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.
Pittsburgh is more urban within 50 sq miles even if only half of it is well-developed because those 20 or 30 sq miles are much more urban than Providence .
Do you have numbers to back this up? I can try to pull some later. Just curious.
Can you provide a source for that calculation? I just don't know how that would be possible.
I think it's also important to note that any threshold--whether it's 10, 25, 50, or 100 square miles--may provide different rankings in each case for density, which is why this conversation can be a bit subjective and arbitrary depending on the parameters of "urban."
I mean, I just used the Free Map Tool quickly to get a reasonable estimate at about 10km/6mi radius (120 square miles), which really does get at the core urban areas pretty well, and Pittsburgh led with 508K to Providence's 484K.
It has everything to do with "cut off."
It's very easy just add Providence Pawtucket and Central Falls. it's not something that needs a source really. Its been this way for a long time.
You've got to more than double the criteria here for Pittsburgh to pull ahead. Why is this the Hill to die on? Its such a large imbalance.
Do you have numbers to back this up? I can try to pull some later. Just curious.
Yea, I think judging by this list of the 90 neighborhoods, and the fact that Pittsburgh remained mostly static in population though probably with some internal changes that'd likely favor already denser areas, you can see that several of the neighborhoods further out from the core are actually quiteabit less denselypopulatedthan the Pittsburgh city average while thereareneighboringmunicipalitiesevenwitha loss from 2010 to 2020 that are equivalent or higher than the city average.
Do you have numbers to back this up? I can try to pull some later. Just curious.
By numbers you mean population density? As I mentioned upthread, I consider current population pretty irrelevant. At its peak, Pittsburgh had a population of 676k in 55 sq miles and the urban bones that supported that population density are still very much intact. As a result, you've got a plethora of highly urban neighborhoods stretching up to 5 miles from downtown (Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Shadyside, East Liberty, South Side Flats, etc) that simply do not exist in Providence. If you put together Providence with neighboring towns to get up to 50 sq miles you would be somewhere in mid-400k peak population. These are not really cities in the same tier, urban or otherwise.
By numbers you mean population density? As I mentioned upthread, I consider current population pretty irrelevant. At its peak, Pittsburgh had a population of 676k in 55 sq miles and the urban bones that supported that population density are still very much intact. As a result, you've got a plethora of highly urban neighborhoods stretching up to 5 miles from downtown (Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Shadyside, East Liberty, South Side Flats, etc) that simply do not exist in Providence. If you put together Providence with neighboring towns to get up to 50 sq miles you would be somewhere in mid-400k peak population. These are not really cities in the same tier, urban or otherwise.
All we gotta do is gas up the DeLorean, head back to 1953, and Pittsburgh beats Providence. Easy. Lol…
But in all seriousness this is worse than Baltimore in terms of % population loss at a certain point. You “break†enough of your “urban bones†they get cleared out and it’s no longer useful.
In the Baltimore-Seattle case the density is much closer than PGH PVD, that’s why that it’s closer than this comparison.
This should be a non-contest… but again I think the wooden vernacular of Providence is a detriment to its outward appearance of “urbanity†for some people: like I said earlier were it more brick-we’d be having a different convo.
All we gotta do is gas up the DeLorean, head back to 1953, and Pittsburgh beats Providence. Easy. Lol…
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.
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.
Well people are about 100x wealthier than in 1910 so fewer people demand far more services so it made up for it. But that is true for the entire county. I doubt even Detroit has fewer restaurants than in 1910. Plus it helps most of those people moved to like Queens or Jersey City not Atlanta or something . So they still frequent Manhattan. For work, for pleasure etc. while most of those Pittsburghers (and Clevelanders) are *gone*
But I also would imagine Manhattan is less busy than it was in 1910. On like Weekends.
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.
I don't think you can ignore population density entirely though even if you were to talk about structural density. Pittsburgh's loss of population did indeed come with structural density loss even if there is a bit of lag time. Larimer is structurally less dense than it used to be. California-Kirklade on the other side of the tracks from Manchester that you posted earlier is structurally less dense than it used to be (and Manchester is, too, but not hit quite as hard though you can see on this streetview one side of how it used to be versus how some of the rebuilding went towards less dense and arguably less urban structures). The various parts of the Hill District are also less structurally dense than they used to be and the freeway that cut it off from downtown also destroyed quite a bit and then the stadium that was put in place (and now gone) and its massive parking lots are also a loss of structural density. The buildings torn down in the Strip District for parking lots were a loss of structural density (though it's been coming back with new, and very resident-focused new construction so that's nice).
I also don't think structural density should be the only barometer either. A mausoleum can have a lot of structures, but it's dead and if no one comes to visit, it's even more dead. I think at least trying to get population density is a good start because it likely has at least a rough correlation with structural density and overall urbanity.
I don't think you can ignore population density entirely though even if you were to talk about structural density. Pittsburgh's loss of population did indeed come with structural density loss even if there is a bit of lag time. Larimer is structurally less dense than it used to be. The various parts of the Hill District are also less structurally dense than they used to be and the freeway that cut it off from downtown also destroyed quite a bit and then the stadium that was put in place (and now gone) and its massive parking lots are also a loss of structural density. The buildings torn down in the Strip District for parking lots were a loss of structural density (though it's been coming back with new, and very resident-focused new construction so that's nice).
I also don't think structural density should be the only barometer either. A mausoleum can have a lot of structures, but it's dead and if no one comes to visit, it's even more dead. I think at least trying to get population density is a good start because it likely has at least a rough correlation with structural density and overall urbanity.
These are fair points, and certainly there were some areas in Pittsburgh that took a hit, but on the whole its urban bones and most of its best and densest neighborhoods have stayed intact. We are not talking about Detroit or Cleveland or St Louis here. Also, as you note, there has been a lot of new construction and gentrification projects that have arguably more than offset this. Look at projects like Bakery Square or SouthSide Works, for example.
I am not saying that population density is totally irrelevant, but it needs to be considered in a nuanced and contextual way, and as just one part of the overall picture when we are talking about "most urban".
These are fair points, and certainly there were some areas in Pittsburgh that took a hit, but on the whole its urban bones and most of its best and densest neighborhoods have stayed intact. We are not talking about Detroit or Cleveland or St Louis here. Also, as you note, there has been a lot of new construction and gentrification projects that have arguably more than offset this. Look at projects like Bakery Square or SouthSide Works, for example.
I am not saying that population density is totally irrelevant, but it needs to be considered in a nuanced and contextual way, and as just one part of the overall picture when we are talking about "most urban".
Its best as in its wealthiest neighborhoods of the mid-20th century stayed intact and that goes for structurally dense rowhome neighborhoods with lots of mixed use as well as neighborhoods with detached single family homes with fairly large lots and setbacks sometimes on winding streets. Some of its densest neighborhoods, oftentimes not its wealthiest, were the hardest hit and lost the most structural density. If you looked at images of the Hill District prior to the freeway cutting it off from downtown or fairly shortly afterwards, it was a very densely built neighborhood as were several of the less well-to-do densely built rowhome neighborhoods in Pittsburgh that are now much less dense. Pittsburgh did in fact lose quite a bit of structure and the new construction is unlikely to have offset that except for maybe in number of legal housing units due to single rowhomes being "one" housing unit even if it had bedrooms and lots of common space for seven people being technically equivalent in housing units to a single small studio unit in a larger building.
I agree going for nuances are good, though it's somewhat hard to get all the data for these nuances. I do think that trying for at least population density is at least a relatively easy start, but certainly not where it should stop.
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.
