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
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Advertisements
There's a lot of talk about Baltimore's "bones" here. While true that it has the best urban bones outside of the top 6 probably, it still needs to be stated that without a substantial mass transit upgrade of epic proportions, Baltimore will not reach that urban potential that it should.
The city may have strong structural urbanity, but there desperately needs to be rail expansion in that city to a world class level for the city get where it needs to be. Unfortunately, that is what is not happening in the city, nor in this state outside of the DC suburbs due to the current politics here.
There's a lot of talk about Baltimore's "bones" here. While true that it has the best urban bones outside of the top 6 probably, it still needs to be stated that without a substantial mass transit upgrade of epic proportions, Baltimore will not reach that urban potential that it should.
The city may have strong structural urbanity, but there desperately needs to be rail expansion in that city to a world class level for the city get where it needs to be. Unfortunately, that is what is not happening in the city, nor in this state outside of the DC suburbs due to the current politics here.
It's definitely subjective, but I'd argue that it's inextricably tied into urbanity - even for those who don't necessarily want to live in an urban setting. I agree that there people want different things. Not everyone wants a a row home with no yard on the fringes of downtown, or a high rise condo in the city center. But the urban cities are better suited to handle population growth and explosion of traffic and congestion that comes along with it.
The problem is that cars were never going to be a sustainable transportation anchor for a city to grow around. So the cities that have put most/all of their eggs in the car basket by under developing mass transit networks are going to have a rough go of it over the next few decades. There's very little room for capacity increases on already clogged highway/roadway networks in any of our major cities. And you can't build new ones without destroying entire neighborhoods.
The more urban cities have more built in alternatives to driving and sitting in traffic. And commute times are a major factor in desirability. Denser cities are generally more walkable, bikeable, and public transit friendly, meaning significant portions of the population are not at the mercy of perpetually worsening highway traffic. And while there is not a single city in the U.S. that has anything close to approaching a perfect transit network, it's far easier and less disruptive take the steps necessary to add capacity to transit networks (especially rail) by increasing headways, re-using abandoned right of ways, adding capacity to cars through various means, etc. than it is to increase capacity on urban roadways.
Improved urban mass transit creates options and options are desirable. Not just for the city-dwellers, but for the people in the suburbs and exurbs who are increasingly experiencing worsening commutes due to added traffic and congestion. Good transit encourages fewer people to rely on their cars which benefits the suburban/exurban commuter as it means less traffic. Good commuter rail networks give the suburban/exurban commuter the opportunity to choose whether to drive the whole way in or to park at a suburban station and beat traffic by commuting via rail.
Again, no city in the U.S. is close to being perfect, but as population growth continues, the cities with extensive networks and good urban bones in place are are better poised to accommodate the growth and that will make them more desirable. The kicker is that those cities need to continue to make investments into their transit networks which, in many cities, are in serious need of upgrades. It's still easier and more affordable to make those transit network upgrades than it is to add highway capacity though.
It's definitely subjective, but I'd argue that it's inextricably tied into urbanity - even for those who don't necessarily want to live in an urban setting. I agree that there people want different things. Not everyone wants a a row home with no yard on the fringes of downtown, or a high rise condo in the city center. But the urban cities are better suited to handle population growth and explosion of traffic and congestion that comes along with it.
The problem is that cars were never going to be a sustainable transportation anchor for a city to grow around. So the cities that have put most/all of their eggs in the car basket by under developing mass transit networks are going to have a rough go of it over the next few decades. There's very little room for capacity increases on already clogged highway/roadway networks in any of our major cities. And you can't build new ones without destroying entire neighborhoods.
The more urban cities have more built in alternatives to driving and sitting in traffic. And commute times are a major factor in desirability. Denser cities are generally more walkable, bikeable, and public transit friendly, meaning significant portions of the population are not at the mercy of perpetually worsening highway traffic. And while there is not a single city in the U.S. that has anything close to approaching a perfect transit network, it's far easier and less disruptive take the steps necessary to add capacity to transit networks (especially rail) by increasing headways, re-using abandoned right of ways, adding capacity to cars through various means, etc. than it is to increase capacity on urban roadways.
Improved urban mass transit creates options and options are desirable. Not just for the city-dwellers, but for the people in the suburbs and exurbs who are increasingly experiencing worsening commutes due to added traffic and congestion. Good transit encourages fewer people to rely on their cars which benefits the suburban/exurban commuter as it means less traffic. Good commuter rail networks give the suburban/exurban commuter the opportunity to choose whether to drive the whole way in or to park at a suburban station and beat traffic by commuting via rail.
Again, no city in the U.S. is close to being perfect, but as population growth continues, the cities with extensive networks and good urban bones in place are are better poised to accommodate the growth and that will make them more desirable. The kicker is that those cities need to continue to make investments into their transit networks which, in many cities, are in serious need of upgrades. It's still easier and more affordable to make those transit network upgrades than it is to add highway capacity though.
