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.
ainulinale, That is a awesome photo of lawrenceville (one of my favorite neighborhoods).
My family is from Lawrenceville...great neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000
Densities are so hard to compare and contrast. Cities like the Burgh have hillsides and forested areas that have very low density if any at all. Then you have your extremely high dense neighborhoods like Lawrenceville or Shadyside.
Some cities like Denver or Kansas City seemed to have a more homogenous density (not including the Rocky Moutain Wildlife area to the far east of the city).
My favorite way is to fly over cities with google earth. I spend more time on google earth than I do the programs I should be using for work.......
Densities are really difficult to compare. Especially with Pittsburgh because we have so many unurbanized hills like you said. I just hate that some of our densest areas have been demolished. Nearly a third of our row houses were torn down including those in the Hill District (which once had a pop. density of equivalent to today's Manhattan). I just think people really don't understand how dense the Northeast and a few other cities are....Harlem once had 200,000 people per square mile! That is simply unfathomable today.
My family is from Lawrenceville...great neighborhood.
Densities are really difficult to compare. Especially with Pittsburgh because we have so many unurbanized hills like you said. I just hate that some of our densest areas have been demolished. Nearly a third of our row houses were torn down including those in the Hill District (which once had a pop. density of equivalent to today's Manhattan). I just think people really don't understand how dense the Northeast and a few other cities are....Harlem once had 200,000 people per square mile! That is simply unfathomable today.
Yes, it is. It was also unhealthy. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia at one time had high rates of tuberculosis, a disease that is easily spread in crowded conditons.
ainulinale, That is a awesome photo of lawrenceville (one of my favorite neighborhoods).
Densities are so hard to compare and contrast. Cities like the Burgh have hillsides and forested areas that have very low density if any at all. Then you have your extremely high dense neighborhoods like Lawrenceville or Shadyside.
Some cities like Denver or Kansas City seemed to have a more homogenous density (not including the Rocky Moutain Wildlife area to the far east of the city).
My favorite way is to fly over cities with google earth. I spend more time on google earth than I do the programs I should be using for work.......
I love the models they are importing into Google Earth. I always look at Denver and Pittsburgh since I am most familair with them. It seems like every week there are more buildings drawin in. It is amazing. They have the whole south side, north side, downtown, and Oakland all modeled in Google Earth. They finally got the bridges even modeled. I wish I knew the program sketchup, or I would model some and contribute them to Google earth.
If you would of showed me Google Earth when I was 16, I would have been amazed. I use to sit there and study Rand Mcnally atlases looking at maps of different cities. It is amazing to virtually walk around cities, or look at 3d models of them.
Population density is meaningless IMO. Take a look at the structural density of each city to get an idea of what constitutes a dense city...the urban fabric: housing structure, street-scape.
IMO, the densest cities are:
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
Baltimore
San Francisco
Washington DC
Pittsburgh
New Orleans
Chicago
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Anything else is not a major city or is not dense.
This is true, but cities like Los Angeles and Miami pack houses pretty tight together, almost to the point where you can crawl through your neighbors window, even though it might not look the most urban.
I would 10,000 is pretty accurate for the term "dense."
None of these cities are uniform in density, with even New York and San Francisco, two quite crowded cities, having large areas with density far less than 10,000 per square mile. Even the lesser cities on this list have sections that are over 10,000. Having lived in on Capitol hill in Seattle, I can say that10,000 people per square mile is definitely dense, but nowhere near crowded
Density definitely does not mean a better city. I would never live somewhere that was more dense than my current city of Dallas. A lot of people are fleeing to Dallas from more dense areas. I dont understand why people think its better to be in extremely dense areas?
Why density?
Density allows for sustainable public transit systems. Density allows people to get to work, shopping, recreation and entertainment without a car. One of the biggest issues is cost.
The average car will cost you $7000/yr, or around $14,000 for a family with two cars. Those are current numbers (those will go up significantly as gas prices rise in coming years). This includes all costs of owning & operating those cars.
Let's say you have a household income of $60,000 in a suburban town, and your take home after taxes/etc. is around $50,000. You need 2 cars to get anywhere. Your effective income immediately drops to $36,000.
Now, same household in the city; odds are the pay is higher as most urban jobs do compensate for some of the cost-of-living. We'll say it's just 10%, so $66,000. Minus taxes, we'll say $55,000. Two transit passes might cost you $2500, so we're down to $52,500. Rents are more expensive, but you could spend $1,375 MORE per month on housing and still "break even". But spend less time in traffic screaming. And have a lot more options for everything within walking distance. I live in a small city in Michigan. I could move to Chicago and my rent would only go up about $500/mo. Maybe less.
Now, I grew up in the rural area outside a town of 1200 people. I understand open space. I also understand driving 35 miles to employment (my dad drove 55 each way), 7 miles to the nearest grocery, the requirement and expense of owning 2 cars (or more, once the kids reach driving age).
There are positives and negatives to density, but for those who enjoy the benefits, those are some of the reasons.
the real question is which city has the densest people.... boston
damn!
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.
