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.
New York, Chicago and Philadelphia are the only U.S. cities with 1,000,000+ population and 10,000+ people per square mile. There's your top three, as far as I'm concerned. No other U.S. cities have that combination of both size and density. That's why I rank Boston and San Francisco behind Philadelphia, even though they're both denser, because it's a lot easier to maintain high density in small areas. Washington DC is no slouch, but it's still a distant last place in this comparison.
Not to nit pick, but Boston and SF could also get to 1,000,000+ and 10,000ppsm if they were to annex there surrounding burbs.
Yes, Philly is bigger than SF or Bos. But, at the end of the day IMO Philly is in the same league them rather than huge cities like Chi and NYC .
DC is 61 square miles and has approximately 610,000 people. This means about 10,000 per square mile. However, the neighborhoods on average are way more densely populated because of all the land taken up by parks (National Mall for example) and the US Capitol Complex (over 1 square mile). No one lives in these areas obviously.
DC needs to eliminate the height requirement for buildings. If 3 floors were added to each 12 story apartment building, the housing shortage would end. 15 stories is much different than 12, which is about as high as a building can go given the height requirement.
All of these cities have large areas associated with parks. Phildelphia has the Farimont park system that is more than 10% of the total land covered by Phildelphia.. Just as a comparison Rock Creek and the Natinal mall combined are ~4 sq miles or about 8% of the area of DC. ALL cities have this and comparatively Philadelphia actually has a significantly higher portion devoted to parks and not inhabited...
So if you adjust for parks etc Philly is actually closer to 13K ppsm with a population of ~1.6 million
Not to nit pick, but Boston and SF could also get to 1,000,000+ and 10,000ppsm if they were to annex there surrounding burbs.
Yes, Philly is bigger than SF or Bos. But, at the end of the day IMO Philly is in the same league them rather than huge cities like Chi and NYC .
While I mostly agree that Boston and SF are more comparable on size to Philly I will say that Chicago is also more comparable to Philly than it is NYC
And I think SF can selectively, I am not sure on Boston but it would be really close
Also in the core 60 sq miles (this includes 8sq miles of Fairmont park as well) Philadelphia has a population of about 1.0 million (density ~16.5K ppsm)
on a comparison to Chicago adding in to get the ~230 sq miles Philly gets to a population of about 2.4 million compared to Chicago at 2.8 million - Philly and Chicago are closer on this metric than people think
Last edited by kidphilly; 11-27-2010 at 08:29 AM..
Yeah, there is a huge gap between Chi and NYC. They really are each their own tier in terms of city size.
I agree, BK alone is closer to Chicago let alone the remaining boroughs
And no cities come close to NYC on sustained density, even on that metric Chicago is far more comparable to places like Philly or even SF and Boston than NYC though to me Chicago still resoundingly feels like the 2nd largest "city" on this prespective with Philly third and Boston and SF rounding out the top 5 from a "city" perspective
For the record, I'd take any of these 3 cities. They all have great and unique things to offer. I'm pretty biased towards east coast U.S. cities in general. And their relative proximity to NYC makes them all the more appealing. :-)
I think part of the problem with this thread, especially in regards to DC, is that it doesn't take into account the history of the city. Going southward, the cities become more and more planned. Boston is truly organic, while Philadelphia was originally planned but not adhered to strictly, and DC's plan was fulfilled (and in fact exceeded quite considerably). Even further, DC has always had a commercial/residential separation; Pennsylvania Avenue has always been the commercial and government centre, while Massachusetts Avenue was residential in nature, with some of the most beautiful architecture in the country. The problem here lies in the fact that Massachusetts Avenue is the accepted northern boundary of downtown (which would make most of Dupont technically downtown, and that's one great neighbourhood).
From a planning perspective, DC yet again is ranked lower than it should be. Because of the height restriction, there's only so much volume that downtown can handle, and DC fell prey to the concrete disasters of the 60s and 70s, as did every city in the country (including Philly, Boston, and even NYC). An unintended, but perhaps unique and interesting, side-effect of the restriction is that it forces development outwards, making DC what I term an "inverse city," that is, it's the only one in the US where areas outside of downtown are livelier. If you've ever been to Georgetown, Columbia Heights, U Street, Adams Morgan, and even Arlington you'd see that instantly.