One of the better, more comprehensive posts I've seen in a while.
I purposely did not pick their core areas, as that is not representative of most of the city. But you get the point.
Please let's not use walkscore...
If break down Montreal and Miami by neighborhoods, you'll quickly see that Montreal is easily more walkable. Miami's score is misleading because of how small its city limits are.
LA gets dinged for the same reason. It has a walkscore of 67, but its city population is comparable to mid-sized metro. It disguises the fact that the large swath of land from DTLA to Santa Monica Beach has a cumulative walkscore in the mid 80s.
I disagree.. I think Philly will rebound in the 2020s
My predictions (Dont Attack) from 2020 to 2030 to 2035.
1. New York: 8.5 mil to 8.4 mil to 8.45 mil
2. Chicago: 2.6 mil to 2.65 mil to 2.8 mil
3. Philadelphia: 1.65 mil to 1.8 mil to 1.9 mil
4. Washington DC: 720k to 850k to 890k
5. Boston: 710k to 785k to 810k
6. Baltimore: 595k to 590k to 615k
1. LA: 3.95 mil to 4.1 mil to 4.3 mil
2. San Fran: 890k to 940k to 970k (I think theyre will be a major slowdown)
3. Seattle: 750k to 860k to 910k
I'm not attacking; I'd love to see the growth curve you project for Philly.
I just think 115,000 in the decade of the 2020s a bit optimistic.
It's only been within the past two years or so that Center City's job growth curve has turned significantly upward to the point where we could see Philly finally recovering all the jobs it lost since 1970 - something all of our peer biggest cities achieved a while back.
But maybe I'm being pessimistic here. I do see our population growth has accelerated in the 2010s: up 58,000, or 3.8%, from 2010 to 2018.
If we can get this job growth thingy fixed, we might be able to meet your projection.
Is this what we want? To be like Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai? Then you will be happy? Remember why American's started moving west. I think people in the USA were looking for some good old "Elbow Room" and America has plenty of it. Many of the US territories used to offer Homesteading as a means of attracting people. What happened to that American dream? Now we want to be like Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai? Where there are 100,000 people piled up in every square mile?
Is this what we want? To be like Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai? Then you will be happy? Remember why American's started moving west. I think people in the USA were looking for some good old "Elbow Room" and America has plenty of it. Many of the US territories used to offer Homesteading as a means of attracting people. What happened to that American dream? Now we want to be like Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai? Where there are 100,000 people piled up in every square mile?
Do you have any idea how big the gap is between even America's most densely populated cities and places like Dhaka, Manilla, and Mumbai? Or even between places like London, Paris, or Barcelona (hint, metro NYC has about 1/4 the population density of the London area)? There's a long way to go before we even come close to approaching our European counterparts, let alone the densest cities in Asia. Some of our older large cities aren't even back at their historical peak populations yet. And adding homes to our cities, all of which have plenty of of room to grow, preserves the "elbow room" outside of those cities for those who want it.
Is this what we want? To be like Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai? Then you will be happy? Remember why American's started moving west. I think people in the USA were looking for some good old "Elbow Room" and America has plenty of it. Many of the US territories used to offer Homesteading as a means of attracting people. What happened to that American dream? Now we want to be like Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai? Where there are 100,000 people piled up in every square mile?
Those cities are not comparable in any shape or way to American cities, nor will any American city out side of Manhattan itself even remotely approach the densities levels they contain. Apple to oranges (and I've been to Manila)
The country is pushing for a more urban life style as it's a) cheaper b) its a more hassle free lifestyle and c) it's better for the environment if done properly
I get it now. We should aspire to be like the European cities. That makes more sense. Yes, I do admire the fabulously designed European cities like Paris and London. Or Frankfurt etc. Why can't we compete with them? Most of our cities are nothing but a small cluster of skyscrapers and then a bunch of parking lots. After leaving downtown some of our cities even have aging industrial parks and even vacant Superfund Sites like the gulch in Atlanta. It is an eyesore and and embarrassment to an underdeveloped Atlanta. If you look at Atlantas arial view it is mostly parking lots downtown and of course a GIANT gulch surrounded by freeway overpasses. Dallas and Houston are much of the same. Heck Dallas just recently celebrated having a whopping 10,000 people living downtown. Yeah! Lets have a party. Then there are newer cities like Phoenix and Vegas which are basically just a giant suburb. All these cities brag about their city like it's hot stuff or something. I guess because they are the fastest growing cities. they grow quickly because the cost of living is low and employers can pay lower wages in these cities. That is the only reason. Otherwise the same people would rather live in san Francisco or Seattle or New York etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Those cities are not comparable in any shape or way to American cities, nor will any American city out side of Manhattan itself even remotely approach the densities levels they contain. Apple to oranges (and I've been to Manila)
The country is pushing for a more urban life style as it's a) cheaper b) its a more hassle free lifestyle and c) it's better for the environment if done properly
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.
Manilla, Dhaka and Mumbai
