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.
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.
Cincinnati has maybe 2.5 Sq miles of “urbanity” then Covington in another 1.5 sq miles. After than it’s much more suburban than anything in Providence. Like Central Falls has a density higher than any sq mile in Cincinnati (actually any Census tract in Cincinnati).
At 50 Sq miles it’s really not even close. Providence has easily an extra 160,000 people in 50 sq miles compared to Cincinnati. And it really shows.
Last edited by btownboss4; 02-07-2023 at 11:06 AM..
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.
Providence is not loaded with single family homes. You may not prefer tenement style housing but all those houses you are showing are multifamily
With that 20% in mind I’d call it a draw. Pittsburgh is pretty consulted to get around and doesn’t feel as contiguous feel like a bunch of boroughs and not super well connected via tensor or walkways although I know some areas in Pittsburgh have steep stairways up canyons/crevices, I took One of the touristy inclines too: it’s a particular type of development I’ve seen in far northern MD and far southern PA since I’ve moved down here.
Don’t get me wrong here Pittsburgh is a better place to live than Providence imo…
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.
Interesting point about household size! I think greater population even through household size can lead to more commercial activities, busier streets and institutions. There's also a question of whether the larger household sizes also means more usable building space to accommodate such.
The Pittsburgh census districts are a pretty good bird's eye view of how the contiguous urbanized core is shaped. You can see how Saw Mill Run Boulevard and its namesake Saw Mill Run waterway along with tracks and other topography is a border of sorts in contiguous urban development--and a fair bit of Pittsburgh proper is on the other side of that border. On the other side of that border is another contiguous urban expanse of some Pittsburgh neighborhoods and Dormot and Mt. Lebanon. You can see that the larger Pittsburgh core also extends along the north shore of the Ohio River to Ben Avon, north of the Allegheny to Sharpsburg and Aspinwall, and east to Wilkinsburg, Edgewood, and Swissvale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
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.
They may be in pretty close weight classes by MSA, but there's still a notable difference in the most urban 50 square miles. Baltimore's MSA is basically in contention with DC's, and DC has taken much of it from a much larger and healthier economy so that it has the commuter threshold and therefore takes those counties, but those counties are often not very urban anyhow, so it sort of muddies the waters to go by MSA there. A similar thing to a lesser degree happens with Providence and Boston and this in some senses takes away from the MSA of Providence though I think there's also an argument that doing so probably had some effect on how built out Providence is. The Providence area does have six commuter rail stations of okay frequency (three of them would be serving what I assume would be the 50 most urban contiguous square miles with one of them just recently opened and another still down for repairs) and a pretty good bus system (as does Pittsburgh) and Pittsburgh's light rail ridership is not all that high and for the stretches into the South Hills is not very rapid unfortunately. I do think an eye test is good, but an eye test over 50 square miles is quite difficult which is why it'd be good to put up data.
I'm not on the side that Providence is above Pittsburgh, but I do think it has narrowed over the last few decades, and I can understand an arguable case for Providence for an area as large as 50 contiguous square miles. I also want to note that the similarities in the debate are *solely* on a few arguments of population loss leading to structural density loss, structural density loss being heaviest in what were among some though not all of the structurally densest parts of the urban core while less structurally dense parts were relatively unscathed, different population loss/growth patterns and how that affects how "bustling" a city is and how that should be a factor weighed alongside structural density, that are applicable to a variety of cities and was referenced as shorthand for these specific arguments, and not that these are completely analogous and that even the analogies that are being used are not to the same degrees.
I'll also note that Providence can be deceiving as the detached residential structures are often multi-family units that take up quite a bit of their lot especially in depth. These from a satellite view might appear as single family homes, but they're actually fairly large multi-family units. There are a lot of these 3-4 floor big boy structures plus basements in the Providence area.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-07-2023 at 12:08 PM..
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.
Pittsburgh’s UA has 1.74 million people in 906 sq/mi. Baltimore’s has 500k more people in 654 sq/mi and that’s not including overlaps with DC or the additional 230k people in the adjacent Bell Air UA. Same goes for MSA.
