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.
10k ppsm with single families homes means those SFH have to be tightly packed together. You'd probably have urban, walkable corridors and streetcar suburbs.
We are still talking about detached single family housing though.
Once you get to at least semi-detached, duplexes, etc. thats when it really gets somewhat walkable.
10,000 ppsm is still pretty sprawlish anyway. It is still the density achieved via single family homes.
The real 'walkable' densities start at around 15-20,000 ppsm. Low-rise apartment buildings start at around 22-25,000 ppsm. This is around the average density of London. Brooklyn/Tokyo densities are about 35,000-60,000 ppsm.
The real high density like you see in Manhattan starts at around 70,000+ ppsm.
The real "big boy" density starts at around the 40,000 ppsm mark, where you rarely see anything resembling SFHs or detached midrises on pedestals sitting on huge lots.
Idk about that I live in an 11000 ppsqmi neighborhood in Baltimore and its very walkable.
That shocked you? Shouldn’t be a surprise that the those four are sunbelt cities. I think Houston could actually pass 100k but it will struggle to get there. Until these cities start building even higher density than what they are doing today, this is what they are. It shows exactly what they are which are sprawling metro areas and don’t expect any of these cities suburbs to reach 20k anytime soon.
This also shows it is time to stop acting like Los Angeles is like the rest of the sunbelt. LA is a dense city.
I disagree with your last statement in part. I think LA is dense to grow so fast without water solutions. Or did you mean different kind of dense? Sorry couldn't resist. I think LA and Phx and Denver and perhaps SF are like LA this way so its not unique from some cities but is like several sunbelt cities mentioned.
We are still talking about detached single-family housing though.
Once you get to at least semi-detached, duplexes, etc. thats when it really gets somewhat walkable.
doesn't really matter the density is the density. what matters is what does the neighborhood offer. Places can be 10kppsqmi and offer nothing but housing, or they can be broken up with a wide variety of things. Housing style isnt the end all be ball.
You can be a detached triple-decker in Boston or an attached rowhome in Baltimore and still be 10kppsm. The walkability depends on access to transit and interesting retail.
I like the Metro Stat for the Bay Area because SF proper always gets the credit for being dense but surrounding counties have significant density as well. Nearly half of Alameda County is 10K+ and Santa Clara and San Mateo are getting close to 40%.
Percent Living in 10,000+PPSM
94.3% San Francisco County: 824,531
48.3% Alameda County: 813,006
37.1% Santa Clara: County: 720,560
36.9% San Mateo County: 282,574
11.7% Contra Costa: County 137,679
5.7% Marin County: 15,337
If only Houston's 495K was in a more urban walkable environment. It wouldn't be looked at as a sprawled wasteland as people see it as now. At least not as much.
Atlanta being that low doesn't surprise me. Same with Charlotte. Built up core but with the winding hilly roads and tall trees of the Piedmont areas, you're not going to get high density especially outside of the actual city limits.
Austin hits rock bottom in density once you leave the core.
DFW is even more disappointing.
I keep hearing that DFW is more urban but the numbers just don't support that. At least Houston has clusters of 20-50k tracks but DFW tracks are so scattered.
I think Houston would have been more of what you describe if they had started with the University line 20 years ago.
DFW is even more disappointing.
I keep hearing that DFW is more urban but the numbers just don't support that. At least Houston has clusters of 20-50k tracks but DFW tracks are so scattered.
I think Houston would have been more of what you describe if they had started with the University line 20 years ago.
I don't think anyone has said DFW is more urban, I think DFW may have more walkable areas than Houston though.
We are still talking about detached single family housing though.
Once you get to at least semi-detached, duplexes, etc. thats when it really gets somewhat walkable.
The housing stock doesn't really matter if the city is built to be walkable. I live in a neighborhood around 10k ppsm that's almost all single family homes and in under 5 mins I can walk to any of the following: a grocery store, a food co-op, 2 convenience stores, a coffee shop, a small movie theater, an ice cream shop, at least 10 different restaurants, a marijuana dispensary, and multiple bars. If I expand the window to 10 mins, then the options get even more plentiful.
Neither of them are poster kids for urban form but if either had the edge I would say it's Houston.
I don't think Dallas has more walkable areas I think the walkable areas in Dallas are more visible as they are all together around downtown.
If Houston goes through with the plan to trench and cap highway 59/ I69, get rid of the current I45 the area would feel less disjointed
Dallas does have a better built core in a cohesive, walkable layout. Houston has a lot more suburban type shopping centers and restaurants scattered throughout. Dallas is also more tidy and organized.
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.
