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.
Downtown Oakland: ~1.55 sq miles, pop 18,732, 12,085/ppsm
Downtown San Diego: ~2.55 sq miles, pop 29,074, 11,402/ppsm
Downtown Portland: ~1.55 sq miles, pop 25,227, 16,275/ppsm
This was pulled from me doing my own legwork and mapping the areas commonly known as downtown; for Portland that would be everywhere inside the 405 loop; for Oakland that would be Lake Merritt to the east, 980 to the west, and south of Grand; and for San Diego that would be everywhere inside the 5 loop south of Laurel and north of Park/Commercial...
I've long stopped relying on most published accounts of downtown populations because they are hardly ever consistent and you get wild variances in numbers and what is considered downtown. There are tools out here that let you map cities yourself, so if you just simply Google what is commonly thought of as downtown in a given city you can map the population yourself...
What's interesting here is SD is obviously the physically larger city, so it has the physically larger downtown, but it and Oakland have the same residential density more or less. Portland is much more built residentially and seems to be getting shorted in the eyes of voters in this thread. How this all relates on the ground, I'm not positive, because I've only been to Downtown Oakland and not the others. Just looking at pictures, Oakland seems to have greater building density than SD but the population isn't there...
So all of these things have nuance. I'd suspect that SD maintains urbanity over a larger footprint than the others. As we know at some point the density drops off dramatically because the city overall isn't even ~4500/ppsm, however because SD is also much larger than even Oakland and Portland combined, it stands to reason it holds a degree of urbanity further out...
My overall impression is that the order of urbanity between the three isn't great and is roughly along the same plane. Portland's also has to drop off substantially at some point as it is a relatively low density city overall...picking a winner here is likely coming down to preference, but you can definitely make the argument that SD is the winner overall based off of how much larger its core likely is...
My overall impression is that the order of urbanity between the three isn't great and is roughly along the same plane. Portland's also has to drop off substantially at some point as it is a relatively low density city overall...picking a winner here is likely coming down to preference, but you can definitely make the argument that SD is the winner overall based off of how much larger its core likely is...
West of I-205 in Portland basically feels like Seattle, but without the dense mid-rise neighborhoods like Belltown, the lower U District, and Capitol Hill --- so, compact houses and apartments on small lots on rectangular blocks. East of I-205, it starts to look more suburban very quickly, with wider streets and more space between everything --- more like Lynnwood in the Seattle area.
I have not been to San Diego, but I consider Oakland more urban than Portland.
Downtown Oakland: ~1.55 sq miles, pop 18,732, 12,085/ppsm
Downtown San Diego: ~2.55 sq miles, pop 29,074, 11,402/ppsm
Downtown Portland: ~1.55 sq miles, pop 25,227, 16,275/ppsm
This was pulled from me doing my own legwork and mapping the areas commonly known as downtown; for Portland that would be everywhere inside the 405 loop; for Oakland that would be Lake Merritt to the east, 980 to the west, and south of Grand; and for San Diego that would be everywhere inside the 5 loop south of Laurel and north of Park/Commercial...
I've long stopped relying on most published accounts of downtown populations because they are hardly ever consistent and you get wild variances in numbers and what is considered downtown. There are tools out here that let you map cities yourself, so if you just simply Google what is commonly thought of as downtown in a given city you can map the population yourself...
What's interesting here is SD is obviously the physically larger city, so it has the physically larger downtown, but it and Oakland have the same residential density more or less. Portland is much more built residentially and seems to be getting shorted in the eyes of voters in this thread. How this all relates on the ground, I'm not positive, because I've only been to Downtown Oakland and not the others. Just looking at pictures, Oakland seems to have greater building density than SD but the population isn't there...
So all of these things have nuance. I'd suspect that SD maintains urbanity over a larger footprint than the others. As we know at some point the density drops off dramatically because the city overall isn't even ~4500/ppsm, however because SD is also much larger than even Oakland and Portland combined, it stands to reason it holds a degree of urbanity further out...
My overall impression is that the order of urbanity between the three isn't great and is roughly along the same plane. Portland's also has to drop off substantially at some point as it is a relatively low density city overall...picking a winner here is likely coming down to preference, but you can definitely make the argument that SD is the winner overall based off of how much larger its core likely is...
Oakland's density surpasses both and matches SD in physical size if we look at contiguous 10,000+ppsm zip code density. Actually.
*Portland only has 1 zip code with 10,000+ppsm
San Diego:
Zip Code/Density/Pop/Area in Sq Mi.
92105 12,537ppsm 72,994 5.82
92104 12,515ppsm 47,688 3.80
92113 10,337ppsm 47,417 4.58
92102 10,203ppsm 47,123 4.61
Total Population: 215,202
Population Per Sq Mile: 11,440
Size of Contiguous Cluster in Sq Miles: 18.81
Oakland:
Zip Code/Density/Pop/Area in Sq Mi.
94704 23,930ppsm 25,592 1.09
94709 20,084ppsm 11,806 0.56
94612 16,899ppsm 14,389 0.85
94606 16,037ppsm 36,672 2.28
94601 15,487ppsm 50,294 3.24
94703 14,852ppsm 19,486 1.31
94610 13,410ppsm 29,287 2.18
94706 13,287ppsm 19,615 1.47
94702 12,543ppsm 15,979 1.27
94609 12,057ppsm 20,596 1.70
94608 10,235ppsm 28,019 2.73
Total Population: 271,435
Population Per Sq Mile: 14,530
Size of Contiguous Cluster in Sq Miles: 18.68
Portland:
Zip Code/Density/Pop/Area in Sq Mi.