At a transportation level, the three are relatively equal, although the Washington Metro is far more utilised than SEPTA or the T (rapid transit only on both), partly because it acts as commuter rail but also urban rail. Around a third of DC households live without a car, the second highest rate of any major city outside of NYC. In turn, this means that much of the District is pedestrian in nature, and trips to most established neighbourhoods display this trend.
Even more, DC is still under construction. While Philly and Boston have the occasional new skyscraper, they've been essentially built out. Much of the DC area is rapidly transforming, with the newest areas being NoMa and the about-to-be-rebuilt Crystal City. There is still room to grow, with the District alone gaining 100,000 people in around 30 years. Gentrification is also happening at a rapid rate, with Shaw and other formerly run-down areas becoming meccas for the more artistic and bohemian crowd.
My point here is that it's unfair to compare downtowns when some cities, in this case DC, are purposefully decentralised. Do we consider Paris, whose core is massive but spread out, to have a livelier "downtown" when in reality it has none? What kind of precedent do we set if we don't compare cities as a whole? I am admittedly biased towards DC over Philly and Boston, not to say that the latter two are bad, but I think the former has an incredible amount of potential that's only beginning to be tapped. It is incredibly liveable, vibrant, diverse, and cosmopolitan, with a unique European flair that no other American city, even New York, can muster. In two decades or so, DC will be completely different, and in a good way.
I think part of the problem with this thread, especially in regards to DC, is that it doesn't take into account the history of the city. Going southward, the cities become more and more planned. Boston is truly organic, while Philadelphia was originally planned but not adhered to strictly, and DC's plan was fulfilled (and in fact exceeded quite considerably). Even further, DC has always had a commercial/residential separation; Pennsylvania Avenue has always been the commercial and government centre, while Massachusetts Avenue was residential in nature, with some of the most beautiful architecture in the country. The problem here lies in the fact that Massachusetts Avenue is the accepted northern boundary of downtown (which would make most of Dupont technically downtown, and that's one great neighbourhood).
From a planning perspective, DC yet again is ranked lower than it should be. Because of the height restriction, there's only so much volume that downtown can handle, and DC fell prey to the concrete disasters of the 60s and 70s, as did every city in the country (including Philly, Boston, and even NYC). An unintended, but perhaps unique and interesting, side-effect of the restriction is that it forces development outwards, making DC what I term an "inverse city," that is, it's the only one in the US where areas outside of downtown are livelier. If you've ever been to Georgetown, Columbia Heights, U Street, Adams Morgan, and even Arlington you'd see that instantly.
At a transportation level, the three are relatively equal, although the Washington Metro is far more utilised than SEPTA or the T (rapid transit only on both), partly because it acts as commuter rail but also urban rail. Around a third of DC households live without a car, the second highest rate of any major city outside of NYC. In turn, this means that much of the District is pedestrian in nature, and trips to most established neighbourhoods display this trend.
Even more, DC is still under construction. While Philly and Boston have the occasional new skyscraper, they've been essentially built out. Much of the DC area is rapidly transforming, with the newest areas being NoMa and the about-to-be-rebuilt Crystal City. There is still room to grow, with the District alone gaining 100,000 people in around 30 years. Gentrification is also happening at a rapid rate, with Shaw and other formerly run-down areas becoming meccas for the more artistic and bohemian crowd.
My point here is that it's unfair to compare downtowns when some cities, in this case DC, are purposefully decentralised. Do we consider Paris, whose core is massive but spread out, to have a livelier "downtown" when in reality it has none? What kind of precedent do we set if we don't compare cities as a whole? I am admittedly biased towards DC over Philly and Boston, not to say that the latter two are bad, but I think the former has an incredible amount of potential that's only beginning to be tapped. It is incredibly liveable, vibrant, diverse, and cosmopolitan, with a unique European flair that no other American city, even New York, can muster. In two decades or so, DC will be completely different, and in a good way.
Excellent first post!! Well stated argument. I am proud to give you your first rep point. Hope to see more!
Interesting that the further south you go, the more planned the cities are. As they are also newer. Boston->Philly->DC.
NYC could potentially fit in there too but it is more/less planned than Philly?
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.
