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.
My guess is they are referring to it is very urban, dense and walkable.
There are only three cities in the USA with over 1 million people and a density of over 10,000 sq. ft. per person.
NYC, CHI, PHL
I know, it's the same as every other thread on CD. If it doesn't fit the old school city design then it's just not a real city... Yawn, tired and outdated argument TBH.
I know, it's the same as every other thread on CD. If it doesn't fit the old school city design then it's just not a real city... Yawn, tired and outdated argument TBH.
I would not classify it as outdated.
I would say suburban sprawl, and urban density are legitimate ways to compare metro areas and urban cores.
It is a leg down, when an area has too much sprawl.
Everything looks new now in many sunbelt cities, but that sprawl will come at a price down the road, when the infrastructure is crumbling in 50+ years. Most people do not care who live in those areas now, because they will not be part of that problem.
Maybe this is why the older cities look down on it? I am not sure, because they understand the highlights of dense and more walkable cores.
I would say suburban sprawl, and urban density are legitimate ways to compare metro areas and urban cores.
It is a leg down, when an area has too much sprawl.
Everything looks new now in many sunbelt cities, but that sprawl will come at a price down the road, when the infrastructure is crumbling in 50+ years. Most people do not care who live in those areas now, because they will not be part of that problem.
Maybe this is why the older cities look down on it? I am not sure, because they understand the highlights of dense and more walkable cores.
I'd call it outdated because for the last 50 years American's have supported a lifestyle more oriented towards Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Las Vegas etc... versus the traditional urban city design. I'm not saying it's my preference but the convenience, having some space and with more people working from home why do we need to be piled on top of each other?
As for the infrastructure comment, this is where Phoenix being mis-understood comes in. As of the 2010 census, which Phoenix has probably increased since then, Phoenix urban density stood at 3,524 people per square mile versus 3,164 in a big urban city like Chicago. The Philadelphia urban area density is less than Phoenix at 2,164.
One big difference is density declining from the urban core, while central Phoenix doesn't hit high density levels the fall off as you move it is almost non-existent. Density in the metro area is nearly uniform minus some higher end or rural areas. This means if your funding can support infrastructure for density of 3500 or so people per square mile then you're in good shape..
I'd call it outdated because for the last 50 years American's have supported a lifestyle more oriented towards Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Las Vegas etc... versus the traditional urban city design. I'm not saying it's my preference but the convenience, having some space and with more people working from home why do we need to be piled on top of each other?
As for the infrastructure comment, this is where Phoenix being mis-understood comes in. As of the 2010 census, which Phoenix has probably increased since then, Phoenix urban density stood at 3,524 people per square mile versus 3,164 in a big urban city like Chicago. The Philadelphia urban area density is less than Phoenix at 2,164.
One big difference is density declining from the urban core, while central Phoenix doesn't hit high density levels the fall off as you move it is almost non-existent. Density in the metro area is nearly uniform minus some higher end or rural areas. This means if your funding can support infrastructure for density of 3500 or so people per square mile then you're in good shape..
I think LA is the largest example to look as a case study at the flaw in your theory above.
Phoenix really did not start to grow to over the 1 Million Mark until around 2000.
Prior to that, and most other sunbelt cities, growth was happening, but between the Mid 90s and 2020 is where you have seen the most substantial growth in nearly every sunbelt city.
Most of it has occurred within the past twenty years or so.
LA saw the earliest cycle of this explosive growth with a uniformity of single family homes and sprawling growth starting in the 60s/70s, and it was at an alarming growth rate. Some 50+ years before Phoenix saw any really big crazy growth.
Now LA is going through some major growing pains as a result. A lack of density has meant housing costs have skyrocketed. Highway infrastructure is crumbling, and outside of the very exclusive areas of LA, most of it looks very dated and grimey/gritty because it was uniformly constructed in the same era and the buildings all uniformly in the metro look quite old and dated and in disrepair.
Whereas the big difference with the built environments of the legacy cities, is its "urban areas" are much more diversified in built environment, built timelines, and overall ability to address infrastructure challenges.
Another item you are not considering is built environment. Many of the older urban areas were built around transit (pre auto) and therefore have an abundance of walkable communities, that all are centered around transit use.
