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.
After looking at another topic with some of the projects slated for Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, I wonder if the end of this decade will see these cities having a more urban contiguous 50 miles than that of older, industrial revolution cities that have had very rough latter 20th century such as Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City and Cincinnati. It seems like a distinct possibility.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-19-2023 at 04:22 PM..
After looking at another topic with some of the projects slated for Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, I wonder if the end of this decade will see these cities having a more urban contiguous 50 miles than that of older, industrial revolution cities that have had very rough latter 20th century such as Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City and Cincinnati. It seems like a distinct possibility.
It will take longer than that.
All 3 have had these plans for years already and none are that far in any of the plans.
Atlanta has really good bones and would probably get to what you are speaking of quickest.
Houston has good bones too. It has a near perfect grid. I saw pictures of Houston in the 69s on a competitor site that showed the grid filled with buildings and couldn't recognize the city. The grid is multiple times bigger than Atlantas and Dallas but it will take eons to get those lots filled with buildings again.
Dallas has those interesting projects and Dallas always think big. If Dallas completed half of the plans they dream up it would blow the other cities away. But they always get watered down. Taking about water, the flood plain is a huge hindrance. There are plans to develop some of the plain into parks so that should help, but the Trinity River is like the hulk. It turns from a mild mannered ditch into a monster of a river.
Because the flood plains run right through downtown and it is unpredictable and wild, I don't think you can get that legacy city core. Maybe if they can come up with a way to keep it filled so that it looks like an urban river, maybe, but coming from the south end it looks like tall buildings in the middle of the prairie.
Either way, the end of the decade is not long enough to have the effect you describe. For example, Houston wants to remove that hing of highways around its downtown and create a greenbelt/ trails looping around downtown. However, that is a 20 year plan.
Atlanta's beltline project has been in the works for . Dallas started decking freeways 10 years ago.
The cities are changing but it's going to take decades
It will take longer than that.
All 3 have had these plans for years already and none are that far in any of the plans.
Atlanta has really good bones and would probably get to what you are speaking of quickest.
Houston has good bones too. It has a near perfect grid. I saw pictures of Houston in the 69s on a competitor site that showed the grid filled with buildings and couldn't recognize the city. The grid is multiple times bigger than Atlantas and Dallas but it will take eons to get those lots filled with buildings again.
Dallas has those interesting projects and Dallas always think big. If Dallas completed half of the plans they dream up it would blow the other cities away. But they always get watered down. Taking about water, the flood plain is a huge hindrance. There are plans to develop some of the plain into parks so that should help, but the Trinity River is like the hulk. It turns from a mild mannered ditch into a monster of a river.
Because the flood plains run right through downtown and it is unpredictable and wild, I don't think you can get that legacy city core. Maybe if they can come up with a way to keep it filled so that it looks like an urban river, maybe, but coming from the south end it looks like tall buildings in the middle of the prairie.
Either way, the end of the decade is not long enough to have the effect you describe. For example, Houston wants to remove that hing of highways around its downtown and create a greenbelt/ trails looping around downtown. However, that is a 20 year plan.
Atlanta's beltline project has been in the works for . Dallas started decking freeways 10 years ago.
The cities are changing but it's going to take decades
I think the relatively rapid growth in these largest sunbelt cities versus the relatively slow growth and even continued loss in some of the older industrial cities already has them not too far off. None of these are close now or at the end of this decade to be where the contiguous most urban 50 square miles of the older industrial cities in the 1950s or earlier were, but I think they will sort of pass each other or be arguably in the same tier when talking about largest contiguous walkable areas this decade.
Taking about water, the flood plain is a huge hindrance. There are plans to develop some of the plain into parks so that should help, but the Trinity River is like the hulk. It turns from a mild mannered ditch into a monster of a river.
Because the flood plains run right through downtown and it is unpredictable and wild, I don't think you can get that legacy city core. Maybe if they can come up with a way to keep it filled so that it looks like an urban river, maybe, but coming from the south end it looks like tall buildings in the middle of the prairie.
Austin had the same problem and solved it with Longhorn Dam in 1960. I have always wondered if that was an option in Dallas and if so, why they haven't done it. I imagine there are good reasons.
I think the relatively rapid growth in these largest sunbelt cities versus the relatively slow growth and even continued loss in some of the older industrial cities already has them not too far off. None of these are close now or at the end of this decade to be where the contiguous most urban 50 square miles of the older industrial cities in the 1950s or earlier were, but I think they will sort of pass each other or be arguably in the same tier when talking about largest contiguous walkable areas this decade.
Yes, you are probably right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereiend
Austin had the same problem and solved it with Longhorn Dam in 1960. I have always wondered if that was an option in Dallas and if so, why they haven't done it. I imagine there are good reasons.
I think someone on here did the Army Corps of engineers advised against it. But he's it would be cool if they could do it. The pictures of downtown taken at flood stage and then digitally enhanced to make the water blue are awesome.
50 square miles is interesting as it's about a 4 mile radius where you'd be walking were you in the center. 4 miles is long for some people, but it's very doable for most, so it's sort of an interesting arbitrary threshold in how that works out. It's also about 7 miles by 7 miles as a rectangle or roughly SF in size (just a little bit less).
