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.
Very interesting. Yeah, walkscore is certainly imperfect, and clearly isn't a proxy for structural density.
Pittsburgh on the ground feels much heftier, that's for sure. Even if population density statistics don't bear that out.
Does it feel that much heftier for 50 contiguous square miles though was the question. Also, nobody on the Pittsburgh side has even attempted to do any population density statistics. I don't understand why the city population is to be taken as the basis given that there are obviously very sparsely populated parts of the city and there are also obviously very densely adjacent municipalities that are contiguous with the city's larger urban expanse.
Does it feel that much heftier for 50 contiguous square miles though was the question. Also, nobody on the Pittsburgh side has even attempted to do any population density statistics. I don't understand why the city population is to be taken as the basis given that there are obviously very sparsely populated parts of the city and there are also obviously very densely adjacent municipalities that are contiguous with the city's larger urban expanse.
I wish I had the time/capability to make that kind of careful calculation, but I tend to only have time to pop in-and-out of C-D, let alone analyze those kind of statistics.
I was able to find/calculate what really seemed like a fair estimate of each area's core urban 120 sqmi radius for population yesterday, and Pittsburgh came out ahead marginally by around a 507K to Providence's 480K.
But I agree: I think there is a good case to be made to compare both cities, but I think it would take a good chunk of time to do it the right way.
The West Oakland bit is understandable as the boundary definitions if they're ripping from the same source as Google Maps includes almost half of it as undeveloped ridge. That would even itself out in a larger blob that's not too gerrymandered.
I still think if someone at least made an attempt at a contiguous urban 50 mile blob excising the least dense parts of the city while including adjacent dense municipalities that are part of the large urban expanse, there would be a notably higher population density count.
Isn't that the consistent theme of this Pittsburgh-Providence comparison? You have one city that has both highly urban areas and patches of poorly developed areas and geographic impediments, and another city that is more built-out but with consistently mediocre urbanity, mostly straddling the line between urban and suburban. So back to my Hong Kong analogy.
Those who say that it's similar to the Baltimore-Seattle comparison are wrong. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are essentially in the same tier; in fact Pittsburgh is less ghettofied and has a better ratio of thriving vs abandoned areas. Providence and Seattle on the other hand are at least 2 (if not 3) tiers apart with Seattle far ahead by every urban measure. Seattle, while more suburban than Baltimore, has a plethora of urban nodes and developments throughout the city that simply do not exist in Providence.
Isn't that the consistent theme of this Pittsburgh-Providence comparison? You have one city that has both highly urban areas and patches of poorly developed areas and geographic impediments, and another city that is more built-out but with consistently mediocre urbanity, mostly straddling the line between urban and suburban. So back to my Hong Kong analogy.
Those who say that it's similar to the Baltimore-Seattle comparison are wrong. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are essentially in the same tier; in fact Pittsburgh is less ghettofied and has a better ratio of thriving vs abandoned areas. Providence and Seattle on the other hand are at least 2 (if not 3) tiers apart with Seattle far ahead by every urban measure. Seattle, while more suburban than Baltimore, has a plethora of urban nodes and developments throughout the city that simply do not exist in Providence.
If you think Providence “straddles the line between urban and Suburban” you pretty much believe no midwestern city is urban at all outside central Chicago. Because Providence currently has 10,350 ppsm. (Doesn’t really budge with Central Falls+Pawtucket) Which is comparable to the peak densities of cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit. And significantly higher than Cincinnati and Minneapolis.
Isn't that the consistent theme of this Pittsburgh-Providence comparison? You have one city that has both highly urban areas and patches of poorly developed areas and geographic impediments, and another city that is more built-out but with consistently mediocre urbanity, mostly straddling the line between urban and suburban. So back to my Hong Kong analogy.
Those who say that it's similar to the Baltimore-Seattle comparison are wrong. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are essentially in the same tier; in fact Pittsburgh is less ghettofied and has a better ratio of thriving vs abandoned areas. Providence and Seattle on the other hand are at least 2 (if not 3) tiers apart with Seattle far ahead by every urban measure. Seattle, while more suburban than Baltimore, has a plethora of urban nodes and developments throughout the city that simply do not exist in Providence.
To be completely honest, Baltimore and Pittsburgh are not in the same urban tier.
Pittsburgh has a better ratio of ghetto vs. thriving but outside of a few taller skyscrapers it’s substantially smaller in scope (by built environment) which is reflected by the population/density gap between them.
Pittsburg has what? ~500k in 120 sq/mi
Baltimore has the entire population of Pittsburgh in its inner most ~25 sq/mi and has almost 800k in 120 sq/mi for context.
Isn't that the consistent theme of this Pittsburgh-Providence comparison? You have one city that has both highly urban areas and patches of poorly developed areas and geographic impediments, and another city that is more built-out but with consistently mediocre urbanity, mostly straddling the line between urban and suburban. So back to my Hong Kong analogy.
Those who say that it's similar to the Baltimore-Seattle comparison are wrong. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are essentially in the same tier; in fact Pittsburgh is less ghettofied and has a better ratio of thriving vs abandoned areas. Providence and Seattle on the other hand are at least 2 (if not 3) tiers apart with Seattle far ahead by every urban measure. Seattle, while more suburban than Baltimore, has a plethora of urban nodes and developments throughout the city that simply do not exist in Providence.
It is consistent them to some extent, but I think it makes sense to include some of the greenspace in between otherwise the contiguous bit makes no sense. I think there can be a much denser Pittsburgh urban core that necessarily includes some of these less developed areas (much of it due to topography which *does* affect structural density and how urban a place is), but jettisons the parts of the city that are thoroughly undeveloped or suburban while including densely developed neighboring municipalities. I think that's what keeps on getting taken off the table--Pittsburgh proper as is is not the right comparison basis for the Providence expanse. However, no one has taken a crack at stitching the more apples-to-apples coe for comparison yet.
