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.
Right. I think the point about population density has been over-discussed at this point. As you and the data indicate, Philadelphia has a notably more densely populated city proper/environs compared to DC. Not a "blowout" certainly, but it is a fact of the matter.
I'm much more inclined to go along with the hair-splitting about the comparative densities of the built environment over comparatively large areas in/around DC and Philly, which is an actual debate.
The built environment of both cities is heavily impacted by their land use. DC is a job center and Philadelphia is not which actually answers the population density question.
The built environment of both cities is heavily impacted by their land use. DC is a job center and Philadelphia is not which actually answers the population density question.
Um, Philadelphia is a job center, just not as large a center as Washington.
And let's not forget that Washington has one huge employer that dwarfs all others and isn't going anywhere else. Philadelphia, OTOH, has a slew of major employers, none of which employ anywhere near the number of people that one employer does.
But how does this answer the population density question if Philadelphia has a denser population? Some of that underutilized land in Philadelphia represents factories and other small employers that haven't been replaced by others. And there are also a good number of vacant lots on which houses once stood, more proportionally than in the District. And yet given all this, Philadelphia's population density is still higher than Washington's. Seems to me like this city could add tens of thousands of new jobs and not displace a single resident, which I think is what you are arguing that all those government and other jobs in Washington do.
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 MDAllstar
It’s true that DC becomes suburban much faster than Philadelphia, however, if someone is visiting Philadelphia and DC for the first time and has to either walk, scooter, or drive through the urban core, would they really think Philadelphia is larger than DC? The intensity of DC’s core is lower than Center City, but the core itself is probably twice the size and soon will be 3-4 times larger. I don’t think someone walking from Georgetown to Union Market or Columbia Heights to the Wharf and then over to Navy Yard would think Philadelphia feels like a larger city.
On a side note, the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River just opened and for the first time, I can say DC feels different coming from the south into the city. Buzzard Point is booming with development and the traffic circles which will be like Dupont Circle on both sides of the bridge are going to be breathtaking. They are still under construction though. I think visitors will be pleased with how that part of the city is changing.
Now, onto development across the Anacostia River in Ward 7 and 8.
Yep. And to follow up on that point of "DC becoming more suburban faster". Just as the others are pointing to what could be cherry picked or not, the point of DC's intensity going into suburbia could be cherry picked the other direction. Downtown Silver Spring for example is more urban than the DC proper neighborhood it's across the street from, same for Friendship Heights, and other areas along the DC border along Eastern Ave. So you're in essence expanding out into the "suburbs" but it's more dense building and housing than the arbitrary border depending on which side of DC we're talking.
After doing a little adding, it's become apparent that San Francisco-Oakland and immediate surroundings are like a perfect match for Philadelphia proper as far as size and density...
Philadelphia, PA
Area: 134.4
2020 Population: 1,603,797(11,933 density per sq mile)
2010 Population: 1,526,006(11,354 density per sq mile)
2010-2020 Pop Change: +77,771
2010 Pop Growth Rate: +5.10%
San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City,
Alameda, Emeryville & Piedmont, CA
Area: 134.2 sq miles
2020 Population: 1,644,286(12,252 density per sq mile)
2010 Population: 1,501,155(11,185 density per sq mile)
2010-2020 Pop Change: +143,131
2010-2020 Pop Growth Rate: +9.53%
If actually combined into a single city, San Francisco at 134.2 sq miles would be the nation's 5th largest city by population.
Rank City, State....2020 Pop(10yr growth)(density per sq mile)
1 New York, NY................8,804,190(+7.69%)(29,298 density)
2 Los Angeles, CA............3,898,747(+2.80%)(8,304 density)
3 Chicago, IL...................2,746,388(+1.88%)(12,061 density)
4 Houston, TX..................2,304,580(+9.77%)(3,599 density) 5 San Francisco, CA......1,644,286(+9.53%)(12,252 density)
6 Phoenix, AZ..................1,608,139(+11.24%)(3,105 density)
7 Philadelphia, PA.............1,603,797(+5.10%)(11,933 density)
Anyhow, this is very interesting. I am amazed that we hung in there with Houston as far as growth. And Philadelphia itself grew at a very healthy clip too, so kudos.
I actually would never want a single city like that, we dont need people from The City telling us in the east bay what to do, yuck.
Last edited by 18Montclair; 10-12-2021 at 01:28 AM..
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.