I'm chunking out multiple parts of the denser metropolitan areas for the most urban contiguous 50 square miles of land that are non-overlapping with each other, and not insanely gerrymandered and the contiguous meaning being that there is not more than a ten minute / half mile walk from between a residence or publicly open business on one side versus another if going across freeways or bodies of water with fewer connections / pathways getting dinged harder.
1. Manhattan with the Bronx excluding the Fieldston area in the Northwest and the easternmost sections (basically, non-subway served sections)
2. Brooklyn excluding the southeastern section of Brooklyn that are more wetlands and SFH neighborhoods away from the subway though honestly these are quite dense for the US
3. Queens excluding the suburban part of Northeastern Queens away from Flushing due to being less urban (again, also quite dense for the US) and the Rockaways due to not being contiguous
4. Chicago with the Loop and adjacent neighborhoods and then going south a little, west some and north a lot
5. San Francisco minus its islands and with some of Daly City
6. Toronto core including Old Toronto and chunks of York and East York within the current city of Toronto
7. Philadelphia core of Center City, most of South Philadelphia, a large chunk of West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia
8. Montreal core
9. Hudson County approximately east of US Route 9 and some of the lower reaches of Bergen County on Bergen Neck peninsula in New Jersey that is south and east of I-95 excluding wetlands
10. Boston downtown core into densest parts of surrounding urban municipalities
11. Vancouver core removing a bit of Vancover and including a touch of Burnaby
12. Most of Central Los Angeles with some of South Los Angeles and Eastside
13. Westside minus the sprawling, lower density hillsides and including some of Central Los Angeles
14. Washington DC core spreading into some of the denser parts of the adjacent Maryland suburbs such as Silver Spring excluding Arlington and NOVA in general and Southeast Quadrant due to lack of being contiguous
15. Seattle core
16. Baltimore core
17. East Bay complex of mostly flatlands of Oakland and Berkeley
18. Honolulu core
19. Long Beach / Gateway Cities region of Los Angeles
After looking at another topic with some of the projects slated for Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, I wonder if the end of this decade will see these cities having a more urban contiguous 50 miles than that of older, industrial revolution cities that have had very rough latter 20th century such as Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City and Cincinnati. It seems like a distinct possibility.
I would argue other than Detroit, you might already be there.
Like there is no transit corridor remotely as trafficked as The Red/Yellow line in any of those cities. Cincinnati isn’t particularly dense (although it’s densest 50 sq miles likely includes NKY and excludes lots of the city)
I mean at maybe 10sq miles the Rust belt wins cause you got those intact urban neighborhoods but beyond that you either a. Stretch into comparably suburban neighborhoods or b. Rundown mostly vacant urban neighborhoods
50 square miles is interesting as it's about a 4 mile radius where you'd be walking were you in the center. 4 miles is long for some people, but it's very doable for most, so it's sort of an interesting arbitrary threshold in how that works out. It's also about 7 miles by 7 miles as a rectangle or roughly SF in size (just a little bit less).
I'm chunking out multiple parts of the denser metropolitan areas for the most urban contiguous 50 square miles of land that are non-overlapping with each other, and not insanely gerrymandered and the contiguous meaning being that there is not more than a ten minute / half mile walk from between a residence or publicly open business on one side versus another if going across freeways or bodies of water with fewer connections / pathways getting dinged harder.
1. Manhattan with the Bronx excluding the Fieldston area in the Northwest and the easternmost sections (basically, non-subway served sections)
2. Brooklyn excluding the southeastern section of Brooklyn that are more wetlands and SFH neighborhoods away from the subway though honestly these are quite dense for the US
3. Queens excluding the suburban part of Northeastern Queens away from Flushing due to being less urban (again, also quite dense for the US) and the Rockaways due to not being contiguous
4. Chicago with the Loop and adjacent neighborhoods and then going south a little, west some and north a lot
5. San Francisco minus its islands and with some of Daly City
6. Toronto core including Old Toronto and chunks of York and East York within the current city of Toronto
7. Philadelphia core of Center City, most of South Philadelphia, a large chunk of West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia
8. Montreal core
9. Hudson County approximately east of US Route 9 and some of the lower reaches of Bergen County on Bergen Neck peninsula in New Jersey that is south and east of I-95 excluding wetlands
10. Boston downtown core into densest parts of surrounding urban municipalities
Do you have data to show that numbers 4-9 have more than 890k in 50 square miles, like I showed for Boston back in post 308? I believe you, at least for Chicago and SF, but I'd still love to see the data.
Do you have data to show that numbers 4-9 have more than 890k in 50 square miles, like I showed for Boston back in post 308? I believe you, at least for Chicago and SF, but I'd still love to see the data.
Toronto certainly does. It’s probably the 2nd densest city in North America old Toronto is 37.5 sq miles with 798,000 people.
Toronto certainly does. It’s probably the 2nd densest city in North America old Toronto is 37.5 sq miles with 798,000 people.
Philly? I’m not so sure.
The 798k is from the 2016 census. As of 2021 census it is around 840K. In 50 Sq miles would be well over a million (probably around 1.2 million) as Old Toronto is surrounded by other densely populated areas of Toronto including East York, North York and York which have an average density of 14000 ppsm themselves
Last edited by fusion2; 02-01-2023 at 04:09 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.
