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.
Yea, population density is just one of many measuring sticks, but it's also a factor that probably to some degree correlates with other ones and it's one that should be relatively easy to get numbers on. I think of it as a good starting point. I do think there's potentially a lag time in structural density loss to population loss, but it's definitely true there's structural density loss. Pittsburgh unfortunately has seen quite a bit of structural density loss.
While population density is not the end all be all, I would say trying to use 1944 population density is significantly worse.
While population density is not the end all be all, I would say trying to use 1944 population density is significantly worse.
Streetviews can be cherry-picked, stats can not
Well, I would also say it's likely accurate that structural density loss in the case of Pittsburgh and probably other places probably do notably lag behind and is not quite proportional to population density loss, so there is a point there. Population gain can also stretch ahead of structural density gain which is how some of the very popular cities have these massive housing crunches.
Agreed that streetviews can be cherry-picked especially when we're talking about an area as large as 50 contiguous square miles. That is a hell of a lot of streetviews to try covering.
Anyhow, this tier of cities is probably going to be very contentious as it's a mash-up of Rust Belt titans that have arguments similar to Pittsburgh like St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland, mid-size cities that saw fairly good growth and somewhat more urban policies like SD, Twin Cities, Portland, and Denver, and the densifying cores of the largest Sunbelt cities Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. That's good stuff.
I'm somewhat surprised that I'm not getting more pushback for my ranking of Central LA above DC, or Westside LA above a lot of other things.
I'm somewhat surprised that I'm not getting more pushback for my ranking of Central LA above DC, or Westside LA above a lot of other things.
DC is more classically urban than central LA in the sense theirs more high-rise and right knit road, but Central LA is absolutely massive in scope. 50 sq/mi is a lot of bandwith to cover.
Well, I would also say it's likely accurate that structural density loss in the case of Pittsburgh and probably other places probably do notably lag behind and is not quite proportional to population density loss, so there is a point there. Population gain can also stretch ahead of structural density gain which is how some of the very popular cities have these massive housing crunches.
Agreed that streetviews can be cherry-picked especially when we're talking about an area as large as 50 contiguous square miles. That is a hell of a lot of streetviews to try covering.
Anyhow, this tier of cities is probably going to be very contentious as it's a mash-up of Rust Belt titans that have arguments similar to Pittsburgh like St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland, mid-size cities that saw fairly good growth and somewhat more urban policies like SD, Twin Cities, Portland, and Denver, and the densifying cores of the largest Sunbelt cities Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. That's good stuff.
I'm somewhat surprised that I'm not getting more pushback for my ranking of Central LA above DC, or Westside LA above a lot of other things.
I don't think Cleveland and Detroit have similar arguments to Pittsburgh at all. Pittsburgh had better urban bones than either of those to begin with and has been better preserved as well. It's like comparing Baltimore and Detroit, which I've seen people do a lot on CD and which is ridiculous as they have very little in common from an urban perspective.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I'm somewhat surprised that I'm not getting more pushback for my ranking of Central LA above DC, or Westside LA above a lot of other things.
Because you push this over and over again in multiple threads, and it's gone nowhere. The topic has been belabored to the point where no one feels the need to go back and forth posting street views, and residential density ppsm numbers. It's led to nowhere thus far on this comparison.
Doesn't make any of your points more true, but who has time to defend the same facts regarding the two over and over, with your adamancy on Central LA being "more" urban? One can easily walk around the core of both places, and make their own determinations as to which feels more urban to them.
I don't think Cleveland and Detroit have similar arguments to Pittsburgh at all. Pittsburgh had better urban bones than either of those to begin with and has been better preserved as well. It's like comparing Baltimore and Detroit, which I've seen people do a lot on CD and which is ridiculous as they have very little in common from an urban perspective.
Yea, there are key differences and Cleveland and Detroit both didn't have as densely packed structures *and* were wrecked harder. I do think they end up in a similar tier overall though with Pittsburgh higher up and Cleveland and Detroit lower. I do think if by some miracle Cleveland and Detroit weren't hit with freeways and subsequent destruction and resembled more of its heyday, but Pittsburgh is at is today, then Cleveland and Detroit would be firmly ahead which is part of why they're in about the same tier to me, and I think ordering the ones in these tier is pretty difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Because you push this over and over again in multiple threads, and it's gone nowhere. The topic has been belabored to the point where no one feels the need to go back and forth posting street views, and residential density ppsm numbers. It's led to nowhere thus far on this comparison.
Doesn't make any of your points more true, but who has time to defend the same facts regarding the two over and over, with your adamancy on Central LA being "more" urban? One can easily walk around the core of both places, and make their own determinations as to which feels more urban to them.
Sure, but I was thinking of other people aside from you and MDAllStar. I understand your perspectives on these, and disagreed on several of the points and think that part of that stems from how to take into account an area as large as 50 square miles and how contiguous that can be with DC having a better peak, but running out of steam before getting to a contiguous 50 square miles. I would have thought this would have been a greater point of contention with *other* people though apparently not.