This is seen as an attractive urban amenity that most people desire. It builds community, health and wellness, safety, QOL, place identity etc.
Suburban strip malls have much to be left desired in the urban form. Also the City of Phoenix is not even half as dense and barely a quarter as dense as the City of Philadelphia. Therefore the center of place and identity really gets lost.
I honestly find Scottsdale to be the most vibrant community in Phoenix, and that is not considered to even be in the city. Therefore the core of the city really does not exist, and its amenities really get lost. IMO.
I think LA is the largest example to look as a case study at the flaw in your theory above.
Phoenix really did not start to grow to over the 1 Million Mark until around 2000.
Prior to that, and most other sunbelt cities, growth was happening, but between the Mid 90s and 2020 is where you have seen the most substantial growth in nearly every sunbelt city.
Most of it has occurred within the past twenty years or so.
LA saw the earliest cycle of this explosive growth with a uniformity of single family homes and sprawling growth starting in the 60s/70s, and it was at an alarming growth rate. Some 50+ years before Phoenix saw any really big crazy growth.
Now LA is going through some major growing pains as a result. A lack of density has meant housing costs have skyrocketed. Highway infrastructure is crumbling, and outside of the very exclusive areas of LA, most of it looks very dated and grimey/gritty because it was uniformly constructed in the same era and the buildings all uniformly in the metro look quite old and dated and in disrepair.
Whereas the big difference with the built environments of the legacy cities, is its "urban areas" are much more diversified in built environment, built timelines, and overall ability to address infrastructure challenges.
Another item you are not considering is built environment. Many of the older urban areas were built around transit (pre auto) and therefore have an abundance of walkable communities, that all are centered around transit use.
This is seen as an attractive urban amenity that most people desire. It builds community, health and wellness, safety, QOL, place identity etc.
Suburban strip malls have much to be left desired in the urban form. Also the City of Phoenix is not even half as dense and barely a quarter as dense as the City of Philadelphia. Therefore the center of place and identity really gets lost.
I honestly find Scottsdale to be the most vibrant community in Phoenix, and that is not considered to even be in the city. Therefore the core of the city really does not exist, and its amenities really get lost. IMO.
Not sure I'm following your LA comparisons, LA is the densest urban area in the country at 7000 people per square mile in 2010...
Of course density has benefits, as I stated this isn't my preference just the reality of population shifts in the last 50 years, not more. There are plenty of benefits to a more suburban lifestyle as well, affordability, some breathing room, places to park your car for common daily life activities. It's also not all or nothing, you may think Scottsdale is the most urban area in Phoenix I'd argue Mill Ave area of Tempe has Scottsdale beat and is growing denser by the day. Downtown Phoenix is also evolving almost daily, with something like 13 cranes up right now.
There is no pre-determined density level that must be met to have an portions of your city that offer urban walk-able environments for those who so desire it.
Philly, any day. It's a real city with the kind of amenities a large city should have. It's very diverse but still has some of the European sensibility from large scale European immigration in the early 20th century. It has history and romance that Phoenix simply doesn't. I really like its proximity to NYC and other East Coast cities. Summers not too hot, winters not too cold.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 01-19-2021 at 07:45 AM..
Phoenix really did not start to grow to over the 1 Million Mark until around 2000.
Prior to that, and most other sunbelt cities, growth was happening, but between the Mid 90s and 2020 is where you have seen the most substantial growth in nearly every sunbelt city.
Most of it has occurred within the past twenty years or so.
LA saw the earliest cycle of this explosive growth with a uniformity of single family homes and sprawling growth starting in the 60s/70s, and it was at an alarming growth rate. Some 50+ years before Phoenix saw any really big crazy growth.
Metro Phoenix went from 1.6 million residents to 3.2 million residents in 1980 - 2000. I would certainly call a gain of 1.6 million people substantial growth.
There is no pre-determined density level that must be met to have an portions of your city that offer urban walk-able environments for those who so desire it.
You're correct--there's no hard-and-fast density level to create a walkable environment, although there's an obvious correlation between the two.
The fact of the matter is the built environment is a critical factor when you're trying to create an environment that's ideal for pedestrians, and that's based on the exclusion of cars to the extent possible.
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.
