Lead Metropolis: the Five Densest Cities in America

12 Responses to “Lead Metropolis: the Five Densest Cities in America”

1. pingback: Posted: Mar 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

   1 » So Slow I’m Watching Fox Sports What’s Required: Progress in the Commonwealth […] is my other project, for those of you that haven’t been around a long time– writing for Environmental Graffiti.  Today I explore the densest cities in […] Reply to this comment.

2. pingback: Posted: Mar 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

   2 L.A. is Dense. So is Metro. | Los Angeles Metblogs […] reporting the rankings, Environmental Graffiti had this to say: The third-densest city in America bucks its reputation. Long the poster child for […] Reply to this comment.

3. Mike Lewyn Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 3:03 pm

   3 This is just silly. There is ample data refuting the notion that LA is as dense as NYC or Chicago. http://planetizen.com/node/21273 For those of you too busy to read the above link, the bottom line is: New York has a dense, walkable, transit-friendly core, and very low-density suburbs. By contrast, Los Angeles is about equally dense everywhere- which is to say, denser than a NYC suburb, but not dense enough to support really good transit service. Also, density alone does not make a city walkable. Other elements are diversity (mixed use as opposed to separation of uses) and design (narrower, more pedestrian-friendly streets as opposed to LA’s six lane speedways). Reply to this comment.

4. rlb Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm

   4 47% of the NYC population owns cars. That’s less than most. Reply to this comment.

5. Brendan Crain Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm

   5 It may be extensive, but the Chicago Transit Authority’s service is far from excellent. Extreme delays, rising costs, mismanaged construction projects, and overcrowding chase away many would-be riders. We have the bones, but none of the muscle right now. Reply to this comment.

6. Michael Isensee Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pm

   6 I think the writer confuses the issue a number of times. The City of LA may be within the top 5 U.S. cities in terms of density, but most people think of LA as the entire county and extending into adjoining much less dense cities/counties. And I think that BART has little to do with the density of SF. BART has a total of 8 transit stops serving the city. It moves people from the suburbs into the city to work, which does allow for far less parking in the city core, but I think city policies have far more to do with the design of the city than does BART. Reply to this comment.

7. MoyPlanner Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pm

   7 RE: Mike Lewin. LA is a very new metropolis.. the fact is that many if not all Transit Rich cities have had many decades if not entire centuries to mature. In relative terms, LA is doing a stellar job… after all it had to get this bad before it will get any better. Reply to this comment.

8. RC Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm

   8 RE: M. Isensee Actually if the authors had focused on metropolitan area density rather than density within city limits, as you seem to suggest, LA would have come out as #1 rather than #3. As M. Lewyn points out, LA suburbs are generally more dense than NY suburbs. This is do to the lack of groundwater in So-Cal. In NY, outside the city you can get a one-acre plot of land, go well-and-septic and have “country living” in the suburbs. In So-Cal, centralized water systems are absolutely required, putting a lower-limit on density at about 4-6 homes per acre except for the very wealthy. What this proves is that the relationship between sprawl and density is much more vexed than commentators looking for a quick headline would prefer. When you drive from the center of New York outwards, you leave a very dense, walkable center and quickly reach areas that resemble “countryside” although they are actually bedroom suburbs. When you do the same in LA, you leave a medium density center with few walkable areas and pass by housing tracts for hours. Which one is sprawl? Reply to this comment.

9. TP Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 8:05 pm

   9 RE: M. Isensee I think BART has shaped SF immeasurably, despite the fact that many of the riders are from outside the City. If there were no BART system, there would be no way that SF would be able to be the economic center that it currently is for the Bay Area. A second Bay Bridge would have to have been constructed to get employees to their jobs and SF would be a much more car-centric, and less dense city, full of car parks and other supporting infrastructure. Since 1/2 of all commute trips come into SF via transit (mostly on BART), the space freed by the lack of cars has allowed the City to densify beyond what it would have without BART. Although I do agree that the City’s policies do encourage the densification. Reply to this comment.

10. James Posted: Mar 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    10 And there I was expecting something like… 5) New York, NY 4) Hoboken, NJ 3) West New York, NJ 2) Paterson, NJ 1) Union City, NJ Reply to this comment.

11. Planner9 Posted: Apr 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am

    11 The author implies that Kentucky blows its own mountaintops off to accommodate development. He’s got both the action and the agent wrong. The old strip mining sites sometimes are used for industrial development, but typically left with a few sad trees planted on them, definitely not urban sprawl. Further, Kentucky does not do this. Exploitative mining companies do this (albeit with the state’s allowance). He’s trying to be funny, I guess, but it comes off as flippant and insensitive, and obviously erroneous. Reply to this comment.

12. limousine service long island new york Posted: Jul 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    12 urbanization is very tempting..with all those high technology developments.. but kudos to those cities which still maintain their mountains or other elements of nature.. Reply to this comment.