Top 10 most urban contiguous 50 sq miles (live, better, places, population)
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.
Ok, but this thread is not about population density, it's about urbanity. If urban quality is always equal to population density, why even have these threads? Just look up the density stats and close the thread.
Manhattan is 40% less populated today than it was in 1910. Does that mean that Manhattan is 40% less urban today? I mean if urban quality always changes in tandem with shifts in population -- which is a view you must take if you are going to look only at current population as the "end all be all" -- then your answer must be yes.
Couple things
1. This is also about contiguous. Pittsburgh and many places ou mention is less contiguously urban.
2. Manhattan was likely way busier in 1910, with more foot traffic and a greater variety of businesses on any given block. So Id say its a wash, just because it was shorter doesn't mean it was less urban.
What we arent tlaking about is a lot of Pittsburgh is super isolated form other parts of Pittsburgh and much of it isnt rowhomes but rather its more akin to this
My thing is it ends up being 1/2 as dense and it's very not contiguous within its city boundaries with far too many super large non traversable hills to traverse.
1. This is also about contiguous. Pittsburgh and many places ou mention is less contiguously urban.
2. Manhattan was likely way busier in 1910, with more foot traffic and a greater variety of businesses on any given block. So Id say its a wash, just because it was shorter doesn't mean it was less urban.
What we arent tlaking about is a lot of Pittsburgh is super isolated form other parts of Pittsburgh and much of it isnt rowhomes but rather its more akin to this
My thing is it ends up being 1/2 as dense and it's very not contiguous within its city boundaries with far too many super large non traversable hills to traverse.
I don't think Allentown is super isolated and I would consider it part of the larger contiguous urban core via South Side Slopes to South Side Flats or Brighton Heights going on southwards. Elliot I think has a good argument that it is not contiguous with that larger urban core.
I'm willing to settle at "these two cities are unquestionably in the same tier of density over their broader core area, but it varies depending on distance from the core."
That's the story in a nutshell, and once again, shows why urbanism is very nuanced.
As an example, this is a prime neighborhood outside of downtown Providence. Much like the "Hill District," it certainly doesn't scream intact urbanism. And this is what a huge chunk of Providence resembles.
I'm willing to settle at "these two cities are unquestionably in the same tier of density over their broader core area, but it varies depending on distance from the core."
That's the story in a nutshell, and once again, shows why urbanism is very nuanced.
As an example, this is a prime neighborhood outside of downtown Providence. Much like the "Hill District," it certainly doesn't scream intact urbanism. And this is what a huge chunk of Providence resembles.
Except from that street you can walk in a minute to here
I'm willing to settle at "these two cities are unquestionably in the same tier of density over their broader core area, but it varies depending on distance from the core."
That's the story in a nutshell, and once again, shows why urbanism is very nuanced.
As an example, this is a prime neighborhood outside of downtown Providence. Much like the "Hill District," it certainly doesn't scream intact urbanism. And this is what a huge chunk of Providence resembles.
why not? that is totally urban. How urban are we expecting the 50 square miles to be?
I see a large apartment building, two SFhs on small plots/ no yard, two modest surface lots, and a bunch of 3-6 family triple deckers/tenements. I clicked forward 50 feet and saw a pedestrian. Its a functional, intact urban neighborhood of moderate density. Perhaps the two surface lots once had homes, bu also maybe they didnt...
Prov is remarkably consistent across its 50 square miles. Its just swaths of consistent mid level density for probably 40 square miles with no brakes at all other than its very small rivers.
Pittsburgh on the other hand has some neighborhoods that are extremely suburban and some that are mostly just overgrown grass and hills with a few remaining rowhomes- oftentimes short blocks of it, or just 2 or 3- the other having been raised.
Don't get me wrong its better and more of a big city than Providence overall with more things to do, and more interesting Providence has some things going for it
much more cosmopolitan/diverse (hall amrk of urbanity), better rail infra, and more consistent with almost nothing that is truly suburban in its city limits.
why not? that is totally urban. How urban are we expecting the 50 square miles to be? .
I'm just reiterating the point that urbanism is a gradient in most cities. I've accepted what I think is a good middle-ground: Pittsburgh has unquestionably higher peak urban densities, but it's not as strong on interconnection and consistency as Providence.
It's an interesting comparison all around though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
much more cosmopolitan/diverse (hall amrk of urbanity), better rail infra, and more consistent with almost nothing that is truly suburban in its city limits]
I mean, Pittsburgh does have its own light rail system and pretty good BRT, which Providence lacks, but obviously it's still better integrated into a much larger urban area with Boston, so I'll call that a wash.
But I'll also challenge the idea that almost none of Providence is suburban when neighborhoods like this dominate those in the College Hill/Brown area and Providence College.
Not saying this defines the majority of the city by any stretch, but it's probably around 15%-20%.
I think Milwaukee, Buffalo, Providence and Pittsburgh are kind of all in a similar class these days. I think Milwaukee might be pretty close to Providence I’d anyone cares to pull a 50sq Mile piece of Milwaukee out of the city
But they are certainly the class of cities, along with Portland and Sacramento.
I also think you get interesting discussions with Dallas and Atlanta where often their population densities are lacking but just have so many urban amenities (like the core of pretty busy rail systems) they’re in the conversation.
I'm just reiterating the point that urbanism is a gradient in most cities. I've accepted what I think is a good middle-ground: Pittsburgh has unquestionably higher peak urban densities, but it's not as strong on interconnection and consistency as Providence.
It's an interesting comparison all around though.
I mean, Pittsburgh does have its own light rail system and pretty good BRT, which Providence lacks, but obviously it's still better integrated into a much larger urban area with Boston, so I'll call that a wash.
But I'll also challenge the idea that almost none of Providence is suburban when neighborhoods like this dominate those in the College Hill/Brown area and Providence College.
Not saying this defines the majority of the city by any stretch, but it's probably around 15%-20%.
I think Milwaukee, Buffalo, Providence and Pittsburgh are kind of all in a similar class these days. I think Milwaukee might be pretty close to Providence I’d anyone cares to pull a 50sq Mile piece of Milwaukee out of the city
But they are certainly the class of cities, along with Portland and Sacramento.
I also think you get interesting discussions with Dallas and Atlanta where often their population densities are lacking but just have so many urban amenities (like the core of pretty busy rail systems) they’re in the conversation.
Yea, the after Miami and Honolulu bit gets pretty mixed up.
There's also San Diego, New Orleans, Twin Cities, Denver, St. Louis, Newark (if considered separate) and probably others.
1. This is also about contiguous. Pittsburgh and many places ou mention is less contiguously urban.
2. Manhattan was likely way busier in 1910, with more foot traffic and a greater variety of businesses on any given block. So Id say its a wash, just because it was shorter doesn't mean it was less urban.
What we arent tlaking about is a lot of Pittsburgh is super isolated form other parts of Pittsburgh and much of it isnt rowhomes but rather its more akin to this
My thing is it ends up being 1/2 as dense and it's very not contiguous within its city boundaries with far too many super large non traversable hills to traverse.
Not to be harsh but most of these Providence street views are far from impressive. Its most urban neighborhoods are Federal Hill and a few areas east of Downtown around the Brown campus that you highlighted above. But they add up to about 3 square miles and even they are not all that urban. Once you go more than 2 miles from Downtown, you basically descend into suburbia. Pittsburgh has residential neighborhoods 4-5 miles from Downtown that are far more urban than anything in Providence.
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.
