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.
I think we can all objectively agree that Seattle and Philadelphia are still on two different scales, although certainly Seattle is catching up quickly.
Philadelphia by all objective measures meets the threshold of one of the most impressive cores in North America based on structural and population density over a large area, and this extends outside of the traditional Center City boundaries.
Anyone also following recent development patterns in the city would note that 4-10 story "midrise" projects are absolutely being proposed and constructed in neighborhoods across the city, far outside of Center City, particularly along major commercial corridors.
Two- or three-story developments now tend to be the exception, rather than the rule for Philadelphia moving forward.
Kinda-sorta.
Yes, you now see 4- to 8-story apartment buildings popping up in areas of the city where none had been built for decades, like University City and Mt. Airy, and that's indeed a sign of a major trend as well as a shift in the nature of Philadelphia's housing market that could prove profound in the very near future (a city that has long prided itself on its high homeownership rate is on the verge of becoming a majority-renter city), but the dominant zoning district in the city remains "RSA-5" (the densest single-family rowhouse category), which means that there's still lots of SFR construction; I was recently in Roxborough and encountered a group of 38-foot-high rowhouses (38 feet being the maximum height allowed by right in that zoning district) being grafted onto the back of a single-family mansarded Victorian right on Ridge Avenue:
The street on which those houses sit has a mix of three- and four-unit rows and freestanding SFRs. Chances are that if the SFRs disappear, more like these will replace them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
It doesn’t need to be 13 sq. miles. It can be anything, but I was trying to use a measurement that would capture the actual urban core size of the cities with the largest urban cores. If you think about it, that’s really the deciding factor for this anyway. If your city starts to fall off when other cities urban cores are still going when the measurements are laid down, it ranks all these cities for us.
Manhattan is 22.83 sq. miles and we can all admit every inch of Manhattan is apart of NYC’s urban core. DC’s urban core is actually larger than 13 sq. miles so if we are really going apples for apples, we should probably get an accurate measurement of what the urban core boundaries are for each city being discussed by sq. miles, and then put all those side by side to see which cities truly have the largest urban cores. We can’t continue having a discussion without facts, data, or logic.
But the funny thing is, that 13-square-mile figure just about describes the area within a 2-mile radius of City Hall in Philadelphia. And I've seen at least one other site that uses the 2-mile circle from a city's city hall as a proxy for the downtown core. Philadelphia is unusual in that its city hall sits right smack on top of the intersection of the two central axes of the original 1682 city, but most cities have their city hall close enough to the center of the central business district to make it a good enough substitute for the center of the downtown.
In Philadelphia, that circle extends to Berks Street (middle of the Temple University campus) on the north, Snyder Avenue (midpoint of South Philly) on the south, 38th Street (middle of the Penn campus) on the west and 2nd Street in Camden, NJ, on the east. (The Delaware River at this point is about 1,600 feet across.)
Last edited by MarketStEl; 03-29-2020 at 08:18 PM..
But the funny thing is, that 13-square-mile figure just about describes the area within a 2-mile radius of City Hall in Philadelphia. And I've seen at least one other site that uses the 2-mile circle from a city's city hall as a proxy for the downtown core. Philadelphia is unusual in that its city hall sits right smack on top of the intersection of the two central axes of the original 1682 city, but most cities have their city hall close enough to the center of the central business district to make it a good enough substitute for the center of the downtown.
In Philadelphia, that circle extends to Berks Street (middle of the Temple University campus) on the north, Snyder Avenue (midpoint of South Philly) on the south, 38th Street (middle of the Penn campus) on the west and 2nd Street in Camden, NJ, on the east. (The Delaware River at this point is about 1,600 feet across.)
We discussed using radius, but you can’t get an apples to apples comparison using radius. It’s also difficult when trying to stay within city proper boundaries for some cities. It’s much better to draw the urban core boundaries based on neighborhoods and distance. This was our discussion below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
The problem with radius is you hit water and you cut off neighborhoods that would be right near the core. Look at using a radius for Chicago and Manhattan. You’re in water which doesn’t make it apples to apples. Using a sq. mile area allows for whatever shape is needed based on development of that city without using any water at all. That’s really the point and allows an apples to apples comparison. Take Chicago for instance, the Loop is really the far eastern point of the core. The north/south/west neighborhoods would create the core boundaries.