Baltimore is 50% denser across pretty much all spectrums so in the context of this thread, it’s hard to justify putting them in the same weight class (even accounting for the cities official downtown stature and abandonment in the central core area)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
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 do agree that the Baltimore vs. Seattle debate is not synonymous with the Pittsburgh vs. Providence and they shouldn’t be used in comparison for reasoning.
I think I’m general New England cities get sold short because Triple deckers often look like big houses not apartment blocks.
Like Worcester has 270,000 people or so in 78sq miles. That’s pretty darn close to matching Cincinnati. And Worcester basically drops to legitimately rural towns beyond Shrewsbury and Auburn,
And Worcester isn’t really considered particularly dense. But I’d be pretty surprised if any Rustbelt city other than Buffalo or Milwaukee can significantly beat 206,000 in 37 sq miles.
I also don’t think anyone in the Rustbelt outside Chicago could beat Lawrence’s 90,000 in 7 sq miles. But there are more or less no row homes in Lawrence at all. (and also it’s structurally totally separated from Boston)
Similar to Boston always being considered significantly smaller than Philly when by the 2020 census there isn’t a whole lot of daylight between them. But Boston is wooden, and Philly is brick
I think I’m general New England cities get sold short because Triple deckers often look like big houses not apartment blocks.
Like Worcester has 270,000 people or so in 78sq miles. That’s pretty darn close to matching Cincinnati. And Worcester basically drops to legitimately rural towns beyond Shrewsbury and Auburn,
And Worcester isn’t really considered particularly dense. But I’d be pretty surprised if any Rustbelt city other than Buffalo or Milwaukee can significantly beat 206,000 in 37 sq miles.
I also don’t think anyone in the Rustbelt outside Chicago could beat Lawrence’s 90,000 in 7 sq miles. But there are more or less no row homes in Lawrence at all. (and also it’s structurally totally separated from Boston)
Similar to Boston always being considered significantly smaller than Philly when by the 2020 census there isn’t a whole lot of daylight between them. But Boston is wooden, and Philly is brick
Yea Thai has been mentioned by me once and. Y someone else once.
Again we’re very building in Providence brick we wouldn’t have this convo. People feel urban has to look cramped, brick and contain a certain amount of this or that…
NE in general gets short changed because it’s seen as exclusive, old timey and geographically remote too. It’s not a place people pass through- so when they’re coming there there’s a certain level of expectation. Because it’s a destination.
Providence is not loaded with single family homes. You may not prefer tenement style housing but all those houses you are showing are multifamily
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I'll also note that Providence can be deceiving as the detached residential structures are often multi-family units that take up quite a bit of their lot especially in depth. These from a satellite view might appear as single family homes, but they're actually fairly large multi-family units. There are a lot of these 3-4 floor big boy structures plus basements in the Providence area.
You are both right and I take the point. I certainly think the street view posted by OyCrumbler above is urban. I personally don't find this style of urbanity particularly appealing, and I think Pittsburgh is loaded with more attractive and more urban looking neighborhoods, but it's still urban. However, I was also finding a lot of stuff in Providence looking like this:
Perhaps it's mostly on the fringes of the city and not representative of how most of Providence looks (at least within city limits) so maybe I was being too harsh. But still I don't think my statement that Providence "straddles the line between urban and suburban" is completely off-base, especially if we are talking about 50 sq miles, most of which would be outside of Providence altogether.
You are both right and I take the point. I certainly think the street view posted by OyCrumbler above is urban. I personally don't find this style of urbanity particularly appealing, and I think Pittsburgh is loaded with more attractive and more urban looking neighborhoods, but it's still urban. However, I was also finding a lot of stuff in Providence looking like this:
Perhaps it's mostly on the fringes of the city and not representative of how most of Providence looks (at least within city limits) so maybe I was being too harsh. But still I don't think my statement that Providence "straddles the line between urban and suburban" is completely off-base, especially if we are talking about 50 sq miles, most of which would be outside of Providence altogether.
You can quite literally find neighborhoods that look like that in the middle of Brooklyn.
No ones going to say thats not part of the contiguous urbanized area that is Brooklyn, NY.
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.
