Northeast Megalopolis vs. California's Urbanized Areas: How Dense is the Northeast Actually?

[Charlotte485]

As vast sprawling areas gain density, I wouldn’t necessarily say they’re becoming more dense than the Northeast (or a couple other areas such as San Francisco). They’re just continuing to sprawl. There’s no need to have a mental exercise whether certain areas are actually more dense than the northeast/Chicago/San Fran. It’s called Urban Sprawl….

The Northeast is dense.
Other areas - parts of California - are urban sprawl (unrestricted expansive growth across large distances characterized by low density uses). It’s less sexy than saying “but we’re dense all across the metropolitan area”

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by Charlotte485

As vast sprawling areas gain density, I wouldn’t necessarily say they’re becoming more dense than the Northeast (or a couple other areas such as San Francisco). They’re just continuing to sprawl. There’s no need to have a mental exercise whether certain areas are actually more dense than the northeast/Chicago/San Fran. It’s called Urban Sprawl….

The Northeast is dense.
Other areas - parts of California - are urban sprawl (unrestricted expansive growth across large distances characterized by low density uses). It’s less sexy than saying “but we’re dense all across the metropolitan area”

Seattle actually feels more dense and not just more sprawl. So it can be done even for SFH cities largely built during car era. The change around the U District area is particularly impressive.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Guineas

Seattle actually feels more dense and not just more sprawl. So it can be done. The change around the U District area is particularly impressive.

Yea, and you can have both happening simultaneously where there's denser sprawl that's dense and sprawling, but maybe not quite "urban" or at least walkable while parts of the actual urban core are redeveloping to be denser and more urban/walkable. Downtown LA, Central Hollywood, and Koreatown definitely developed to be a lot more walkable over the last decade even as the metropolitan area sprawled further and further out and suburbs built denser-than-in-decades-past housing.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Originally Posted by Guineas

Seattle actually feels more dense and not just more sprawl. So it can be done even for SFH cities largely built during car era. The change around the U District area is particularly impressive.

TBH, Seattle feels more like the Midwest/Northeast metros in this regard than the CA/southwest metros to me. The city is dense and urban, but the metro (like much of Pierce Co., Snohomish Co. a bit east of I-5, the areas north of Olympia/Lacey) has a lot of that sparse development with individual houses dotted along rural roads and exurbia transitioning to farmland.

Although one way we resemble the CA/southwest metros more is that we're building up our transit now, like the LA and Phoenix metros and Reno's BRT, vs. having an older legacy system. (Though a few of the older town centers around Sounder stations, e.g. Edmonds and Sumner, make me nostalgic for the suburban Metra stations in Chicagoland)