For major urban cores, how do you use anything smaller than 13 sq. miles? Really, 13 sq. miles is too small. Cities like NYC, Chicago, DC, San Fran, Mexico City, Toronto, etc. go way beyond 13 sq. miles for their urban cores.
Have you been to Vancouver? Comparing it to Miami is an absolute joke. Either you've never been to Vancouver or are just unwilling to concede that Vancouver has better peak densities than DC, though maybe not equal density throughout a larger footprint.
Yeah that comment makes it seem like they have never been to Vancouver. The downtown peninsula and surrounding inner neighborhoods - which are a decent size - absolutely obliterates Miami’s urban core at the street level and is certainly comparable to Northeast cities.
Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 03-29-2020 at 08:05 PM..
Regarding this ongoing DC vs. Vancouver debate.... Vancouver's core is not more urban than DC's.
Yes, Vancouver objectively has higher pockets of peak density because it can build taller, but Vancouver does not maintain that density anywhere near the level DC maintains it's peak density of 12-14 buildings over such a large urban expanse (and still laterally expanding at peak level density).
Outside of NYC, Chicago or Toronto you are not finding longer uninterrupted urban canyons with 10+ story buildings than in DC
This is a to scale overhead of downtown Vancouver and DC, take it how you wan't.
The DC map doesn’t reach Union Market, H Street, cuts off Navy Yard, cuts off Buzzard Point, and doesn’t reach Mid City or Columbia Heights. DC is just a different animal.
I've been. It's beautiful. For how full of modern skyscrapers the city is, it's actual still pretty urban and high-quality density. It's not so much like a Miami or something like that. And even though the high rise neighborhoods may not be the absolute best examples of quality urban density, Casco Antiguo and other older neighborhoods are very dense.
The city is impression high rise density but no one talk about it
Slight difference being North Vancouver is 1.5 miles and 15 minutes from downtown Vancouver by Seabus (factoring in slower public transport times) and Silver Spring is a 30 minute 6 mile car ride from downtown Washington.
Metro Red Line gets you between the two in 20 minutes. Not that much longer than it takes to cross Vancouver Harbor on the Seabus.
Regarding this ongoing DC vs. Vancouver debate.... Vancouver's core is not more urban than DC's.
Yes, Vancouver objectively has higher pockets of peak density because it can build taller, but Vancouver does not maintain that density anywhere near the level DC maintains it's peak density of 12-14 buildings over such a large urban expanse (and still laterally expanding at peak level density).
Outside of NYC, Chicago or Toronto you are not finding longer uninterrupted urban canyons with 10+ story buildings than in DC
This is a to scale overhead of downtown Vancouver and DC, take it how you wan't.
Literally my point is that Vancouver's peaks in the urban core are more impressive than Vancouver's, but DC extends further out. So if we're going on which is more urban, Vancouver wins IMO. OTOH, if the question is which has the largest urban footprint, then DC would win over Vancouver.
But Vancouver has very impressive urbanity in its actual urban areas. Not only does it have the taller density, but it has the neighborhoods with narrower streets and a historic feel. To me, it's not as much a matter of how what city has the best building canyon street walls. If all of those are just condos and stuff, that's important. I know it's not in DC, but I'm still saying it's a fact that building canyon street walls do not mean the most urban. Vancouver has more high rises, as well extremely walkable urban neighborhoods. I don't think anyone would sit here and say European and Asian cities that don't have walls of 10 story buildings are not urban?
