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 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Obviously that’s a bit unfair because LA has 400 sq miles in city limits so it will have more suburban neighborhoods but it’s intesenly urban footprint is larger than Baltimore. If you compared 100 sq miles to 100 sq miles LA would blow away any city not Bos/Philly/DC/SF/NYC/Chicago
No it wouldn't on a "block by block" measurement of urbanity, especially in the most "urban" of neighborhoods IMO.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the overall breadth of urbanity that Los Angeles is as a whole. It's truly amazing, but that's not breaking it down to get to the bottom of what corner by corner urban street scape is. LA would be after each of those including Baltimore.
Obviously that’s a bit unfair because LA has 400 sq miles in city limits so it will have more suburban neighborhoods but it’s intesenly urban footprint is larger than Baltimore. If you compared 100 sq miles to 100 sq miles LA would blow away any city not Bos/Philly/DC/SF/NYC/Chicago
Compare LA to Phoneix, Houston or Dallas which have the same built form as it. LA is structurally different from any of the cities you named so it's comparing apples to oranges.
Once again... Baltimore is physically larger, has a more dense road layout & by all intents and purposes is more urban than DC (it's just dilapidated). I've lived in each or in-between both cities for the last 18 years now.
Baltimore is actually more full than a place like Detroit, there's less dead spots. What Bmore needs to do is just rebuild/redevelop those row home blocks.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Compare LA to Phoneix, Houston or Dallas. LA isn't built like any of those cities you named from an architectural/urban standpoint, so it's comparing apples to oranges.
Once again... Baltimore is physically more built out & urban than DC. I've lived in-between both cities for the last 18 years.
Baltimore is more classically/structurally urban than DC, which is helped by smaller street widths. It's no longer more built out as a whole than DC however.
Baltimore is actually more full than a place like Detroit, there's less dead spots. What Bmore needs to do is just rebuild/redevelop those row home blocks.
No i know it is, but if it were filled out the way it could be it'd be a huuuuuge city population wise. Id say 1.2 million people. It woudl need a full rail system though
No it wouldn't on a "block by block" measurement of urbanity, especially in the most "urban" of neighborhoods IMO.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the overall breadth of urbanity that Los Angeles is as a whole. It's truly amazing, but that's not breaking it down to get to the bottom of what corner by corner urban street scape is. LA would be after each of those including Baltimore.
If you use any equal geographic area LA beats Baltimore and it’s not close.
Now if you used proportional geographic areas (eg 1 sq mile in Baltimore is 4.5 sq miles in LA) then it might be close and I can see your agrument (per capita urbanity) but I think there is a limit to that line of thinking otherwise you’d have really quite small towns being “more urban” than large cities when it’s judt functionally not accurate
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
No i know it is, but if it were filled out the way it could be it'd be a huuuuuge city population wise. Id say 1.2 million people. It woudl need a full rail system though
Correct, and to piggy back, if that happened then Baltimore WOULD be more "built out" than a DC (as Joakim3 was trying to point out) etc because of it's urban bones. Today however, Baltimore needs to redevelop. It's a shame that the Red Line light rail proposal was cancelled, would have spurned a lot of development in those same areas you posted.
Baltimore is more classically/structurally urban than DC, which is helped by smaller street widths. It's no longer more built out as a whole than DC however.
I agree worded that in bad context. Baltimore has a larger urban reach than DC.
This +5 miles from the Inner Harbor (reminds me of London burbs). You'd be hard pressed to find the same equivalent in DC at the same distance.
Well the city is about 15-20 sq miles bigger than DC also, and it's peak population has been almost 1 million.
What DC has is an urban core of larger scale buildings expanding out much much further from it's center than Baltimore, as well as the obvious transit nodes.
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.
