patterns and is not as predictable as other boroughs. It is not like BK/BX where you can generally expect farther from Manhattan to be less urban/dense and for it to increase the closer to Manhattan that you go. Flushing for example is one of the most intensely urban neighborhoods in Queens and is very far from Manhattan at the final stop on the 7.
It has to do with Queens’ history of development as a collection of separate towns and cities, unlike Brooklyn which was one unified city, and The Bronx which was essentially an extension of Manhattan. I think with Queens you cannot always look at all of it together as one, since it is so much less uniform than the other boroughs.
I am very familiar with Philly, but I do think that as far as this comparison goes that I lean towards Queens being more urban. The main thing that tips it in Queens’ favor for me other than the large difference in population density is the far superior transit coverage and ridership. I don’t think there is a wrong answer though. They are both different kinds of urban. Philly has more of a closer, tight knit feel while Queens has more of an active/busy and overall larger feeling. Also, as someone already mentioned, Queens definitely is more of a 24-hour/late night place than Philly. I’ve actually been going out in Queens a lot more lately despite the fact that I live in one of Brooklyn’s biggest nightlife areas.
Last edited by That_One_Guy; 06-24-2018 at 10:26 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.