I.e. I doubt this block has less density than a similar block in DC, because this block has high rises that DC can't compete with. https://goo.gl/maps/h9gGp7SsauEhBzon8
I've been to both Vancouver and DC. DC is urban, yes. But I do not believe it is more urban than Vancouver. Vancouver, in its core neighborhoods, is more urban. So if we want them at a tie, that's fine then. Vancouver has better density within its most urban parts, but DC spread its density further. Until you've walked around Vancouver, it's very difficult to understand how it can feel so urban. The footprint looks small. The high rises dispersed throughout with some setbacks might make it seem not so urban. But on the ground it's very clear how urban Vancouver is
Outside of NYC, Chicago or Toronto you are not finding longer uninterrupted urban canyons with 10+ story buildings than in DC
This is a to scale overhead of downtown Vancouver and DC, take it how you wan't.
Hmm... Toronto? It's not that heavy in the low/midrise repartment. If anything, I'd replace it with Montreal in your statement, which pretty much looks like this throughout its entire core: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5008...7i16384!8i8192
It also has height restrictions (although nowhere near that of DC) so 10-15 story buildings are much more prevalent there than they are in other cities, namely, Toronto and Vancouver.
That being said, yes, DC's urbanity extends far beyond that of Vancouver.
Literally my point is that Vancouver's peaks in the urban core are more impressive than Vancouver's, but DC extends further out. So if we're going on which is more urban, Vancouver wins IMO. OTOH, if the question is which has the largest urban footprint, then DC would win over Vancouver.
But Vancouver has very impressive urbanity in its actual urban areas. Not only does it have the taller density, but it has the neighborhoods with narrower streets and a historic feel. To me, it's not as much a matter of how what city has the best building canyon street walls. If all of those are just condos and stuff, that's important. I know it's not in DC, but I'm still saying it's a fact that building canyon street walls do not mean the most urban. Vancouver has more high rises, as well extremely walkable urban neighborhoods. I don't think anyone would sit here and say European and Asian cities that don't have walls of 10 story buildings are not urban?
I.e. I doubt this block has less density than a similar block in DC, because this block has high rises that DC can't compete with. https://goo.gl/maps/h9gGp7SsauEhBzon8
I've been to both Vancouver and DC. DC is urban, yes. But I do not believe it is more urban than Vancouver. Vancouver, in its core neighborhoods, is more urban. So if we want them at a tie, that's fine then. Vancouver has better density within its most urban parts, but DC spread its density further. Until you've walked around Vancouver, it's very difficult to understand how it can feel so urban. The footprint looks small. The high rises dispersed throughout with some setbacks might make it seem not so urban. But on the ground it's very clear how urban Vancouver is
This neighborhood in DC (Navy Yard) will have census tracts that eclipse 100k people per square mile. DC is a very different place than it used to be and does have neighborhoods that are as dense as the most densely populated neighborhoods in any city.
NOMA/Union Market is another neighborhood that will have census tracts that exceed 100k people per sq. mile.
The difference between DC neighborhoods and Vancouver neighborhoods is that all the plots of land in DC use the maximum FAR and build all the way to the lot line. They rise the maximum 10-14 stories so on average produce more office space and housing than cities with much larger boundaries.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 03-29-2020 at 09:50 PM..
But you're citing different forms of urbanity. The DC form exists in Vancouver (albeit smaller scale), on the flip side where in DC can you match this:
So I agree with the previous poster, Vancouver has higher peak urbanity than DC, but falls off faster. Though like other Canadian cities it picks up again in satellite pockets along the skytrain stations, on levels that again exceed anywhere in DC for peak urbanity.
None of these are any "more urban" than DC, the buildings are just taller. At best they are equal, and as you've come around to stating, it definitely doesn't stay anywhere near it's peak urbanity at that level for long.
Most of those links in Vancouver the street wall falls off if you go in certain directions after three or so blocks. It's nothing like the consistency that is in Washington. Where in Vancouver does is stay consistent like this in all four directions for miles?
^^^ This is the third largest downtown in the United States, and if you walk it you will feel it.
I like the third link you posted and it's a nice angle to capture the city's urbanity, but it would have to continue at miles and miles to be comparable. DC as was mentioned is uninterrupted 12-14 story canyons in all 4 directions for miles. Then you can cross the freeway to the SE portion of town and there's more. Then you cross the river into Arlington and there's the high rises like in Vancouver.
Last edited by the resident09; 03-29-2020 at 09:53 PM..
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.