Yea, there are key differences and Cleveland and Detroit both didn't have as densely packed structures *and* were wrecked harder. I do think they end up in a similar tier overall though with Pittsburgh higher up and Cleveland and Detroit lower. I do think if by some miracle Cleveland and Detroit weren't hit with freeways and subsequent destruction and resembled more of its heyday, but Pittsburgh is at is today, then Cleveland and Detroit would be firmly ahead which is part of why they're in about the same tier to me, and I think ordering the ones in these tier is pretty difficult.
.
I just got back from Detroit and it has some good bones but much of it outside the DT core is in such a bad state, it is almost heartbreaking to see. There are some really nice buildings in Detroit and they have a lot of potential if they were rejuvenated. Metro Detroit is pretty wealthy and it is still the second largest metro in the midwest. It would be nice to see some more of that wealth injected back into the core city. A lot of great things could happen there. That said, there is some brand spanking new development going on near the core - pretty nice mid-rise stuff so I think there is some hope.
Yea, there are key differences and Cleveland and Detroit both didn't have as densely packed structures *and* were wrecked harder. I do think they end up in a similar tier overall though with Pittsburgh higher up and Cleveland and Detroit lower. I do think if by some miracle Cleveland and Detroit weren't hit with freeways and subsequent destruction and resembled more of its heyday, but Pittsburgh is at is today, then Cleveland and Detroit would be firmly ahead which is part of why they're in about the same tier to me, and I think ordering the ones in these tier is pretty difficult.
What is your basis for this assertion? No doubt Detroit and Cleveland were vastly more urban in their heyday (especially Detroit), but they also never had the architectural legacy of Pittsburgh so this is pure conjecture not supported by anything. According to this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article -- https://newsinteractive.post-gazette...ric-buildings/ -- as of 1984, 16% of Pittsburgh's historically significant structures had been destroyed (roughly 300 of 1900) with some of the sites redeveloped. This is certainly significant but not as transformative as some make it out. There is a map in the article showing that many of the city's most popular neighborhoods have largely stayed intact.
In any case, I don't get the logic of tiering cities today based on what they would have looked like in their heyday.
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.
Newark alone from an urbanity perspective is probably top 10-15 by itself, separate from Hudson County’s urban area. Yes the Hudson waterfront is the more glamorous and well-known urban area, but the interior of urbanized North Jersey, i.e. the west bank of the Passaic River between Paterson & Newark is also highly urbanized and contiguous in it's urbanity, with some of the most densely populated areas of the US located along the Rt 21 corridor. The urban areas centered around Newark & Paterson combine for a population of 934k in 69 contiguous sq. miles.
What is your basis for this assertion? No doubt Detroit and Cleveland were vastly more urban in their heyday (especially Detroit), but they also never had the architectural legacy of Pittsburgh so this is pure conjecture not supported by anything. According to this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article -- https://newsinteractive.post-gazette...ric-buildings/ -- as of 1984, 16% of Pittsburgh's historically significant structures had been destroyed (roughly 300 of 1900) with some of the sites redeveloped. This is certainly significant but not as transformative as some make it out. There is a map in the article showing that many of the city's most popular neighborhoods have largely stayed intact.
In any case, I don't get the logic of tiering cities today based on what they would have looked like in their heyday.
Historically significant isn't quite the same thing as structural density loss. I can dig these up at some later point, but you can see the kind of destruction that neighorhoods saw in Pittsburgh by zooming in on the satellite views for neighborhoods like the larger Hill District, Garfield, Larimer, Spring Hill, and several others where for some spots they still have the house numbers overlaid on blank lots if they were not redeveloped (though the redevelopment is itself often lower intensity usage like parks or parcels with quite a bit of surface parking lots) like so: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pi...16zL20vMDY4cDI. It's a *lot* of destruction. Detroit and Cleveland's residential vernacular generally weren't quite as dense, but they had fairly dense local main streets that were mostly attached buildings and expansive greater downtown areas that were very densely built and often with quite large, multi-storey buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoYanksGiantsNets
Newark alone from an urbanity perspective is probably top 10-15 by itself, separate from Hudson County’s urban area. Yes the Hudson waterfront is the more glamorous and well-known urban area, but the interior of urbanized North Jersey, i.e. the west bank of the Passaic River between Paterson & Newark is also highly urbanized and contiguous in it's urbanity, with some of the most densely populated areas of the US located along the Rt 21 corridor. The urban areas centered around Newark & Paterson combine for a population of 934k in 69 contiguous sq. miles.
Yea, I think there's definitely a good case for Newark placing fairly high. There's also bits of Hudson County that are very dense and are more separated from Jersey City than they are from Newark.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-13-2023 at 03:36 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.
