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.
I believe it's possible that Baltimore and Pittsburgh are in roughly the same tier, but Baltimore would likely still be above Baltimore since if you're subtracting out 11 square miles of Pittsburgh and then adding in dense inner ring Pittsburgh suburbs, then it would make sense to do the same with Baltimore as well. Also, the topic is about 50 square miles.
My thoughts are that Baltimore can probably be placed around the top of a tier that includes Newark (assuming Bergen Neck peninsula is its own 50 square miles not included with Newark), Twin Cities, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Portland, Miami, Oakland/East Bay and perhaps a few others such as Denver. I think the next spacing above Baltimore is probably Seattle, but the difference is now significant enough that Seattle might be towards the bottom of the next tier up.
I think figuring out that tier is an interesting one as is the next tier down where I think a lot of industrial behemoths of the early 20th century that had seen an even rougher decimation than Pittsburgh vie with the densifying centers of the three much larger (by urban area) Sunbelt areas, and state capital/college town combinations in more northern areas like Columbus and Indianapolis, maybe Madison which punches well above its weight.
So my question is- with Providence at 383,000 over 50 square miles still above the densest 50 square miles airwave could calculate for Pittsburgh (350k)... Is it in that tier as well? and if not, why not? I dont doubt a good explanation could be made.
So my question is- with Providence at 383,000 over 50 square miles still above the densest 50 square miles airwave could calculate for Pittsburgh (350k)... Is it in that tier as well? and if not, why not? I dont doubt a good explanation could be made.
Yea, I think there can be an argument made for it on the lower end of the tier for 50 square miles especially as Providence and its surrounding municipalities all grew in population from the 2010 to 2020 census (something like 20K-25K people for what would be the densest 50 square miles) which I assume probably came with at least some modicum of new construction. I think the argument would have been tough in 2010 when both Baltimore and Pittsburgh had larger leads on population.
I do wonder what the daytime populations of these places would be though, as Pittsburgh is arguably a much stronger economic and jobs center than Providence and it's the largest city around for quite a large region in a way that Providence is less so due to proximity of Boston (and for Baltimore, the proximity of DC). Factoring that in would also be interesting for comparisons of 50 square mile secondary areas for the larger metropolitan areas like the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and New York City like the western San Gabriel Valley for LA or Bergen Neck peninsula or Staten Island for NYC. I did passingly mention these with Newark and the like, and this is where I think questions about daytime population, visitor numbers, and structural density/office space might matter. Like, should Staten Island be in this tier? It has heavy rail rapid transit, a comparatively large bus system, walkable neighborhoods that probably have more mixed use and access to retail/commerce for more people than most of the others in this tier, and a density number that's probably greater than Baltimore's for 50 square miles as you can take out 8 square miles from Staten Island on its western side while hardly budging the ~500k resident population, but a huge amount of its population likely works or goes to school elsewhere (namely Manhattan, but close by parts of NJ and Brooklyn as well) and proportionally a very small number of people come in from elsewhere whether as visitors for nightlife or shopping or as commuters. Without including daytime numbers and other factors, but just going be residential density, Los Angeles and its suburbs probably has multiple areas within this tier and the one below it and with Central LA, the Westside, and South LA arguably in the tier above. Doing this split also probably means needing another tier between NYC and the ones below (Chicago, SF, Philadelphia, Boston, DC, and then arguably Central LA, Westside LA, and Seattle) since you'd have a Manhattan plus adjacent parts of the Bronx as one clump that is much denser than 50 square miles of Brooklyn and Western Queens but which in turn are also much denser in regards to residences and structures than the centers of those others mentioned.
I did read that they're expanding parking at the new Central Falls/Pawtucket station which is sad as I was hoping that they'd do more mixed-use development instead.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-14-2023 at 12:50 PM..
Yea, I think there can be an argument made for it on the lower end of the tier for 50 square miles especially as Providence and its surrounding municipalities all grew in population from the 2010 to 2020 census (something like 20K-25K people for what would be the densest 50 square miles) which I assume probably came with at least some modicum of new construction. I think the argument would have been tough in 2010 when both Baltimore and Pittsburgh had larger leads on population.