I don't think the Hong Kong analogy holds that well simply because even with all the green space included as "dead space" for 20 to 30 square miles, the other 20-30 square miles of structurally and population dense Hong Kong stemming from Kowloon is overwhelmingly denser in every regard than Providence. That is not necessarily the case for the Pittsburgh area over 50 square miles which is very evidently far, far less structurally and population dense than Hong Kong in its core.
I don't think people people making the analogy to the earlier Baltimore-Seattle comparison are wrong in terms of the kind of criteria being argued. If you're taking it as if these were the same tier though, then no one has thus far made the argument that Pittsburgh or Providence are on the same tier as Baltimore and Seattle except for your current post of Pittsburgh and Baltimore in the same tier which I think is inaccurate especially on the structural density level given how close to downtown and interspersed with denser rowhome neighborhoods you end up with expanses of detached single family homes (or formerly single family homes as I know at least a few of these have been internally divided) with large setbacks on sometimes fairly large lots. Instead, it's a call back to analogous arguments but to different degrees. Pittsburgh has indeed seen its structural and population density decrease and to a larger extent than Providence has. Providence has notched in recent years a larger population growth spurt and with it likely more new construction but not nearly to the same degree as Seattle has. The analogy is there, but it's not like saying that all things are equivalent. Providence does have urban nodes outside of downtown--just not nearly to the same extent as Seattle, and to be clear, I don't think anyone is arguing that it does.
I still think a reasonable starting point is by first working on what are the 50 most urban contiguous square miles of Pittsburgh and Providence, the rationale for how they are contiguous and not crazily gerrymandered, and pulling up the stats for those in comparison (and yes, population will likely be the easiest for both to pull up, but perhaps some of the more enterprising posters can try pulling up even more stats for that 50 square mile area). I don't think we've even hit that first step. I also think the contiguous bit, especially if we're talking about contiguous for walking, would probably be a good way for the city of Pittsburgh to tackle improving the city as there are parts where it'd be pretty rad if they designed it better for walking and biking.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-07-2023 at 10:07 AM..
If you think Providence “straddles the line between urban and Suburban” you pretty much believe no midwestern city is urban at all outside central Chicago. Because Providence currently has 10,350 ppsm. (Doesn’t really budge with Central Falls+Pawtucket) Which is comparable to the peak densities of cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit. And significantly higher than Cincinnati and Minneapolis.
Yes, I don't consider SFH neighborhoods which overwhelmingly predominate in Providence to be particularly urban. Most of it is very suburban looking to me. The other thing is that, with few exceptions (mostly in the neighborhoods around the Brown campus), I don't see the kind of thriving commercial districts in Providence like you see everywhere in Pittsburgh, even in neighborhoods that score fairly high on Walkscore. And while you are right to say that this typology is prevalent in the Midwest, there is also plenty of real old-school urbanity in cities like Cincinnatti, St Louis, Milwaukee and Minneapolis to name a few. Certainly much more than in Providence.
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 02-07-2023 at 10:22 AM..
A basic visual comparison seems to show comparable scopes and scales of population density in/around the cores of Pitt and Prov, but Providence likely has an edge at 50 sq. miles.
The most dense Census tract I was able to find in either city is in Pittsburgh (#404), at around 29.5K ppsm. Providence's densest tract is 25.6K ppsm. (#16.02).
Both have sizable contiguous swaths above >5,000 ppsm, which I would personally view as the minimum threshold for urbanized population density.
Another factor to note: household size. I think at least part of the discrepancy between more visual urbanity in a lot of Pittsburgh vs. Providence is that on average, there are approximately 2 persons per household, versus 2.5 in Providence. That automatically gives Providence a 25% edge for population density.
To be completely honest, Baltimore and Pittsburgh are not in the same urban tier.
Pittsburgh has a better ratio of ghetto vs. thriving but outside of a few taller skyscrapers it’s substantially smaller in scope (by built environment) which is reflected by the population/density gap between them.
Pittsburg has what? ~500k in 120 sq/mi
Baltimore has the entire population of Pittsburgh in its inner most ~25 sq/mi and has almost 800k in 120 sq/mi for context.
Well, in terms of weight class, Baltimore and Pittsburgh are within about 20% of each other in MSA and urban area population. Whether that puts them in the same tier is a matter of opinion. That may be a subject for another thread.
The point I am making is that the analogy to the Baltimore vs Seattle comparison is totally off. When people compare Baltimore and Seattle -- where Baltimore presumably plays the role of Pittsburgh and Seattle the role of Providence -- while Baltimore may have better urban bones overall, there are plenty of good arguments to be made for Seattle -- it is a bigger urban area, bigger MSA, much better downtown, has lots of busy urban nodes, lots of new development, rapid transit and overall it's been going gangbusters the last couple of decades. I dont see any of these arguments for Providence, which is smaller than Pittsburgh by virtually every measure, has no rapid transit (Pittsburgh does), has a smaller downtown, few commercial districts outside of downtown, and hasn't seen anything in terms of new development like Seattle (or Pittsburgh for that matter). The only arguments for Providence, insofar as I can see, is that it is more consistently built out and has a higher population density. I don't find these arguments particularly compelling when you weigh them against everything pulling in Pittsbirgh's direction... as well as the simple eye test.
I don’t get it often on this site we discuss how urban LA is even thought it extremely SFH. But it’s held up as the unquestioned 2nd most urban city after NYC.
We most of Providence/Pawtucket/Central Falls is 2-3 family homes not SFHS (which is the case in Pittsburgh). Consistently.
Duderinno- what are the precise number of people per household?
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.
