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.
By your logic LA is more urban than Paris because a larger area of lower density
Apples to oranges comparison and in no way comparable to Philly vs. SF as those have similar built form (Philly & SF are more urban than LA as well)
European cities as a whole (London, Paris, Athens, Rome, Madrid, etc..) are centuries older than their American counterparts and will always be more urban because they were built during a time where suburban living didn’t exist.
Oh, FYI... Greater LA is denser than greater Paris in ppsm.
West Roxbury, Roslindale, and Hyde Park are all ~4-4.5 square miles.
Add Fenway, Allston, Charlestown, Chinatown, and Beacon Hill.
The typical brownstone in one of Boston’s central neighborhoods is at least 3 or 4 stories tall. In Back Bay especially, they get much taller. Some are taller. In Philly, the rowhomes are generally shorter. I actually don’t know much about SF’s vernacular. I suppose the painted ladies are roughly that height.
Philly has plenty of 4 or 5 story brownstones, rowhouses, and tenement style apartment buildings in Center city. Boston is impressive but it is behind Philly on having an impressive built environment because of the tripple decker. Because of that very popular housing stock in Boston, it lacks the consistent streetwall environment that Philly has. Philly just provides a more urban and impressive built environment than Boston over a larger area.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
The most impressive built environment overall in the United States outside of NYC and Chicago for a city proper is Philadelphia, PA. Center City is not bested by SF, Boston, or DC in terms of built environment. They are next in line after the first three, but not ahead overall. Boston has that good NE city built environment feel downtown, but it is short lived in the city boundaries and you have to go into Cambridge etc for more of it. SF is most Manhattan like in residential density, but nothing else. It is however the most urban city in the country West of Chicago. DC has a completely built out downtown, but due to the mall and gov't buildings bisecting the structural density it's not ahead either.
I can't find the source because it was last year I seen it. But maybe you can find it.
See my post #54. I provided some evidence against your point using zip codes, because I couldn’t find anything on census tracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215
Philly has plenty of 4 or 5 story brownstones, rowhouses, and tenement style apartment buildings in Center city.
I was able to find some 4 story brownstones near Rittenhouse on streetview, but it’s pretty clear that Boston’s are largely taller.
Quote:
Philly just provides a more urban and impressive built environment than Boston over a larger area.
Is the built environment of NYC impressive because of Flushing or because of Midtown? Imo, we should be judging cities by their best not by how even their spread is.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 03-11-2020 at 10:01 AM..
Is the built environment of NYC impressive because of Flushing or because of East Village? Imo, we should be judging cities by their best not by how even their spread is.
NYC built environment is what it is because Manhattan, Brooklyn, South Bronx & West Queens are completely urban not because of Flushing or East Village. Judging a cities built environment off of a minuscule segment of downtown isn't accurate. A city isn't just its downtown but a confluence of said downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods.
If I had to rank them it would be NYC > Chicago > Philly > SF/DC > Boston/Baltimore > Seattle/LA/SD/Portland/Pittsburgh/Cleveland/etc..
Judging a cities built environment off of a minuscule segment of downtown isn't accurate. A city isn't just its downtown but a confluence of said downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods.
Where do you draw the line, though? Within a 5 mile radius of their city halls, Boston has more people than Philadelphia.
By the time you get to 7 miles from the city center, Philly does indeed maintain density and passes Boston in population. But who really cares about what either city looks like 7 miles from downtown?
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 03-11-2020 at 10:32 AM..
This is by built environment, not population density. A cities preferred type of housing stock/street grid determines how built up it is.
Ex. LA has more people than both combined, but is not as built as either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS
By the time you get to 7 miles from the city center, Philly does indeed maintain density and passes Boston in population. But who really cares about what either city looks like 7 miles from downtown?
Considering a hundreds of thousands of people drive in and out of these cities on the daily and or don't live downtown.... I'd say a lot
A city that is still remains urban +7 miles out (Philly) compared to one that barely stretches 3-4 miles out (Boston) is going to feel a hell of a lot more built up irregardless of population density or administrative boarders.
This is by built environment, not population density. A cities preferred type of housing stock/street grid determines how built up it is.
Ex. LA has more people than both combined, but is not as built as either.
Oh, please. There’s a direct correlation between population density and structural density. Where do you think all those people are living and working.
Also: yes, LA deserves to be in this conversation. It has a very impressive built environment. But no, it doesn’t have “more than both combined” within a 5 mile radius.
90015: 1,311,396
02116: 965,793
19107: 912,168
LA is like Philly (DC too) on steroids: it’s peak density is smaller than Boston or SF, but it goes on for miles and miles.
Quote:
A city that is still remains urban +7 miles out (Philly) compared to one that barely stretches 3-4 miles out (Boston) is going to feel a hell of a lot more built up irregardless of population density or administrative boarders.
“Barely stretches 3-4 miles”!? What are you smoking? City Hall to Davis Square is already 4.5 miles away without losing any density. The drop off occurs generally at around 5-6 miles once you pass Codman Square, Cleveland Circle, or Malden Center.
And like I said before: judging cities by their most built-up areas rather than their least is an absolutely acceptable way to look at this comparison. When people talk about the size of mountains, they generally refer to peak height, not the circumference of the base!
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 03-11-2020 at 11:44 AM..
Yeah its no surprise that the cities with the best-built environments are Chicago, Boston/Cambridge, New York, San Francisco, Philly, and DC. They are of are most dense cities.
Paris has one of the highest densities in the West... and has probably the best-built environment. Only a few can compare.
There is a correlation. And I would love to see the R^2 value.
Philly has more detached homes than SF percentagely. NYC even does but it makes up for it with its peak density areas
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.