I do wonder what the daytime populations of these places would be though, as Pittsburgh is arguably a much stronger economic and jobs center than Providence and it's the largest city around for quite a large region in a way that Providence is less so due to proximity of Boston (and for Baltimore, the proximity of DC). Factoring that in would also be interesting for comparisons of 50 square mile secondary areas for the larger metropolitan areas like the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and New York City like the western San Gabriel Valley for LA or Bergen Neck peninsula or Staten Island for NYC. I did passingly mention these with Newark and the like, and this is where I think questions about daytime population, visitor numbers, and structural density/office space might matter. Like, should Staten Island be in this tier? It has heavy rail rapid transit, a comparatively large bus system, walkable neighborhoods that probably have more mixed use and access to retail/commerce for more people than most of the others in this tier, and a density number that's probably greater than Baltimore's for 50 square miles as you can take out 8 square miles from Staten Island on its western side while hardly budging the ~500k resident population, but a huge amount of its population likely works or goes to school elsewhere (namely Manhattan, but close by parts of NJ and Brooklyn as well) and proportionally a very small number of people come in from elsewhere whether as visitors for nightlife or shopping or as commuters. Without including daytime numbers and other factors, but just going be residential density, Los Angeles and its suburbs probably has multiple areas within this tier and the one below it and with Central LA, the Westside, and South LA arguably in the tier above. Doing this split also probably means needing another tier between NYC and the ones below (Chicago, SF, Philadelphia, Boston, DC, and then arguably Central LA, Westside LA, and Seattle) since you'd have a Manhattan plus adjacent parts of the Bronx as one clump that is much denser than 50 square miles of Brooklyn and Western Queens but which in turn are also much denser in regards to residences and structures than the centers of those others mentioned.
I did read that they're expanding parking at the new Central Falls/Pawtucket station which is sad as I was hoping that they'd do more mixed-use development instead.
The MBTA doesn't get involved in any type of mixed use/residential whatever. And I dont think the government of Pawtucket nor Central Falls really has the adeptness to spearhead that sort of thing. The Private sector is focused on redeveloping Providence proper. Im never really in downtown providence during the work week to see what that looks like but I dont imagine its hugely different. However Providence' neighborhoods are pretty vibrant full of small businesses and fully occupied. A good amount of foot traffic in all areas. And some really vibrant festivals like PVD Fest and Day Trill to supplement more regularly programing like WaterFire.
The MBTA doesn't get involved in any type of mixed use/residential whatever. And I dont think the government of Pawtucket nor Central Falls really has the adeptness to spearhead that sort of thing. The Private sector is focused on redeveloping Providence proper. Im never really in downtown providence during the work week to see what that looks like but I dont imagine its hugely different. However Providence' neighborhoods are pretty vibrant full of small businesses and fully occupied. A good amount of foot traffic in all areas. And some really vibrant festivals like PVD Fest and Day Trill to supplement more regularly programing like WaterFire.
Yea, and I think it's nuts that the station is essentially a park and ride station. I wish it was more forward-looking.
I do feel like Providence has a good buzz going, though the freeway trapping downtown is awful. If they at least capped the damn thing from Atwells to Point St, it'd be a big step up. Also, a cap on Huntington Expressway from Dean St to Westminster St.
I calculated it by adding up the adjacent census tracts manually, so it's not just a guess... it's based off the real data. I would say that both cities definitely are in the same tier.
I did not use the circle radius method which is wildly inaccurate for an region like Pittsburgh that does not have conventional development patterns due to the extreme topography.
Which would still leave Pittsburgh ~70k shy of Baltimore (with zero land adjustments).
You can carve up any city to increase density by removing land that can't be developed or isn't zoned for residential. If you were to remove just Helen Delich Bentley Port/Hawkins Point (all of which are contiguous) and substituted them for Dundalk or Towson, Baltimore would have +630k in a shade over 80 sq/mi.
Which would still leave Pittsburgh ~70k shy of Baltimore (with zero land adjustments).
You can carve up any city to increase density by removing land that can't be developed or isn't zoned for residential. If you were to remove just Helen Delich Bentley Port/Hawkins Point (all of which are contiguous) and substituted them for Dundalk or Towson, Baltimore would have 630-640k in a shade over 80 sq/mi.
