Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis
st. louis has some decent scale and a massive mostly intact area...i think the perception of intact st. louis gets totally out of whack due to the legit scale of abandonment.
|
St. Louis unquestionably has more. But I stand by what I said that there aren't intact bands of neighborhoods similar to Pittsburgh. St. Louis has a core which is despite the less rugged topography (or maybe because of it) a lot more apt to be broken up by highways or patches of blight than Pittsburgh.
While Walkscore isn't the best method for determining urbanity, I think it shows the differences between the cities
90%: Pittsburgh - 5 (25,895), St. Louis - 0 (0)
80%-89%: Pittsburgh - 10 (47,000), St. Louis - 7 (34,801)
70%-79%: Pittsburgh - 8 (35,515), St. Louis - 16 (78,675)
Pittsburgh has more people living in highly walkable neighborhoods, but if you expand it to semi-walkable (which is what 70%-79% mostly is) St. Louis pulls ahead. This is also reflective of the differences in the "heat maps" of the city, where Pittsburgh has a well-defined walkable core (absent some areas of rugged topography and blight, like the Hill District) while St. Louis has these little nodes scattered all over the place.