97205 16,147ppsm 6,212 0.38
Total Population: 6,212
Population Per Sq Mile: 16,147
Size of Contiguous Cluster in Sq Miles: 0.38
Furthermore:
So Oakland's urban core is both more densely populated at the 10,000+ppsm level, and is more walkable.
Oakland's density surpasses both and matches SD in physical size if we look at contiguous 10,000+ppsm zip code density. Actually.
*Portland only has 1 zip code with 10,000+ppsm
San Diego:
Zip Code/Density/Pop/Area in Sq Mi.
92105 12,537ppsm 72,994 5.82
92104 12,515ppsm 47,688 3.80
92113 10,337ppsm 47,417 4.58
92102 10,203ppsm 47,123 4.61
Total Population: 215,202
Population Per Sq Mile: 11,440
Size of Contiguous Cluster in Sq Miles: 18.81
Oakland:
Zip Code/Density/Pop/Area in Sq Mi.
94704 23,930ppsm 25,592 1.09
94709 20,084ppsm 11,806 0.56
94612 16,899ppsm 14,389 0.85
94606 16,037ppsm 36,672 2.28
94601 15,487ppsm 50,294 3.24
94703 14,852ppsm 19,486 1.31
94610 13,410ppsm 29,287 2.18
94706 13,287ppsm 19,615 1.47
94702 12,543ppsm 15,979 1.27
94609 12,057ppsm 20,596 1.70
94608 10,235ppsm 28,019 2.73
Total Population: 271,435
Population Per Sq Mile: 14,530
Size of Contiguous Cluster in Sq Miles: 18.68
Portland:
Zip Code/Density/Pop/Area in Sq Mi.
97205 16,147ppsm 6,212 0.38
Total Population: 6,212
Population Per Sq Mile: 16,147
Size of Contiguous Cluster in Sq Miles: 0.38
Furthermore:
So Oakland's urban core is both more densely populated at the 10,000+ppsm level, and is more walkable.
Downtown Oakland: ~1.55 sq miles, pop 18,732, 12,085/ppsm
Downtown San Diego: ~2.55 sq miles, pop 29,074, 11,402/ppsm
Downtown Portland: ~1.55 sq miles, pop 25,227, 16,275/ppsm
I just traced your exact area and my total was around 2 square miles.
Quote:
I've long stopped relying on most published accounts of downtown populations because they are hardly ever consistent and you get wild variances in numbers and what is considered downtown. There are tools out here that let you map cities yourself, so if you just simply Google what is commonly thought of as downtown in a given city you can map the population yourself...
Would be interested in what tools you are using, as well as the data source. All three downtowns have had robust growth in recent years, so obviously it will be hard to find great information regardless.
So Oakland's urban core is both more densely populated at the 10,000+ppsm level, and is more walkable.
Your use of the WalkScore maps was incredibly disingenuous, especially given this is a regional comparison. You zoomed into the most urban parts of Oakland Metro division, but show the entire stretch of San Diego region from TJ to OC? It's actually pretty crazy how differently scaled the images you provided are... bias much? Portland and SD are regional.
Your use of the WalkScore maps was incredibly disingenuous, especially given this is a regional comparison. You zoomed into the most urban parts of Oakland Metro division, but show the entire stretch of San Diego region from TJ to OC? It's actually pretty crazy how differently scaled the images you provided are... bias much? Portland and SD are regional.
Very misleading comparison.
No I just posted citywide walkscores. You are free to extol the virtues of San Diego, that's not my job here.
And downtown San Diego has 2-3 times the resident population, as well as an MLB stadium, major convention center, and a waterfront. It's also a significantly more prominent tourist destination.
What, you think cherrypicking information means you're right?
Also, office development is probably the worst measure of "vibrancy". 9-5 jobs in which people only go out during lunch? Do you not realize how ridiculous you sound?
Nope, the difference is pretty marginal. San Diego is the 17th largest metro and its urban core is more impressive than at least 1/3 of the 16 metros larger than it.
Enough with your delusions and bias.
If you go by that: San Jose would be bigger than Dt. San Diego by far which is a suburban city to many
Dt. SJ; 2 sq. miles-76,000 residents; Dt. SD: 2 sq. miles-29,000
Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
Dt. SJ: 11,000,000 going up to 14 million with buildings under construction
Dt. SD: 10,700,000 going up to 11 million with buildings under construction
San Jose has an arena, beautiful city hall, convention center, Tech museum, 2 public markets and a riverpark
San Diego has Petco, convention center, and a waterfront
That is if you want to go there. You wouldn't want to be even smaller than this downtown????
No I just posted citywide walkscores. You are free to extol the virtues of San Diego, that's not my job here.
Or maybe just don't post misleading information? You know...like zooming in on an urban area of Oakland and then showing an area the width of Rhode Island for San Diego...
It's a regional comparison. Your job is to stay on topic and not post misleading information. I personally do not care if San Diego is more urban. But I do care about people posting misleading information that results in vague, incorrect generalizations.
Oakland has the strongest case, for sure. Overall, I think it's fairly close at a regional level.
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.