Yea, I did say that if you did the same with Baltimore it'd come out better as well.
I am curious about seeing what 50 densest contiguous and not crazily gerrymandered square miles of Baltimore would be like.
Just to be clear, I don't think his argument was that Pittsburgh would come out denser in the 50 square miles, but instead that the edge Baltimore has isn't so massive that it can't be argued they aren't in the same tier even though Baltimore and Pittsburgh would likely be in the upper end and lower end of the tier, respectively. I do think that as the square miles go further out from more than 50 square miles, things are likely increasingly in Baltimore's favor, and in regards to the next entry of Seattle, to some extent, less in favor compared to Baltimore because a large bulk of Seattle's massive boom in the last couple of decades were highly concentrated along specific neighborhoods and corridors that were in the greater downtown area and a few secondary centers within the city like Ballard, University District, Green Lake, Northgate, and Beacon Hill. The region as a whole also grew a lot, but those are often in secondary centers that are not part of Seattle proper and quite a ways from the denser parts of Seattle such as downtown Bellevue or Richmond.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-14-2023 at 01:48 PM..
Yea, I did say that if you did the same with Baltimore it'd come out better as well.
I am curious about seeing what 50 densest contiguous and not crazily gerrymandered square miles of Baltimore would be like.
Just to be clear, I don't think his argument was that Pittsburgh would come out denser in the 50 square miles, but instead that the edge Baltimore has isn't so massive that it can't be argued they aren't in the same tier even though Baltimore and Pittsburgh would likely be in the upper end and lower end of the tier, respectively.
If you use population radius tools (which includes swaths of dystopian West Baltimore neighborhoods), Baltimore has roughly ~450k in its inner most 50 sq/mi. Is it objectively tier dividing like SF, Philly or Boston? definitely not... but an extra +100k people at that scale is substantial.
If Pittsburgh is in the same tier as Baltimore (off of population) so is Providence and no one would categorize those two cities as being in the same ballpark in terms of urban environment/scale.
If you use population radius tools (which includes swaths of dystopian West Baltimore neighborhoods), Baltimore has roughly ~500k in its inner most 50 sq/mi. Baltimore is roughly 30% denser than Pittsburgh at the 50 sq/mi metric. Is it objectively tier dividing like SF, Philly or Boston? No... but an extra 150k people at that scale is substantial.
If Pittsburgh is in the same tier as Baltimore (off of population) so is Providence and no one would categorize those two cities as being in the same ballpark in terms of urban environment.
I don't think the question was necessarily built environment as there are obvious differences, but I disagree that in regards to being urban they are in different ballparks. You just had earlier on pages of arguments for and against them being in the same ballpark so I don't think what you said is going to be agreed upon by all or even a majority when you're talking about 50 square miles.
I can agree with it being substantial, I think it's basically in a grey zone where there can be a reasonable argument either way for being in different ends of the same tier or a separate tier entirely. This also isn't static. I think in 2010, the argument that Providence 50 square miles and Baltimore 50 square miles being in the same tier would have been pretty obviously not to most people, but the changes wrought in the decade after and likely continuing to some degree this decade makes it more reasonable though given the still existing difference, it's an argument about being in the same tier rather than Providence being put above Baltimore.
Remember, in the 50 most urban contiguous square miles, Baltimore didn't just decrease in population (and likely did so in some of the most urban and densely populated of its 50 square miles rather than the less dense outer areas that would not count in the 50 square miles)--it also likely decreased in structural density especially if you're subtracting vacant properties that are dilapidated to the point where they are unlikely to be rehabilitated. It may have decreased in retail density and even job density. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh held steady in population and likely increased in structural density and Providence likely increased in both and they both did this mostly in their most urban 50 square miles as Pittsburgh's loss in outer areas were offset by density increases in downtown and the East End.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-14-2023 at 02:16 PM..
Interesting, which tool are you using? Does this yield a land area count? Is it 2020 census numbers? Does it have to be just radius?
It certainly passes the sniff test. Baltimore only has 585k in 81 square miles. With no highly dense suburbs abutting it.
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.
